By Franklin L. Kirksey, Pastor, First Baptist Church of Spanish Fort, Alabama, and author of Sound Biblical Preaching: Giving the Bible a Voice

These expositions by Dr. Kirksey are offered to suggest sermon or Bible study ideas for pastors and other church leaders, both from the exposition and from the illustrative material, or simply for personal devotion.

Introduction

Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) wrote a monumental work in the 1970s titled How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture.  I remember seeing the film documentary soon after they released it.

John writes to Gaius in 3 John verse 4, “For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.  I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.”

Scholars define wisdom as “the skill of living”.  We could call our overall philosophy of life a “worldview”.  This is the way we approach life with its promise and problems.

Maybe you remember hearing a three-point sermon and poem about problems.  Here it is.

”Problems”

I.  You’ve got’em.
II. I’ve got’em.
III. We’ve all got’em.
Poem: Adam had’em.

While it is easy to state the problem, discovering biblical solutions for life can be challenging.  Dr. Vance Havner (1901-1986) explains, “Jesus did not lay down minute rules to cover every little problem.  Had he done that He would soon have been out of date.”  Therefore, it is necessary to wade through issues related to trends, traditions, and truth.

I. Hold trends lightly.

Be aware of trends as you become aware of statistics.  It is one thing to be aware of statistics; it is another thing to become one.  Dean William R. Inge (1860-1954) quipped, “Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.”

Beware of becoming trendy.  To be trendy means what is in style for the moment, or in accord with the latest fad or fashion.

We read a curious phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:31, “For the form of this world is passing away.”  Trends are passing not permanent.  To be “in” one day you can be “out” the next day.  Remember the word “contemporary” minus the prefix is “temporary”.

As believers in Jesus Christ, we should actually be trend setters in society.  The pages of history reveal the wonderful trends that come due to the influence of biblical Christianity.

James Russell Lowell (1819-1891), the great literary genius who was one-time U.S. minister-ambassador to Great Britain, was once at a banquet where the Christian faith (the mission enterprise, in particular) was being attacked by scoffers.  He spoke up and said, “I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood Is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way.  If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief.”

Trends can be negative or positive.  For example, genuine revival reverses negative trends and starts positive trends.  In fact, if negative trends are not reversed, I doubt it is genuine revival.

II. Hold traditions rightly.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary a “tradition” is “an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom).”[1]

In a WorldNetDaily® column titled “America’s Amnesia”, Dr. Walter E. Williams cited the following from Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (1917-2007), “For history is to the nation rather as memory is to the individual.  As an individual deprived of memory becomes disoriented and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of its past will be disabled with its present and its future.”[2]

Some traditions are good and some are not. Paul the Apostle writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”  Later in the same epistle, Paul writes, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.  For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you” (2 Thessalonians 3:6-7).

Some can genuinely testify,

“Faith of our fathers, holy faith!  We will be true to thee till death!”  We read in Jude 3 and 4, “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.  For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Some might consider “the faith once delivered” a tradition, as they might the Lord’s Supper and Believer’s Baptism.

From Mark 7:6-13,

“He answered and said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, / But their heart is far from Me.  And in vain they worship Me, / Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.’  He said to them, ‘All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.  For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’  But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban’—’ (that is, a gift to God),  then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,  making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down.  And many such things you do.”

From Matthew 15:6b we read, “Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.”

III. Hold truth tightly.

Dr. D. James Kennedy (1930-2007) shares the following in Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul,

“As [Dr.] Allan Bloom [1930-1992] has said, even if today’s high school and university students haven’t learned anything else in twelve years of school, the one thing that has been impressed upon their minds with indelible pressure is, ‘All truth is relative, and there are no absolutes.’  I heard about one student who may not have quite gotten the message.  When the professor said, ‘We can know nothing for certain,’ the young man raised his hand asked, ‘Professor, are you sure of that?’  and the teacher answered, ‘I’m certain.’  Now, that may be a joke, but it actually points out the underlying inconsistency and contradiction of this whole concept.  To say that there are no absolutes is a contradiction in terms because the statement itself is an absolute statement.  And to say there absolutely are no absolutes, by the principles of the most basic logic, is self-contradictory.”[3]

We read in Psalm 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), scientist and founder of the Institute for Creation Research, states,

“The spiritual battle rages primarily now in the minds of men, who must decide between ‘the counsel of the ungodly’ and ‘the law of the Lord’ ([Psalm 1] verses 1 and 2), but this decision of the mind and will has all manner of consequences in life and character.

The counsel of the ungodly is nothing less than the philosophy of the natural man who seeks to understand his existence and control his destiny without regard to God.  It is man-centered rather than God-centered, humanistic rather than theistic, based on the myth of evolution instead of the fact of creation.  Standing in stark contrast is the infinite Word of God, revealing the Lord as sovereign Creator and Judge, and man as hopelessly lost without God’s salvation.”[4]

We have heard the statement, “All truth is God’s truth.”  While that statement may be true, we must be careful lest it mislead us.  In a well-meaning attempt to show there is no contradiction between science and the Bible, some unwittingly place science on the same level as Scripture.  Dr. D. James Kennedy explains,

“But please make the essential distinction between these two forms of knowledge.  One—the process of discovery—is changeable, expandable, and it is infinitely variable.  The other—divine revelation—is perfect, unchangeable, and infinitely reliable.  Relativity applies only to discovery and scientific knowledge.  Ethics, morals, and religion come through revelation, and we have been given this revelation from Christ.”[5]

John writes, “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.  And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free’” (John 8:31-32).  This truth is real to God’s children, revealed by God’s Spirit, and recorded in God’s Word.

Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them by Your truth.  Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Paul the Apostle writes in 1 Timothy 2:1-7,

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,  for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,  who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,  for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

Dr. Peter Marshall (1902-1949), former chaplain of the United States Senate, once explained when the apostles preached the Gospel there were either riots or regeneration. Dr. D. James Kennedy adds, “In our time, we generally get a pat on the hand and, ‘Nice sermon, pastor,’ and that’s about all.  But the Scripture says that if we are really standing for the truth, and if we are convicting men of sin and their need of repentance, then we are going to be persecuted. . . .  In this world of moral relativism, it is risky business to believe in Jesus Christ.”[6] Paul the Apostle writes, “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12).

We read about irresponsible spiritual leaders in Isaiah 56:10-12,

“His watchmen are blind, / They are all ignorant; / They are all dumb dogs, / They cannot bark; / Sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.  Yes, they are greedy dogs / Which never have enough.  And they are shepherds / Who cannot understand; / They all look to their own way, / Every one for his own gain, / From his own territory.  ‘Come,’ one says, ‘I will bring wine, / And we will fill ourselves with intoxicating drink; / Tomorrow will be as today, / And much more abundant.’”

Paul writes to Timothy, his son in the ministry,

“I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:  Preach the word!  Be ready in season and out of season.  Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.  But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

Conclusion

Dr. Henry M. Morris explains,

“Biblical Christianity is absolutely unique in the nature of its central personage and founder, Jesus Christ.  There is none other like Him in all history or even in all literature.  Some writers, of course, presume to place Christ as merely one in a list of great religious leaders, but this is absurd.  He stands in contrast to all others, not in line with them, not even at the head of the line.”[7]

Jesus Christ shares the following comforting words with His crestfallen followers in John 14:1-6, where we read,

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.  In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.  And where I go you know, and the way you know.’  Thomas said to Him, ‘Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?’  Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me.’”

British preacher, F. W. Robertson (1816-1853) once said,

“Truth lies in character.  Christ did not simply speak the truth; He was Truth—Truth through and through, for truth is a thing not of words but a life and being.”

Only under the Lordship of Jesus Christ can we properly answer the question, “How should we then live?”

• The Church is Christ’s bride. And why is it that so many people think it is cool to diss Jesus’ girlfriend?
• In this day with so much postmodern squishitude people are hungry to listen to someone winsomely, humbly, wisely, say—with passion and conviction—‘Thus saith the Lord.’
• What will it profit a man if he tries to transform the culture, but loses his own children?
• As long as God is interested in his glory, he will be interested and committed to the local church. He has a vested interest in your church. Nobody loves your church more than God.
• Those of you who have issues with the church, let me warn you that disillusionment can become an idol. You can easily find your identity in being jaded.
• Our generation in particular is prone to radicalism without follow-through. We want to change the world and we have never changed a diaper.
• Can we be the young generation that loves and respects and looks up to the older generation?
• The Church is, in fact, the hope of the world, not because she gets it all right, but because she is a body with Christ for her head. So do not give up on the church. The New Testament knows nothing of churchless Christianity.

Maybe you haven’t seen this video of a young man making this poetic “speech” about being sorry for being a Christian.  He even uses the F word a couple of times in his “poem.”  It makes you wonder why he felt the need to use the F word in a poem, where he was going after Christians and others for all the ills of Christendom that he sees.  You can see his “poem” on this site  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EieFdXy_HwM on youtube.  I warn you now that he has a potty mouth, and he uses the F word.  But, he recites this “poem” to the jeers of the crowd.  They’re especially happy, and you can hear the laughter, when he apologizes right off the bat for being a Christian.

Well, I’m not sorry for being a Christian.  I’m not sorry for calling sin what it is…sin.  I’m not sorry for saying that sin will be judged by God.  Why am I not sorry?  Because a lost man’s sins will be judged by God.  And, the lost crowd needs to hear that.  How can a lost man be saved, until he sees his need of a Savior?  He cant.  So, why would I apologize for calling sin what it is, and for telling people that God is not happy with our sins?  I know that some lost people will call that intolerance, and they’ll think it’s mean and narrow; but it’s the truth.  The truth shall set you free.

Also, I’m sad about the loss of life at the hands of the Crusaders and the Catholic Church.  But, why should I apologize for the Crusades that happened hundreds of years ago.  I wasnt there.  I didn’t do it.  So, why should I apologize for something that happened hundreds of years ago.  Why, it wasn’t even my Church that did this thing.  It wasn’t a Southern Baptist Church.  It wasn’t any Churches that came out of the Reformation.  So, why should I, a 48 year old Believer, apologize  for something that some misguided people did a long time ago?  Why would any Christian feel the need to bring this up and apologize for it?  Why would this make anyone be sorry that they’re a Christian.  I’m not sorry that I’m a Christ Follower, just because of what some knights did back in the dark ages.

BTW, while we should love gay people, I’m certainly not sorry for calling homosexuality what it is.  It is sin.  It is sin that God will judge.  Now,  I know that God will also judge the adulterers and the liars and the thieves and all other sinners.  But, this young man seems to be saying that he’s sorry for calling homosexuality a sin.  Well, young man, it is a sin.  And, those people, who die in this sin, will go to Hell.  They need to be saved, and I do pray that they’ll be saved and go to Heaven.  I love gay people.  I do not hate gay people.  I wish that everyone of them would get saved today.  I certainly hope that I get to spend eternity with all the gay people in this world, because they repented and put their faith in Jesus.  I really do.  But, should I apologize for calling homosexual sex what it is?  A sin.  Never.

Also, I hate that there are homeless people, and I really hate that some men beat their wives.  I wish every homeless person had a home, and I wish that every wife beater would have to spend 30 minutes with CB Scott in a locked room by themselves.  But, you know what?  There will always be homeless people. Jesus said that the poor will always be here. And, some people are homeless because of the bad choices they’ve made in life, and people will continue to make bad choices, and do things like drink alcohol, use drugs, gamble, etc.  And, these choices will cause them and their family to suffer financially, and in many other ways.  Why should I, as a Christ Follower, apologize for the homeless?  I didn’t make them that way, nor can we give them all a home.  Some of them dont even want a home!  Also, why should I apologize and be sorry that I’m a Christian, because of what some drunken, mean man did to his wife?  Christians didn’t make this man into a wife beater.  Christians cant stop men from being wife beaters.  There will always be mean, ornery men out there, who will beat women and children.  That’s just a sad fact of life, and a result of the fall of man.  So, why would this make me be sorry for being a Christian?  I don’t get it.

Also, what Indian tribe was wiped out in the name of the Church?  I thought it was done, because white men wanted the land.  Some of it was done, because white men thought that gold was on the land that the Indians claimed belonged to them.  Why bring the Church into this?  Was General Custer a Christian attacking Indian tribes for some Church?  I mean, really; is some school out there teaching young people that the Church wiped out Indian tribes in America?

As I listened to this video, I was also left wondering if all Christendom should be blamed for the child abuse that has happened in  some Churches?  I was left wondering if preaching the Gospel was something that a Christian should apologize for?  And, did Christians bring in the plague?  Really?  And, maybe he doesn’t know about all the 15 year old girls and others that have been helped by all of the Christian pregnancy centers and Christian counselors that have helped women deal with the awful affects of abortion? Another thing, did Christians start wars between the nations?  Did Christians start WW I; WW II; or the Gulf War?  I don’t recall Dr. R. G. Lee declaring war on Germany.  I don’t recall Dr. A. T. Robertson declaring war on Japan.  Do yall?  What’s this guy talking about in this poem?  Why would anyone say that this poem is something that needed to be heard by all Christ Followers?  What’s the point of this young man’s poem?

This poem reminds me of my college days, where we had some flaky people floating around, who were anti-Church.  You know the types.  They don’t belong to a Church.  They don’t like to commit to anything.  They’d rather show up at a college, Bible study group every now and then; but they don’t get into commitment.  They’re unsound in their doctrine, and they really don’t like for anyone to help them understand the Bible better.  They’d rather complain and whine about all the bad things that they see in their minds about the Church.  Every thing is looked at thru negative glasses concerning the Church and sound doctrine.  I saw many young people on my college campus, back in my college days, who were just flaky and out there, in deep center field, on the fringe, who just saw everything negatively.  Everything was bad, and they were the ones, who could fix it, of course.

Well, I’m glad to be a Christian.  When I look at how most of the hospitals and orphanages in our world were started by Christians, I rejoice.  When I look at all the institutions of higher learning that Christians started, I rejoice.  When I look at all the people who’ve been helped by Churches and Pastors and Christian counselors, then I rejoice.  When I look at all the millions of people, who’ve been saved thru the years, by the witness of Christians and missionaries, I rejoice.  When I look at all the people, who have been ministered to by the prayers of faithful Christian people, I rejoice.  When I look at all the marriages that have been not only helped, but saved, due to the grace of God coming thru a Pastor’s sermons and counsel and prayers and encouragement, then I rejoice that I’m a Christian.  When I look at the people, who were at the brink of suicide, but some Christian helped them find hope in the Lord Jesus, then I rejoice.  When I think of the disaster relief teams that go out in the name of Jesus from SB Churches, and they help people in incredible, heartbreaking disasters, then I rejoice.  When I think about all the people that have been fed, their electric bills paid, their water bills paid, clothes bought, etc. ; paid  by Churches all over the USA and the world, then I rejoice.  And, I’m talking about every week, SB Churches in little towns and big cities all across this land, helping people keep the lights and the heat on; feeding children, etc.; then I rejoice.

I’m not sorry for being a Christian.  I’m thrilled to be a Christ Follower.  I’m excited about being a child of God.  I’m ecstatic about what God is doing thru the Church.  I’m delighted that God uses Christians to do so much good in our world.  Sorry?  Apologize?  Why?  Why should we apologize for being a Christian?  Aren’t you glad to be Christian?

Of course, giving a postmodern a pen and asking him to adjust the Bible to his liking is akin to giving a thief a thousand dollars and telling him to deliver what he doesn’t want to the local orphanage. We ought not be surprised at the decision he makes. The visitors took the pen and wrote in the Bible, “I don’t want a fascist God,” among other phrases that I will not repeat.

As surprising as this may be to some, even more surprising is the reaction of Eddie Arthur, the Executive Director of Wycliffe Bible Translators. Taking an opportunity to respond to the actions of those who defaced the word of God, Arthur says, “Sadly, it is a failure of the wider Christian church to adequately live and demonstrate the message of God’s reconciliation which is the issue.”

Arthur’s error is in misplacing the blame. Is the reason people deface the word of God really the fault of believers, or is it simply evidence that people without the Lord Jesus Christ feel no need to reverence the Bible beyond some historical document that is now irrelevant to culture? Authur’s problem is that ultimately, he pandered to the whims of postmodern culture. The Bible was defaced because there are people without Christ, and people without Christ have no regard for the revelation of Christ. The implication is that the people of Christ should be offended when people desecrate His word. Jesus fully expected to be desecrated, and even told us He would be, and we in turn.

Arthur’s statement reveals a mentality of “if we do it right, they will like us.” The idea that “if the church can join hands with the culture then the culture will accept us” is naive in regard to culture and ignorant in regard to Scripture. Postmodern Christianity is simply an invitation for those who feel marginalized to write their own scripture. We ought not be surprised when culture rejects the word of God. We should be surprised when Christians ignore the word of God.

The theological reconcilers appeared in at least three guises. Some believed that importing evolution into theology, while it would change some things, would not so alter orthodox thought that it would become unrecognizable. Others felt less concern about conserving the traditional expressions of Christianity than about reformulating Christian doctrine in a manner in tune with the times. Still others made evolution the very cornerstone of their theological perspective. All three adjusted Biblical chronology as needed and preserved some form of an argument from design; but where the first faction gave the appearance of being forced into such reconciliation, the latter two reveled in the newfound opportunity to revitalize doctrines that were beginning to tax the loyalty of modern Christians. [Gregory, "The Impact of Darwinian Evolution on Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century," in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers eds. (Berkley:University of California Press, 1986), p. 379]¹

I hear in our day a haunting echo from this quote. In what was once needing to be fought in the early days of Darwin’s writing–and is still needing to be spoken against today, we instead find too many Christians, and Christian leaders, who were willing to acquiesce to the new world view of their day. Today, although the challenge of evolutionary theory persists, we are faced with an equally challenging paradigm shift into a new, popular world view: Post-modernism.

Post-modern thinking is an undeniable reality. Such was the new Darwinism of the 1800s. In both cases God’s people in His churches are called to respond and faithfully carry-out the Great Commission we have received from our Lord. The issue for us is this: how are we to fulfill our commission in the face of such challenges. Unfortunately, many of the Christians in Darwin’s day chose apathy, acquiescence, or adoration to this new, God-less world view.

Today, we have those who would reformulate biblical doctrine for the sake of communicating the faith to a lost generation. In this camp we find that group of ‘emergent’ and even liberal believers. Ones like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt…who also sound like the ‘Bishop’ Carlton Pearson, who although he does not believe in the devil or the need for the crucifixion or resurrection anymore, still thinks he can call himself a Christian. Such also is Dr. John Killinger. They glory in the fact that they can so easily redefine and reformulate what it means to be a Christian without any regard for a consistent biblical hermeneutic. These start from post-modernism as the “very cornerstone of their theological perspective,” and castigate those who would hold to the time-honored biblical world view. Others want to ‘baptize’ this new world view in Christian nuances and verbage while actually committing the very same compromise the first group undertakes.

The more dangerous groups involve those who will ”give the appearance of being forced into such reconciliation” and those who turn apathetically away from engaging this issue and the challenges presented to the Gospel. Some of those ‘reluctant’ reconcilers fit within the Mark Driscoll/Acts 29 camp. I must say that I applaud Driscoll for his stance in the recent Satan Debate televised on ABC’s “Nightline.” His assertions were right on the money. The reason I feel that he fits into the dangerous group of the ‘reluctants’ is in his approach to a more crass and worldly-centered style of ministry (For further insight on my position here, see this post here). I pray that he continues his distancing from the errors found within the emergent and emerging ‘movements’ in Christianity. The others are those who refuse to deal with the obvious challenges posed by this very real trend in thinking in our world. Those who chose to ignore the evolutionary theory of a by-gone day have left us with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. If we will not stand up for the word of God, the timeless, culture-crossing, changeless revelation of God to man, we will lose our identity…we will become savor-less salt.

The bottom line is this…

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” [Isaiah 55:10-11]

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” [Matthew 24:35]

We must engage the world in which we live with this truth. Not change it to fit this world!! Not ignore it or repudiate it in order to be accepted by the masses. If missional means we cease to be convictional then we cease to be able to hold the exclusive claims of Scripture, the greatest of which are found…

“For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16]

“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” [John 14:6]

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” [Acts 4:12]

______________________
¹Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989), p. 96.

SOLA GRATIA!

[Join me at my blog, Sola Gratia! (http://sagordon.blogspot.com) for discussion of this post]

The desire to discover the lowest possible standard before sin happens is not the way Christ expects us to live. Indeed, seeking the lowest denominator may be indicative of an improper attitude about temptation. Instead of seeing how far we may travel away from Christ’s will before we have gone over the edge, one who professes Jesus as Lord should be seeking eagerly for closeness to His will. If He is Lord, He must be Lord of the Christian’s life in truth. This applies equally in the spheres of doctrine and ethics. The Christian should adopt the attitude that asks, “How may I fulfill the standard that Jesus Christ reveals in His Word?” Likewise, the Christian must avoid the opposite attitude, which asks, “How far may I get away from Christ’s commands before it is wrong?”

When the method of theological triage was issued, it was accompanied by a call for theological maturity. We agree and echo this desire for growth, which we believe involves a growth into faithfulness to the Lord. Much of the current crisis in Baptist life circles around the relationship between gospel and faithfulness to Christ. On the one hand, the responsible Christian preacher, like Paul, will be careful to preach the gospel clearly. And he will be careful never to confuse the gospel with legalistic righteousness. Paul’s harsh words about the false teachers troubling the Galatians come to mind: “You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ: you have fallen from grace!” (Gal. 5:4). There is no room for legalism in preaching justification as the declaration of righteousness through faith in the Righteous One.

On the other hand, Paul never treated justification by grace through faith as an excuse for immaturity. The responsible Christian preacher, like Paul in Philippians 3, will not stop with the basics of the faith but will issue a call to forsake immaturity and pursue maturity.

The secondary issues include, according to the offered form of theological discrimination, those doctrines that make us Baptist. One may consider here such important Baptist distinctives as believers-only baptism by immersion, New Testament communion, democratic congregationalism, and regenerate church membership (cf. Baptist Faith and Message, articles 6-8). To term such doctrines “secondary” in the sense of “insignificant” or “unnecessary” or “indifferent” is not only a misuse of theological triage; it may be more egregiously a subtle but significant downgrading of Christ’s Lordship over His church. Indeed, we would argue-building upon an earlier metaphor-that a misuse of the bowie knife of theological triage may end with the consignment of some Christians to the spiritual emergency room. For the church planting enterprise in which Great Commission Christians engage, these second-order doctrines may not be ignored; if they are ignored, chaos and confusion of the Corinthian magnitude will ensue.

What we can and must do for those Christians that are not Baptists is to encourage them to submit even more to the Lord’s will. And when they will no longer listen, we will resort solely to the illimitable power of prayer. With Paul, we humbly pray that those Christians with whom we disagree regarding our Lord’s commands will no longer “think differently” but that “God will reveal this to you also.” Likewise, we would hope that non-Baptists would share the grace of God’s revelation with us where they deem we have not properly interpreted God’s Word.

I would personally like to thank Dr. Yarnell for allowing me to participate in this paper. When we started earlier this week, I had no idea I would learn so much in organizing and presenting a paper.  Again, to view the entire document, click here.

Frankly, last week Friday and most of Saturday, I was not keeping up with the blogs, yet through the preaching of God’s Word at the conference, God was dealing with me in how I represent His Word on the blogs. For what am I willing to suffer in the proclamation and upholding of His Word? This question was driven to me as Dr. Mohler preached from Colossians 1:19-28. Dr. Mohler’s point was that that we are “called,” men of God, not men working in a profession. This calling requires us to uphold the Word of God and suffer if we are called to do so in the proclamation of the truth. Essentially Paul was willing to suffer for the sake of the church to fulfill the Word of God.

It is my opinion that over the past couple of weeks, my name has been suffering for something that does not equate for what Paul is calling us to suffer. Though I believe I have done nothing ethically wrong in my blogging activities last week, I did in fact abandon my primary purpose of proclaiming the wondrous biblical truths of God and in articulating the overall situation Southern Baptists are facing. There is a systematic diverting of attention from doctrinal fidelity by the Southern Baptist (SB) ecumenist. This is being done by aligning oneself to the lowest common denominator for cooperation, a false redefinition of terms, and a pragmatic approach to missions cooperation.

I joined with the other men at SBC Today to bring awareness to the almost forgotten and severely neglected theology of Baptist ecclesiology. If anything, I wanted to be a part of the grass roots movement to help Southern Baptists journey back to their biblical heritage concerning matters of the church.

With this endeavor in SBC Today, I have frequently used a term called “ecumenical” or “ecumenist.” While some have dismissed using these terms as being unhelpful, by using them in the context of Southern Baptists, I have understood it and applied it in three ways:

1. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical are those who seek to cooperate using the lowest common denominator. Not only in Southern Baptist life is this a movement, but it is also in the wider evangelical community. The recent evangelical manifesto proved this as the document itself abandoned inerrancy as a distinctive for evangelicals. In the SBC calls for cooperating on the essentials of the Gospel is the mantra. After the 2007 SBC Convention in San Antonio the Garner motion was an effort of the ecumenists to keep SBC entities from making decisions beyond the doctrinal limitations of the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M). The ecumenists saw the BF&M as a “maximal document,” limiting the trustees to doctrines only addressed in the BF&M. In other words, the trustees could not fully fulfill their mandate as agents of accountability of the SBC. Fast forward to today. No longer are calls given by the Southern Baptist ecumenist to keep the BF&M as the limit of doctrines that are necessary for cooperation. Now the caveats have increased and the ecumenist desires to cooperate solely on the “essentials” of the gospel as long as those essentials remain in a state of flux so that no one is eliminated from their tent of cooperation. The belief in a regenerate baptized (immersed) church membership no longer matters. The ecumenist wants to work with the paedobaptist or sprinkler whether they were baptized as an infant or not. These issues are not of great concern to the SB ecumenist and do not impede cooperation for them.

2. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical wrongly redefine terms in order to evoke action towards their cause. Terms have been used to invoke fear among various groups of Southern Baptists. “Fundamentalist,” “spooky fundamentalist,” “Landmark,” “neo-landmark,” and “avant-garde self-styled defenders of Baptist Identity,” have been used against confessional Southern Baptists. Recently the issue of closed verses open communion took front stage. Those who believe that a church should allow, at a minimum, only those who are saved and baptized by immersion to participate in the Lord’s Supper were called “neo-Landmark.” Yet, by this post here, it was shown that those Southern Baptists who practiced this are abiding within the parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message. Those who accuse confessional Southern Baptists as neo-Landmark are themselves outside of what Southern Baptists officially believe. The aforementioned terms have been wrongly used to describe those who are Baptist Identity.

3. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical focus more on pragmatism and cultural preference (or feelings) rather than Biblical principles in forging their worldview. For instance, one may not want a woman to pastor their church because their discomfort “is personal and cultural – and not Biblical.” But when an autonomous state convention of cooperating churches, because of biblical beliefs, decides to disfellow themselves from a church that has a woman for their pastor, the convention is scourged on blog posts saying that it is unfair for a state convention to hold, in particular, those biblical beliefs not only in doctrine, but also in practice. Autonomy is only held in cases where it benefits the ecumenist. The state convention of cooperating churches, for the ecumenist, is not autonomous in this decision, yet through out Baptist history, there is example after example of associations and conventions who have operated as an autonomous body of churches that did not allow themselves to compromise their doctrines by one church’s decision to act independently of the confessional belief of the body. To claim that cooperating churches in a state convention cannot act autonomously against one aberrant church is weak if not illogical to say the least.

The ecumenical reformer understands certain truths from God’s Word to be stumbling blocks to cooperating with others. Where the doctrine does not pragmatically fit, it must be removed. We see this time and time again in the seeker sensitive or emergent church movement that is creeping into our convention. Don’t misunderstand, doctrine is not unimportant to the ecumenical reformer if it aids their cause, but when it is perceived to being a stumbling block, it must either be removed or avoided because it takes away from the pragmatic benefit of cooperation.

There is no doubt that a movement is afoot to make doctrine of secondary importance behind the shortsighted pragmatical benefits one perceives. When inerrancy (truth without any mixture of error), believers baptism by immersion, and the Lord’s Supper are considered tertiary doctrines that should not impede cooperation in a convention, association, or network of churches, then those who are not ashamed of the doctrines that make us Baptist must speak up and “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

Their research concluded with four implications. First, Americans see religion in what I call the Golden Corral syndrome. We approach our religion in a similar manner that we approach the buffet table. Those things that are satisfying and delicious, we pick and the things that are distasteful yet helpful, we leave behind. Americans no longer look to the “full” counsel of God to form their beliefs about God and what He would have us do. It is a pick and choose mentality. Second, contradicting viewpoints are embraced. The example given is that while one may claim the Bible to be, “totally accurate in all of the lessons it teaches,” that same person may also believe that Jesus sinned. Third, Americans no longer look to Christianity exclusively for the formation of their religious beliefs. They now embrace other world religions in guiding their theological viewpoints. Finally, the way we form our religious viewpoints have changed. In the past most Americans relied upon personal Bible reading, listening to a sermon, or participating in a Bible study. Today more Americans are looking to their “feelings and emotions” rather than gathering information in the traditions of the past.

After reading this article a question came to mind, “What do we do as a church in accomplishing our mission of making disciples?” I then recalled 2 Timothy 4:1-5. Paul knew his time was short and wanted to prepare Timothy for a coming period when people would want, “to have their ears tickled” and they would, “accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires.” Furthermore they, “will turn their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” Myths in this instance means they would embrace the fictitious rather than fact. While this particular scripture was a letter written to Timothy, it has also been preserved for the church of today and speaks to all of us. I find it interesting that what Paul wrote nearly 2000 years ago fits perfectly with what the Barna Group has concluded in their research. So, “What do we do in light of our changing culture?”

Paul charged Timothy with five things. First, he was to “preach the word.” The word “preach” speaks of a herald for the emperor who would announce the emperor’s dictates to his people. The herald would not give his own personal dictates nor would he pick and choose what part of the message to deliver to the people. Whether it was in good or bad times or the message would garner a negative response from the people, the herald would deliver the message in its entirety. We must deliver the full message of God’s Word in its entirety and not shy away from its reproving or rebuking parts. This also means that we are to go where the people are living their lives. Yes, I still believe in pulpit preaching, but that is only part of the proclamation ministries of the church. We are to go into the businesses, coffee shops, ball games and other venues in delivering God’s Word. It is the churches responsibility to penetrate every aspect of our society with the dictates of our King of kings and Lord of lords.

Second, we are to, “be sober in all things.” What Paul is calling Timothy to do is to be circumspect and alert of his surroundings so as not to fall into the errors of those seeking to have their “ears tickled.” We need to check every aspect of our changing cultural leanings to the solid foundation of Gods Word so that we may be adequate and equipped to do the Lord’s will. Fads and gimmicks have no place among God’s people.

Third, while remaining true to proclaiming the entire counsel of God, we should expect and endure hardship. Like a soldier who is engaged in battle then is told to march for forty eight hours and engage another enemy, we should expect and be prepared for hardships and resistance at multiple points from our common enemy, satan. Praise be to God that his people can endure hardships for remaining true to His Word.

Fourth, we are to do the work of an evangelist. The Greek text is specific here. It is not the position of an evangelist Paul is talking about, but the work we do should have at its core the opportunity to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ. We must be ever reaching out to those we come in contact with. An evangelist is always going, the church today should recognize that the “come and see” methods of the recent past are no longer as powerful as they once were. While there is still a place for them, the church must transition and reclaim the biblical mandate of “going and telling.”

Finally, we are to fulfill our ministry. What Paul is trying to convey here is that Timothy is not to be lazy or content with where he is in his ministry. Churches today have become content with where they are and dare I say lazy also. From the research I have seen and heard, eighty percent of churches are either plateaued or declining. This shows evidence of a healthy dose of contentment and laziness. There are still lost people out there and a world who needs to hear the gospel. Contentment is found in being busy in non essentials while ignoring what is of utmost importance: finding ways to accomplish our mission of making disciples.

In our previous post, Dr. Bart Barber gave a book review of Dr. Bob Pearle’s book, “The Vanishing Church.” Dr. Pearle hits the nail on the head when he states, “Wherever believers are going, they are to share the Gospel.” (pg. 72) May that be the heartbeat of any church, but especially those who identify themselves as particularly Baptist.

Last week at the convention, the big buzz phrase was, “Great Commission Resurgence.” (GCR) Every time I heard it there were positive affirmations given, but I wondered what exactly was meant by that terminology. Did it mean winning people to Christ or planting churches? If it did mean planting churches, what would these churches believe and how would they operate? Nathan Finn, an apt and astute scholar in his own right, believes it means to be the missional people God created us to be. Okay, what does it mean to be a missional people? I have read that to me missional, we must be incarnational. How is that played out in the real world as we are winning people to Christ? There seems to be a lot of terms used in defining the GCR, but after reading what others think it is and listening to still others explain to me me what they think the GCR is, it is not a stretch to say that there are competing ideas at play.

One thing that I noticed missing (though not totally absent) in explaining the GCR was the lack of using the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) itself as the defining parameter. I can’t say as to why this scripture has seemingly been ignored (again, not totally), but I wonder if it has to do with what it says. Namely that as we are going, we are to make disciples by baptizing and teaching disciples all that Christ had commanded. The little word “all” kills the idea that baptism and the Lord’s supper are some how “tertiary.” One excellent article I did find, even though it is not directly linked to the phraseology of GCR, was Dr. Yarnell’s White Paper, The Heart of a Baptist.

Now someone might argue that the Great Commission encompasses more than just Matt 28:18-20. In fact it encompasses the entire Bible. With that I do agree. In the revelation of the New Testament, we see that “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” But there is a strong foundation that is laid in the Great Commission that is our compass in defining what the church is to do and more specifically, how to do it. It is the last recorded command of Jesus to his band of followers (along with Acts 1:8) before he ascended to His Father. It should carry a significant load of weight in defining the GCR not only theologically, but practically as it is lived out in the lives of those who call themselves followers of Jesus.

I am going to leave this post specifically open to the following questions. It is not my desire to start defining my understanding of the GCR, but this post is to get us thinking as to what exactly is the GCR and how it should be played out in our churches and our convention.

So, what do you think the GCR is? How should it be defined and practically carried out by Southern Baptists?

He is a gracious man to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. His faithfulness to the Lord’s call to minster to His people, to lead his family to honor God, and to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those who are lost, is a worthy example for us all to emulate.

In the course of this interview, Dr. Vines shares his thoughts and convictions regarding why he is Southern Baptist, the impact of the current trends of Calvinism in our convention, our response to the challenge of postmodernism, and other issues.

Enjoy!