The Seduction of Political Idolatry
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, News & Culture
Last week, a group of politically conservative opinion leaders published a document entitled the Mount Vernon Statement. Although, in contrast to the Manhattan Declaration from a couple of months ago, it does not purport to be a specifically Christian document, among its signatories and promoters are included several well-known Christians, including Richard Land and Barrett Duke from the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. In principle, I have no objection to denominational leaders, such as Land and Duke, signing such a document, as long as it is clear they are doing so as individuals, and not in representation of all Southern Baptists. That is not the point of this post. Each of us, as individuals, is entitled to our own opinions on political issues, as well as the prerogative of publically making them known.
The stated purpose of the Mount Vernon Statement is that of uniting social, economic, and national security conservatives behind a common cause and movement. However—in contrast, once again, with the Manhattan Declaration—it does not specifically mention the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. Though, to date, I have not read it stated as such anywhere else, the timing of the Mount Vernon Statement—on the heels of the Manhattan Declaration—leaves one to wonder if one of the underlying motives is to remind religious/moral/social conservatives that the conservative movement encompasses more than just them alone. In politics—as in many areas of life—there is strength in numbers. It is important to show solidarity and not break ranks with the broader constituency.
The theme of unity runs through the Mount Vernon Statement itself, as well as in several related publicity pieces, including a recent article published by Baptist Press. However, as I have recently argued on a comment stream here on sbcIMPACT, although there are various types and varieties of unity in the world in which we live, “the unity we share as brothers and sisters in Christ is qualitatively different from the type of unity members of other diverse categories might share with each other.” Our common membership in the Body of Christ, marked by our common relationship to the Head of the Body, calls for a degree of solidarity and loyalty significantly more transcendent than our identification with any number of secondary causes and movements.
Nevertheless, there are many causes and movements that compete for our solidarity and loyalty. But, as Jesus so clearly informed us, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24).
Politics creates strange bedfellows. At the core, it is all about building coalitions and striking the necessary compromises to encompass a constituency large and powerful enough to achieve its stated objectives.
Sometimes those causes that are most apparently similar to the true object of our loyalty may at the same time have the most potential for drawing us away from our singular devotion to the only One who truly deserves it. On various occasions, I have watched, as little by little, individuals and organizations that were once centered on the pure gospel, and specifically Christian ministry, have been drawn into increasing political involvement, and eventually abandoned their unalloyed commitment to specifically Christian values. One friend from my youth, who at one time professed a call to Christian ministry, inspired by the rhetoric of the Religious Right, began to get involved in politics, under the auspices of working to champion moral causes. Little by little, he got more and more involved in local Republican Party activities, and less and less in specifically Christian ministry. The last I heard of him, though still active in the Republican Party, he was no longer attending church.
Perhaps this is an isolated case, and should not be used as an example. However, I think a good case can be made that, with a certain degree of frequency, entire organizations, and sometimes even local churches, have, at times, seen an increased emphasis on political causes be accompanied by a corresponding decline in active involvement and priority commitment to evangelism, discipleship, and missions.
I suppose that, as in all of life, there is an appropriate balance to be struck in all of this. Certainly, as Christians, doing what we can to support the right to life, and working to counteract the influence of forces that actively seek to undermine the moral fiber of our society, and wreak havoc in the lives of countless individuals and families, is, in and of itself, a good thing. And, an important part of Christian discipleship involves being salt and light in the world around us.
But, at the same time, there are certain elements of practically any political platform that are not based on clearly delineated biblical values. And, once our heart has been drawn in and seduced by political idolatry, it is easy to convince ourselves that there really is a biblical approach to each and every social, economic, and national security issue that comprises the stuff of partisan political platforms. Of course, it is possible to make this same mistake both from the left as well as from the right. But, among the people with whom I most frequently rub shoulders, and, in all likelihood, the majority of Southern Baptists—including the readers of sbcIMPACT—I imagine it is more important to remind ourselves that, although there are certain spiritual principles and values that may align more closely with the platform of one political party than another, conservative does not equal Christian. And, whenever we have to choose between the two, there is only one community, and One Lord, that deserve our bottom-line loyalty.



David, as one who signed the Mount Vernon Statement though not the Manhattan Declaration, I can agree wholeheartedly with your emphatic call to Christian unity as the first priority. Thank you for taking the time to write this. In Christ, Malcolm
Manhattan may have purported to have been a Christian document…
In regards to politics, the time I spend on getting someone elected, fighting for some bill or legislation; is time not spent on Christ and His Word and sharing what He had done for sinners. This holds true for other activities, e.g., leisure, business, etc., what things are stealing the time He has given me?
Ok, I’m just going to go ahead and say it–
Yes, the gospel is far and away the most important thing. I’ve only participated in one political campaign and that was in a class in high school. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how someone who claims to be a Christian can vote for a candidate for national office when they know that candidate is pro-gay rights and pro-abortion. I know, reversing Roe v Wade will not change hearts. I know, the gospel is bigger than that. I get all that. And I’m not saying Christians ought to go picketing abortion clinics or anything like that. I just don’t understand how a person can find voting for a pro-abortion candidate compatible with Christianity.
There, I said it. And sa Johnny Storm always said “Flame on!!”
David Rogers,
Amen.
David
PS. I have to also say that I will always try to vote for the person who believes in life over murder(abortion), who doesnt believe in taxing us to death, and who is not sold out to the gay agenda, nor to the environmental wacko agenda. So, guess which way I vote most of the time?
does this mean that I shouldn’t take my patriots Bible to the field with me?
http://www.americanpatriotsbible.com/
Great post. I think nationalism gets in the way of being missional. It can also cause us to hold ridiculous positions in the name of the flag [eg, the German church, for the most part, lost its voice during WWII].
People who have the ability to use religion to play on fears, perceptions, and dissent, in order to mobilize people politically are very powerful indeed [Malcolm x, Osama, Rush/Hannity]
Vol,
Libertarian?
Andrew,
lol
David
What do you think of the recent selection of Ken Starr as President of Baylor University.
One former President of the Alumni Association said it was a move to make Baylor The Heritage Foundation with a Football team and there has been a great deal of discussion at abpnews.com, the Waco Tribune and http://www.religiondispatches.org
Was that an unwitting or unnecessary conflation of religion and politics.
Most of the people that had a problem with Ken Starr being hired were left-wingers…in other words, people whose opinions don’t matter anyway. I don’t read ABP but I’d lay money that the piece they wrote was critical. Of course, since ABP is primarily left wing what I said in my first sentence applies.
Rastis, you crack me up.
My thinking on politics was greatly shaped by a book I read (one that was absolutely HATED by some of the bigwigs of the Religious Right) – “Blinded by Might” by Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas.
They argued that there is a natural conflict between Christianity and politics. Politics is about power – doing what you have to to gain and hold on to power and control. Christianity is about truth – speaking the truth whether it is popular or not.
When Christians enter politics, it is often to proclaim truth. But there is a natural tendency to compromise truth as the power-pull of politics gains hold.
My conclusion is that Christians should be politically active and involved, but churches should be very careful about their political involvement. Our job is first to proclaim the gospel and then to speak truth to every area of life.
Malcolm,
Thanks for the affirmation. Could this possibly be seen as a successful small step forward in “ecumenical dialogue”?
John,
I agree with you for the most part. Yet, as I reflect on this, I recognize that time spent defending the downtrodden (and unborn), as well as promoting a life of holiness and ethical living (though, in this case, as I understand it, more importantly within the Body, rather than without) is a very real aspect of following Jesus in our daily discipleship.
I think I would say it this way: The realms of politics and of seeking to advance God’s Kingdom on Earth are like intersecting Venn diagrams. There is a certain area of overlap, in which it is legitimate, and even necessary, for faithful Christian disciples to be involved. Yet, there are other areas in which the two realms do not really overlap. The seduction of political idolatry, as I understand it, has to do with the temptation to either cross over and dedicate our time and energy, as disciples, to those areas of the politics realm that do not overlap with the Kingdom realm; or more subtly, and perhaps, as a result, more dangerously, the temptation to dedicate an inordinate amount of time and energy within in the area where the two do intersect, to the neglect of the area within the Kingdom realm that does not intersect with the politics realm.
Joe,
For the most part, I have followed your same line of reasoning in my own voting patterns. However, there are cases–both hypothetical and actual–in which candidates, or parties, who take a biblical (or, at least, quasi-biblical) approach to the abortion issue may, at the same time, take a totally anti-biblical approach to other important issues. In such cases, the best option may be to abstain. Or, at least, to look for a candidate who more faithfully reflects biblical values, even though you know he/she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.
Volfan,
Thanks for the “amen.” Another trophy for the cause of “ecumenical dialogue”?
Rastis,
And a hearty “amen” to you from me! Along with the Patriot’s Bible, you might want to consider taking along this one as well:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Indeed, I do see some interesting parallels between the approaches of Malcolm X, Osama (and even, perhaps, Obama), and Rush/Hannity. As I understand it, political idolatry runs the gamut from left to right.
Stephen,
I’m not really sure what I think about Starr and Baylor. I graduated from Baylor, by the way, back in ’83. It is a complicated issue. My tendency is to let those more intelligent than I am sort it through. Baylor is not, after all, a purely religious institution, as I understand it, nor was it ever meant to be. That raises the question, though, of, should the objectives of Baylor (or any “Christian” university) be totally commensurate with those of the Kingdom of God? And, if not, do ecclesiastical bodies, such as denominations, and Baptist State Conventions, have any business supporting such endeavors? As I said before, a lot to think through. And, if I speak off the top of my head anymore on this, I will likely end up putting my foot in my mouth.
As a right-leaning voter, I can say that I dislike it when politicians, especially those from the Republican party, use conservative/moderate Evangelicals by affirming God in their speeches. I don’t doubt that many of them truly believe God is directing them to politics, but more often than not I see people merely using Him to further their own agenda.
I find it kind of disgusting that all you have to do is say, “God belongs in the pledge of allegiance” in order for Christians to overlook your multiple affairs, divorces, and lobbying record.
And Rastis,
I’m glad that we finally have a Bible that portrays Ulysses S. Grant as a man of faith instead of an alcoholic. Are there any articles on Bill Clinton in there too, I wonder?
Dave,
I also think “Blinded by Might” is right on the money.
In addition, I would strongly recommend “Why the Cross Can Do What Politics Can’t” by Erwin Lutzer.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Cross-what-Politics-Cant/dp/1565079981/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267030043&sr=8-1
David Rogers, Dave Miller, Chris Johnson and other owner/contributers of SBC IMPACT!,
Rastis just posted this comment on Debbie Kaufman’s most current blog:
“Debbie, thanks for posting all of this. The Canner brothers have long concerned me playing their “insider” status for street cred to sell book. They placate to people who already fear muslims and want to shout them down. Their books promote little productive dialogue and offer little practical help.
I will be posting this friday on sbcIMPACT on a similar topic, I will be correcting some of the misconceptions–and even lies–surrounding the camel.
Again, thanks for posting this. We really need to change the tone of the conversation as believers. The tactic of all out assault has been a barrier for Muslims to come to Christ.
Comment by rastis | February 24, 2010″
Dave, David, Geoff, Chris and all:
Fellows, I may not agree with you on some or several theological and philosophical issues from time-to-time, but I think you all to be men of integrity.
If “Rastis” desires to post on subjects relating to the recent and various situations/events concerning the Caners or if he desires to post on the Caners directly, I guess that is his privilege. It is my opinion that his doing so will again be privilege overriding good judgment but nonetheless, he is “part of the team” with you guys and he has certain privileges.
But, I do make a request upon the rest of you guys:
In the interest of maintaining the integrity of this blog and that of the other “owners” he should have to use his true identity.
Posting as “Rastis” for such a post as he intends is not consistent with Christian integrity, nor the noble purposes you folks attribute to this blog.
Now, guys, I realize this is only my opinion and I hold no stock in your enterprise, but in this case, my opinion is a right one and “stock” in this blog won’t be worth much if you other fellows allow Rastis to hide behind an anonymous mask and do this.
cb
Though I have not yet had the opportunity to read it, “Hitler’s Cross,” also by Lutzer, looks like it is a very poignant illustration of the Seduction of Political Idolatry.
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Cross-Erwin-W-Lutzer/dp/0802435831/ref=pd_sim_b_1
BTW, David Rogers,
“Hitler’s Cross is a very enlightening book.
CB,
As part of our agreement with “Rastis” (as well as with “Strider,” and earlier with “From the Middle East”) we have decided to let him post pseudonymously. Although, for general purposes, I personally do not like anonymous or pseudonymous blogging, I can understand the need for anonymity for someone working (or, in the case of “Rastis,” hoping to eventually work) in certain parts of the world. And, I think it would certainly be a shame to cut off the voices of those who fall into this category, just because of that, especially when they have significant contributions to make.
Also, the vision of sbcIMPACT from the beginning has been one of a certain degree of pluralism in our perspective. We do not always necessarily expect to agree with each other as fellow contributors. As it has worked out, several of those who more frequently voiced dissenting views to those of the present contributors have dropped out along the way. But, it was not at all because they were squeezed out. I guess that reflects, in a way, some of the reality of the world in which we live. And, maybe even teaches us a lesson or two about the difficulties of ecumenical endeavors.
While I am hopeful that “Rastis” will be circumspect in his upcoming post, and avoid saying anything that might be defamatory of a fellow brother in Christ, I (for one) feel at least I should give him the prerogative of laying out his case, before stepping in to pre-censor what he has to say.
Personally, I was offended by what Ergun Caner recently said in regard to Dr. Rankin. But, I agree we do not need to make this into a tit for tat. Why don’t we wait until “Rastis” posts what he has to say, and then take it from there?
CB,
Really? A preemptive personal attack on my “Christian Integrity”? That is a new one…
David,
“Why don’t we wait until “Rastis” posts what he has to say, and then take it from there?”
Thanks.
CB, the only reason we seem to agree is that our contributors are chosen for their brilliant minds and cogent reasoning. Naturally, then, they tend to agree with me.
It just works out that way. (If I weren’t on a one man crusade against smiley faces, one might be appropriate here).
In reality, if you look back through the archives, we express disagreement with one another regularly. We agree more than we disagree, but when we disagree, we express it.
Look at my post on baptizing children. Look at my exchange with Strider on the “Eternal Subordination” post or Rastis’ first post. Wait, I just realized. All the disagreements are with others in the group and me!
I think I’m offended.
David,
As I stated to Rastis, His work with Muslims stateside is noble and his future desires to work with them beyond these borders is more so. But with calling comes certain sacrifices. Some privileges must be personally curtailed.
Therefore, since Rastis has a valid reason not to use his identity for general publications, he should be willing to withhold privilege for this specific, proposed publication.
We recently saw wherein privilege overrode good judgement relating to the storehouse tithing set-to between Puryear and Burleson. Both men made poor choices relating to privilege and more than one made that observation.
Rastis has privilege and I understand that. But his privilege will, in this case, override good and sound judgment. You guys currently have opportunity to give him wise counsel to stand down on this one and let another who can produce his or her true identity publish this one. Surely another of his persuasion as to the matter has read the Camel Method in its entirety.
CB,
I do not see how laying out one’s personal views of “The Camel Method” or any other published work, necessitates coming public with their identity.
I do understand a little more the need for “owning” what one might say in regard to the reputation of other individuals.
However, we have still not yet seen what “Rastis” plans to post. As I said before, isn’t it best to withhold judgment, until we actually do?
Dave M.,
You know that you and I are like “peas and carrots” my friend.
-Chris
Brother cb,
I think David has expressed the current understanding with rastis and anonymity.
I personally do not see a need for being anonymous, but many would debate against my opinion of that as well. There is always potential to address that in the future. Your point is understood and helpful.
The article, to be released in the future, may prove to be constructive….we will have to see where rastis takes it.
Blessings,
Chris
One more thing, CB.
You said, “Fellows, I may not agree with you on some or several theological and philosophical issues from time-to-time, but I think you all to be men of integrity.”
I just want to clarify that sbcIMPACT has no theological or philosophical point-of-view that we enforce. In fact, when I first joined the team, I was frustrated. I wanted someone to give me guidelines and tell me what the standards and practices were.
No one has ever told me what to write or what perspective I should come from. They have held me accountable. A couple of times, other team members thought I got a little emotional or confrontational and told me to be careful.
But there is no “Impact” Identity that we all have to conform to. We agree more than we disagree, but we are free to disagree with each other and to express that (kindly, of course).
Rastis,
That is raw hypocrisy on your part. I said nothing of your “personal” integrity.
I spoke to the integrity of this blog site and the corporate integrity of its owners.
I also gave my opinion as just that; an opinion. Did you grow up in Oklahoma?
No one attacked your personal integrity. But I will tell you this; if you use your privilege here and especially as an anonymous poster to attack the Caners, it may be a lapse of integrity on your part. It could just be. And not only that but a cowardly act also.
Going to lunch. I’ll check in later.
CB, he is not anonymous. His identity is protected. There is a big difference.
David,
Read the comment of Rastis that I published here and then read mine.
Here is the context of mine:
“If “Rastis” desires to post on subjects relating to the recent and various situations/events concerning the Caners or if he desires to post on the Caners directly, I guess that is his privilege. It is my opinion that his doing so will again be privilege overriding good judgment but nonetheless, he is “part of the team” with you guys and he has certain privileges.
But, I do make a request upon the rest of you guys:
In the interest of maintaining the integrity of this blog and that of the other “owners” he should have to use his true identity.”
If it involves the Caners as he referenced in his comment to Debbie. That is the crux of my request.
He can post as Bozo on the Camel Method if in fact that is his only topic for all I care. But an attack on the Caners using aninimity is the issue of my objection to his post. The Caners have enough problem with identifiable people attacking them. They don’t need you guys protecting a guy in the bushes doing it.
Let’s make it simple. Post as Rastis, Bozo, Zoro or Villa Rica (no, Villa Rica is taken) or any other name he likes if he is addressing only the Camel Method. But if he posts on the Caners or references the Caners, he should use his own name.
This is not rocket science guys. It is pretty easy to see the immediate moral ramifications of this.
I know you guys give each other freedom. But we are talking about the obvious misuse of freedom.
Dave
“CB, he is not anonymous. His identity is protected. There is a big difference.”
Dave, if the Yankees had a good young pitcher who could stay healthy and throw a slider like that one you just threw they would win the next 20 WCs
Did you grow up in Oklahoma?
CB,
You owe me a new monitor for the Diet Dr. Pepper I just spewed out of my mose all over over my screen. I’m surpirsed you didn’t say “Enid, Oklahoma”. Bwahahaha
CB, I think you may not have read his comment clearly.
He said, “I will be posting this friday on sbcIMPACT on a similar topic, I will be correcting some of the misconceptions–and even lies–surrounding the camel.”
According to Rastis, his topic will be the Camel method. He said nothing about commenting on the Caners.
When he posts, if you still feel he did something wrong, then renew your objection. All we are saying is why don’t we read the post first?
Don’t make me come down there, CB. It was 1 degree (thankfully, above 0) a little bit ago. I have no problem jumping in a car and coming down there to straighten you out if I have to, young man.
And it is not a meaningless distinction. He is not trying to hide his identity, he is trying to protect his future ministry. I have talked to him on the phone. (Actually, I’m about 2 months late in returning his call). There is nothing anonymous about him.
We feel fortunate to have had three men write for us who work (or will work) in sensitive regions. They are required by their sending agencies to protect their identities. We assist them in that.
Rastis is not anonymous.
ON the other hand, if you know a pitcher such as you described, reveal his name.
David,
Go to lunch. Eat a camel sandwich and have a glass of tea. But after lunch you are forbidden to “light up a camel.”
CB,
RE #26:
In comment 15 you said:
“Posting as “Rastis” for such a post as he intends is not consistent with Christian integrity”
And what does Oklahoma have to do with anything?
I was very clear in the intent of my upcoming post
http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/interview-with-mohammed-kahn-creator-of-ergun-caner-fake-ex-muslim-videos/#comment-3625
go there and see comment see comment 174.
Emotive reactions and misunderstandings as you have demonstrated underscore the need that redefining and reexamining some terms and ideas is essential to promoting productive and gracious dialog within the SBC tent. Whereas you misunderstood me and only attempted to have me censured and “publicly” discredited, others have misunderstood the Camel. Rather than trying to have Greeson censured, they have tried to get him fired. There seems to be a theme of witch hunting within SBC circles. What is worse, is that there is a growing cloud of misunderstanding surrounding all things Islamic which is counter productive to the mission.
My apologies to the group for my part in derailing an otherwise awesome, brilliant, and much needed discussion on the role of politics.
CB:
I notice you are on the attack today and so is your sidekick. Please give Rastis a break please guys.
Several points
1. Erwin Lutzer did sign the Manhattan Declaration
2. .” The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) and the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:28) are the church’s highest priorities in mission to the world. They must be carried out, perpetrated, and perpetuated in gentleness, openness, kindness, and helpfulness. Word must be matched in deed.
from Parish Presbterian in Franklin, TN
The cultural mandate is a Biblical mandate….those who refuse to obey it are in rebellion to God.
3.Faith for all of life.
Andrew Sandlin is right here.
http://tinyurl.com/yldnruf
Robert I Masters
Sidekick??? SIDEKICK???
I do not wear, nor have I ever worn, little green panties and a yellow cape. And what was with that mask, anyway. I have sunglasses that cover more of my face than that thing did and everybody still knows who I am when they see me.
Holy fouled up metaphors, Tom.
Joe, your comment #40 may give me sleepless nights.
The little green panties statement will give me nightmares.
David
David Rogers,
Do you not see the irony in the fact that you are using a political forum,sbcImpact, to a express political point.
Theological issues are intrinsically political.
Robert I Masters
Rastis,
To say an action on your part is not consistent with Christian integrity is not an attack on your personal integrity. Any and all of us are capable of committing acts that are not consistent with Christian integrity and do. For me to address a specific action on your part does not mean I think you not a Christian or to doubt you have personal integrity. That is silly and due to the fact that you are only 26, youthful grasping at straws.
Rassey Baily, if footmen tire you how shall you run with the wild Arabian Stallions of the Saudi’s?
I have a suggestion for your next post based on your last comment.
Post about how low-down and mean I am and how Mr. White and associates have been on a “witch-hunt” since 2006 and leave the Caners out of it all together.
That will work and you will get over two- five thousand hits from the Wild Geese of Oklahoma and the Basement Dwelling Supporters of Mr. White either praisin’ you for bashin’ me or cussin’ you for bashin’ Mr. White.
Since nobody hardly knows who you are, you can accept the praise and let the cussin’ run off your back like water off a duck. It is a win-win for you. Now, ain’t you glad we had this little discussion?
Hey, I’m not saying I WORE them. And for the record, Robin wears pants now like all the other superheroes who wear their underwear on the outside of their costumes.
Up, up, and AWAY!!!
Robert,
By what definition would you call this a political forum? There’s not a one of us here running for office (well, David did a while back, but I think that cured him completely).
We are a biblical opinion forum, giving contributors and commenters the ability to discuss theological and ecclesiology issues of the day.
I’m a bit baffled how you designate that as a “political forum.”
Hello Joe,
Man, it has been a real week thus far ain’t it?
Robert Masters,
Thanks for your comment.
I was not aware that Lutzer had signed the Manhattan Declaration. This particular post, however, though mentioning the MD and linking to my earlier post on the MD, is about a related but separate issue. I would be interested to know if Lutzer has published anywhere his rationale behind signing the MD. But, in any case, the fact that I really liked his book does not mean I necessarily agree with him on everything else.
I have read and thought about some of the things some thinkers and theologians have said in relation to the so-called Cultural Mandate and the mission of the Church. To be honest, I am not yet totally convinced. I suppose that the Great Commission (in its Matthew 28 iteration), in and of itself, involves being good stewards over creation, treating others with justice, and living a moral lifestyle (“teaching them to obey all things I have commanded you”), and I personally see a link between the Great Commission (in its John 20:21 iteration) and the mission of Jesus, which He enunciates in Luke 4:18-19, which, in turn, may well have political implications. But, I am not so sure that the Kuyperian perspective is not necessarily over-dependent on a particular view of eschatology, which, in my study of Scripture, to date, has not yet convinced me.
Having said all that, I wonder how you would respond to my illustration of the Venn diagrams in my response to John in comment #12.
Dave,
I wish you would come down here. I would feed you a good B-B-Q meal and then take you over to the SABANATION stadium and let you what real football looks like. It ain’t got nothin’ to do with cow pastures and sittiin’ on milk crates. it really don’t Dave.
Robert Masters,
Just read your comment #43. Are you basically saying that all of life is, at the core, political (in a similar way to the Marxists, when they say all of life is materialistic)?
CB,
Apophasis, though useful in poisoning the well, is not a valid form of argument.
“That is silly and due to the fact that you are only 26, youthful grasping at straws.”
The genetic fallacy doesn’t work either. I haven’t the slightest clue where you get your information on me, but you should get your money back.
Regardless, the content and tone of your tattling is inappropriate.
While I would love to sit here and argue all day about the validity or invalidity of what I may or may not argue hypothetically in the future…. take David’s advice, or take me at my word, and just wait and see.
Tom,
I am not being mean. I am just being like Roy Rogers (David’s Uncle) and head a bad outlaw off at the pass.
I’m going to make a suggestion that someone made earlier. David has written a pretty good post here – one worthy of discussion. Let’s get back to that.
I’m still reeling from Joe Blackmon’s comment, so I really want to leave this whole thing behind.
CB,
Maybe you could try emulating my Uncle Fred, and let’s just all be good neighbors.
Rastis,
I’ve done a lot of things but I have never poisoned a well. I was never into torture.
The content was valid. And the tone is inconsequential.
The issue is: Say all you want about the Camel Method as Rastis. If you post in any reference to the Caners provide your true identity. That is a fair request an d26 or not, you know that to be correct.
Brother David R,
Your post does go to a growing problem within the SBC. As the SBC has grown and continues to become more visible to the world, there may be a tendency to try and meet certain political requirements. It is very important that kingdom work be distinct to the edification of the church. In other words, the highest unity worth maintaining is that of those that are born of the Spirit. This unique unity has significant impact in the world, yet not for political gain, but in spite of political gain, since opinionated and biased cultural consensus should not have place in the body of the church. The churches unity is maintained by yet another goal,…one that is Spirit born, not politically revealed….and only maintained through the edification of one to another. The greater political landscape is not in view.
1 John 5:7-10 For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (9) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. (10) The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
Or maybe even my Uncle Will, who “never met a man he didn’t like.”
To get back on the subject of the post, he also said:
“I tell you Folks, all Politics is Apple Sauce.”
David
I met your uncle Fred once, but he got up a petition for me not to be allowed to move into his “neighborhood.”
CB,
Would you not agree that it would be fair game to write anonymously about published comments by the Caners, referring to their opinions of the Camel Method, without, at the same time, impugning their character?
CB,
Not even waterboarding?
In getting back to the real topic at hand:
David, I grew up in a very politically conservative church [we were "black helicopter" types]. As a youth group we worked on a candidate’s campaign [including writing his political ditties for his adds]. When I was 19, I beat a judge by about 2 to 1 to be a delegate to the RNC 2000. Some people wanted to put “I voted” on the decision card next to “I read my Bible.” I say all of that to affirm how deep into it all I was. I really mixed my politics and my religion. And there were plenty of Christian books available to help me do it.
The farther I walked down the missions road–and particularly now looking back–I realized how little political achievements had to do with accomplishing the great commission. I cannot envision a misisons strategy wherein elections and candidates would be included as part and parcel to making inroads with the gospel. But that is exactly what my church and I used to do. I still see that as an all too common modus operandi.
David Rogers,
I was not saying that …..but merely that what your doing in provoking this conversation does enter the political sphere.
However I think that what Andrew Sandlin wrote is something I can 100% embrace.
I just do not see the need to secede the political sphere to the enemy.
The practical reality is that your position ultimately concludes with that and your theology is driven by a different view of eschatology.
I real life example……read the eschatological presuppositions in the just released GCR report.
Robert I Masters
David,
I met your uncle Will once also and it was a real puzzle to me until just now after reading your comment.
I never understood what he meant because he spoke only four words…….”until I met you.”
And while we’re on the subject of Uncle Will and politics, here are a few choice quotes I found, with the help of Wikiquote:
“If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics.”
“Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with.”
“This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not by the aid of it. That we have carried as much political bunk as we have and still survived shows we are a super nation.”
“Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.”
“The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that’s out always looks the best.”
“I have no Politics. I am for the Party that is out of Power, no matter which one it is. But I will give you my word that, in case of my appointment, I will not be a Republican; I will do my best to pull with you, and not embarrass you. In fact, my views on European affairs are so in accord with you, Mr. President, that I might almost be suspected of being a Democrat.”
“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
Do you ever get the impression we are sort of a Facebook for preachers?
Rastis,
Thanks for sharing your experience. Though it would make for a whole different post, I wonder to what degree the current spiritual hardness and lack of openness in our nation (and in other places around the world, as well) to the message we as Evangelicals (and Southern Baptists) proclaim is related to our increasing involvement in overt politics.
Has anyone seen any statistical studies on this?
David,
I don’t personally have any hard statistics, but anecdotally I affirm your concern. The farther into the postmodern world I have ventured, and the farther from the south, it appears to be a big stumbling block. That is just me though.
Robert Masters,
I didn’t read the Sandlin article yet. I’ll have to wait till I have a little more free time.
Also, the whole issue of eschatology and Christian political involvement could make for a rather lengthy and complex discussion. And, it would be one I would be very interested in. But, perhaps a bit of a rabbit trail from the present discussion.
Then again, if there are any particulars that you feel are relevant, and want to bring to the table, I am not totally opposed to that, either.
David,
In all seriousness. No raggin.’ None. I promise.
In most all cases your point would be valid. If Rastis were quoting me, you, Dave, Chris, Jeff Iorg or Phil Roberts or most any other Southern Baptist, etc, etc; it would not be a very big deal.
But circumstances and timing come into play here. David, the Caner brothers and their families have been put through a great deal of late as you well know. And regardless, of the various positions we might take as to the causes or effects of it all in their lives it becomes most inappropriate to keep kicking a man when he is down.
Even football rules out piling on.
I am just asking for some forebearance and a little mercy on these guys. I think maybe we own them that. They are our brothers and not really all that heavy.
That’s my honest take on this David. And the core basis of my appeal. They have had enough and it is time to let it go.
CB,
Fair enough. But, when someone calls someone else a “heretic,” and you just “let it go,” it is not necessarily showing forbearance and mercy to the person accused of “heresy.”
I will agree that there is a big difference between sticking to the realm of ideas and venturing into the realm of personalities (i.e. what Rastis has recently reminded us of regarding “ad hominem” reasoning).
Rastis,
I have often thought about it like this. I don’t have the hard statistics at my fingertips. But, we know that the US is divided about 50/50 between Red States/Blue States, Conservatives/Liberals, Republican/Democrats. Let’s suppose that 40% of those who identify with the right wing also identify themselves as Evangelicals. And, let’s suppose that 10% of those who identify with the left wing identify themselves as Evangelicals. Where are the vast majority of those whom we are trying to reach with the gospel? If we are communicating to them that, in order to become an Evangelical (or to embrace the Evangel that we preach) you must identify with our political stances (or, even if we are not communicating that, but, in the way we are communicating, other people are picking that up), will Jesus not hold us guilty, at the Judgment, for putting up stumbling blocks in front of people.
Now, we must differentiate here between moral and ethical issues where there is a clear biblical mandate and those where there is not. We should never compromise these convictions as a result of a pragmatic seeker-sensitivity. But, if we are taking public stands, as Christians, on issues that are not clearly delineated in Scripture, I think we have good warrant to be concerned.
And, as we are looking toward a Great Commission Resurgence, I think these are very valid and important questions to ask ourselves.
Out of curiosity, why is it permissible to go after Greeson but not the Caners?
In fact, the Caners go after Greeson…..
But, if we are taking public stands, as Christians, on issues that are not clearly delineated in Scripture, I think we have good warrant to be concerned.
Could you give examples of what you’re talking about here?
I do not have a problem with Rastis and his thoughts on the camel, or even his observations of the tension between politics, nationalism, and being missional. His placing Americans with an opinion (more than likely in contratemps with his own) in the same breath of Fascists and Marxist revolutionaries in #5 is a bit much though. Plus he’s plenty “tough” on those who have a different opinion than his, but does not want to dilute his position vis a vis his ministry field by being “tough” on them.
Just some observations (I will hear about them likely) – without any attempt to call anyone out necessarily. I will wait patiently for the post on Friday to make any further observations.
Otherwise David, a great post!
Rob
Joe,
I could name many.
But, how about Health Care Reform, for one?
David
I would concede that scripture does not say the government may NOT run health care. And yes, I would also agree that we need to avoid saying that if you come to Christ you HAVE to agree with us on that issue because we’re right.
Danke
Global Warming, the best way to handle the conflicts in Afghanistan & Iraq, the best way to handle the immigration crisis…
Chris Johnson,
You said…..”since opinionated and biased cultural consensus should not have place in the body of the church. ”
Can you give me a Bible verse that says those things.
Robert I Masters
Robert,
I’m not Chris (and he may have more to add), but how about…
1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (NIV)
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
Galatians 3:28 (NIV)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 2:3-4 (NIV)
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Matthew 18:5-7 (NASB)
And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Brother Robert,
There are principles in the world (political – biased and opinionated consensus) that are not born of the Spirit. The church is a unique commission, …where no others have been given any such work.
Colossians 2:6-8 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, (7) having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude. (8) See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
So, we are free from the opinions and bias of the world, and are left to God through Christ. I am not saying that in our slavery to God we will not have impact in the world. That is quite another matter. What is clear though…. that the church is separate because of the Spirit, and for no other reason….we being in the world, but not of it.
1 Corinthians 2:10-13 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (11) For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. (12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, (13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
The Apostle Paul makes clear that as we exist in the world, the testimony of the church is reflective of how she matures without grumbling and disputing….proving to be blameless and innocent….for the purpose of holding up the gospel….the light.
Philippians 2:14-16 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; (15) so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, (16) holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.
The world political is not the higher calling substantiated by scripture. That doesn’t mean that a Christian Brother or Sister cannot run for political office or be the president of Green Peace. But the role of the church is far greater with respect to unity, edification, and commission in the world.
Blessings,
Chris
How to deal with Iraq or Afghanistan??
I heard someone mention sea of glass and sea of glass.
Chris Johnson,
Okay I get what you guys are doing…..redefining politics …then making it a whipping boy.
Politics is simply the art or science of governance.
Politics is neither bad or good
Do I understand you to be saying that Politics= biased or opinionated consensus?Here is how Wikipedia- defines it.
Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.
All I am stating is that we can either have Christ rule our world. See This is my fathers world or we can have satan rule our world.
We either have God govern or we have man govern.
Like the old evangelical adage…Jesus is Lord of all or not Lord at all.
Robert I Masters
Brother Robert,
I’m not really referring to politics as the “whipping boy”. But, I am making a clear distinction between what the goal of what is generally known in the political arena, and what is known in the church.
You are right that Jesus is Lord of all…even the political. Yet he has called the church out of the political into the assembly to worship God and to edify one another. Bias and opinionated consensus is the best politics has to offer. The church has a different charter.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother CB,
First of all, Afghanistan is quite mountainous… not so much of a pure desert.
Now, if you are referring to destroying the entire populations of both Iraq and Afghanistan (approximately 60,000,000 people created in God’s image some of whom are followers of Christ), then your comment is completely inappropriate and offensive.
Or did you mean something else?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
David:
In re you comment #67 you may be interested in this upcoming book.
The author, a Wheaton Grad, is running in GOP primary for SC State Supe of Schools:
http://www2.furman.edu/Lists/Press%20Releases/DispForm-PressReleases.aspx?List=f3a3efbf%2Df75d%2D4e3d%2D8191%2Df3599d9900fa&ID=193
David,
You said … “But, if we are taking public stands, as Christians, on issues that are not clearly delineated in Scripture, I think we have good warrant to be concerned.”
Then you mentioned such issues as … “Health Care Reform, global warming, wars in Iraq & Afghanistan”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that, since the Bible does not take a clear stance on issues such as these, we should not voice public opinions? If that’s the case, then I must strenuously object. To take such a position would require that we remove ourselves from public debate. And I just don’t buy that.
God, in creating me in His image, has given me a mind and a free will. I am able to utilize His gifts to take a stand on issues, even when the Bible does not speak directly. I must use my wits, weigh the social, political, and economic consequences of issues, and take a stand. But (and I think this maybe is what you mean) I cannot always claim that my political stands are based solely upon the Bible. Because, frankly, some are not.
My objections to “health care reform” are based upon my solid stance against the spread of socialism and the nanny state, and that it rails against every fiber of paper and every drop of ink in the constitution. My objection to the farce called man-made “global warming” is based on common sense (and a strong view of the sovereignty of God … not to mention the flaming ball of gas 93 million miles away). And my personal spiritual jury is still out on the wars.
Anyhow, I ramble. But suffice it to say, unlike some folk these days, I have absolutely no difficulty reconciling my faith and my avid patriotism. I love my country. I served my country … was trained to kill for her defense. Some of my fondest days were spent on rifle ranges, in foxholes, and in tents. I miss my old M-16-A1. Call me a simple-minded country boy. But I still love freedom. Even on this side of heaven, it’s still worth fighting for.
So pardon me, to all, if anyone considers my involvement in the political spectrum to be a “waste of time.” It always makes me chuckle when people get all spiritual-like when talking about how other people invest their time. “Self-righteous” is a word that comes to mind. But, like all other gifts from God, the time He has given me is, indeed, my time.
Sorry for the ramble … haven’t posted anything of substance on a blog in a while.
Back to your regular programming …
It truly is a family reunion when Geoff decides to drop by… hugs and kissis xxxxx
Rob
Where’s Dave Samples?
“Sea of glass” means when you go to war, you win it. War is hell. But once you get in it, you do what is necessary to win it and get your kids back home.
That is my honest, core opinion. And if it is “inappropriate and offensive” to you, I really do understand, but I can’t apologize for it would be hollow.
It would have been a good thing to have never gotten in those wars if possible and I don’t know the answer to that. But I know we are there and I know winning the war is the only way to get our guys home. And I want them to come home.
David,
This is a new phenomenon, one that your reading public may not be able to process quickly, but I found your responses to Robert I Masters to reflect my own beliefs quite closely. Thank you for defending the priority of the Great Commission for the church, distinguishing that mandate intended for Christians over against the earlier mandate for all of humanity. And yes, the critical issue is located around eschatology as well as ecclesiology (specifically, the relation of church and state).
In Christ,
Malcolm
Robert Masters,
Would you consider yourself a theonomist/reconstructionist? Just curious.
As I see it, during this current age, before our Lord Himself returns to set up His rule on Earth, it is quite a fearful thing for us as His servants to seek to establish His governance over the physical realm. Throughout church history, that has turned out pretty bad.
Still curious what you think of the Venn diagram illustration in comment #12.
In any case, just because it looks like we may not see eye to eye on these particular issues, please know I don’t hold any personal animosity toward you, and I regard you (from what I am able to tell) as a valued brother in Christ.
Geoff,
Wow! It’s just like the good ole’ days. Rob Ayers and Geoff Baggett on the same comment stream! Great to hear from you!
In any case, I am not saying that you should not hold personal opinions on matters that are not spelled out in Scripture, nor that you should not make them public.
Remember this line from my post?
“Each of us, as individuals, is entitled to our own opinions on political issues, as well as the prerogative of publically making them known.”
What I am saying is that, collectively, as the Church, and even as individual churches, we should be careful to not declare as official church positions what we cannot defend from Scripture with a certain degree of clarity. I don’t pretend that this is black and white. There are certainly some fuzzy lines, and areas where different Christians are going to see certain issues differently.
For instance, there are Christians who would take a very different view from you on universal health care and on global warming. Does that necessarily mean they are less obedient to the Lord than you are, though? I don’t think so.
Neither do I see political involvement as a waste of time. There is a balance to be sought in this, though. Refer back to my illustration on the Venn diagrams in my response to John Daly in comment #12. There I say that a certain level of political involvement is even necessary for a consistent Christian discipleship.
Robert Masters,
I just finished reading the Sandlin article. I must confess it was very well written, and presented the best defense for the MD I have read to date. I am not totally convinced. But, he did give some good food for thought.
As Malcolm alludes to in his last comment, I suppose our different perspectives are rooted in differing views of eschatology, as well as understanding of the cultural mandate.
I’ve written some papers on this I may eventually post on my personal blog, if I ever get around to it. But, they are way too long for sbcIMPACT.
Brother CB,
I understand your patriotism and concern for those you love and your zeal for that which you hold dear is admirable. I am not asking you to apologize for offending me. But, as your brother, I am calling you to take a deeper look at your attitude towards our brothers and sisters who are from Iraq and Afghanistan (yes, there are believers there). When you refer to turning an entire land to glass, this includes the people who live there. Brother, you are not just referring to winning a war… the connotation of “sea of glass” is the destruction of the whole land and all therein. Is that really what is in your heart brother? The destruction of 60,000,000 people? I am not asking you to apologize to me, but calling you to examine your heart towards others and seriously consider whether that which you hold dear is consistent with what God holds dear.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Ahh … that’s what I thought you meant.
The “political involvement as waste of time” part was directed toward some of the other comments in the stream, not you, Super-D. If you take some people’s logic to the extreme, then we shouldn’t even eat or sleep or go to the can, because that cuts into our evangelism time. Absurd.
Yes, I know that there are Christians who take a different view on the health care hyper-taxation and wealth redistribution scheme and the global warming hoax … but I keep praying that they’ll come to their senses.
Geoff,
Amen, Bro.
Also, for everyone in here, I would like to say that I do love this country and the freedom that we have. I appreciate greatly the men and women, who have given their lives for our freedom to be protected. And, I dont think there’s anything wrong with loving our country.
I do agree that the main thing for a Christian is serve in the Kingdom of God. We should be more concerned with the Great Commission than patriotism…yes. But, I really do believe that we should also appreciate what this country stands for….freedom.
David
Brother Vol,
I could not agree more…. God has placed us in this place (America), living in the governance of the States and the United States Consitution. The citizens need to be involved in the process of governance, and then understand the distinction and commission of the church and her work in the world.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I don’t think that isolation is the right Christian response to culture and politics. We are privileged to be able to influence our political process. The problem for believers is when we allow our politics to influence our missiology. There are many “turn them to glass” methods of talking to Muslims. The problem is that their strategy is based more in politics than in the Bible.
Not to start a whole new thread but I would have remained a loyal Tory during the American rebellion…errr, revolution.
Chris, I just reread my comment. I was trying to say I agree that we should be involved politically, we just need to be careful to check politics at the door when it comes to missiology.
Anyone got some twigs and gasoline? A match? (See comment 99)
just so long as no one goes after “the war against northern aggression” and General Lee [PBUH]
Just to point out the obvious. Whatever the morality of either war – the Yanks whooped the Brits pretty good, and we northerners handed a pretty sound beating to the south as well.
Of course, I mean that in the spirit of Christian love.
Like they used to say in South Carolina, “Nothing succeeds like secession!”
Rastis,
Yes,..got it…. and agree. Politics (engagement of the world) on its own is foreign to the mission of the called out ones…..since the called out ones were purposed before the foundation of the world unto good works to glorify God and share His good news….
We certainly impact the culture…yet we live to God. So, we should find it a privilege to be in other countries sharing the love of Christ to those made in the image of God. That is not only a privilege, …it is a command. Governments are established by God….so it incumbent upon all Christ followers to work within that construct to bring glory to God.
Blessings,
Chris
The South didnt lose.
David
FTME,
As I said, war is hell. That is the best description of it and there is no glory in it. It does not matter if it is a world war, two nations at war, civil war or a war on baby rapers, child slavers, woman killers or man burners, war is hell. And once you get into a real “killing war” no matter the size of the war or the factors that brought you into it, the only way you can get to go home is to win it. And to win it, you have to kill people.
FTME, Had we done the necessary work the first time we were in Iraq, we would “maybe” not be there now. Naturally, I don’t know that for sure, especially with politics being what politics are. And I truly wish we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan right now and I do not really know why we are there, but we are there. And, in truth, we have always been somewhere. So as bad as it sounds and really is, we come home when we win, and we have to “really win” or we have to shortly go back again. And to win we have to kill people; as few or as many as it takes….and that is what makes war hell.
So, FTME, whether I am for or support these wars or not is not the issue for me. The issue for me is: I support the boys and girls we have sent over there and I want them to come home…..And I have already told you what they have to do to come home.
War is hell. Therefore, may God bring “our” children home and may He have mercy on “theirs.”
And now, a brief interruption to hijack this comment stream, from the author of the post…
VolFan says the South won. Which reminded me of the news from the University of Mississippi (or Ole Miss, as they are popularly known) that students recently voted (2,510 to 856) to change their mascot, because of negative cultural and historical connotations.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/feb/23/ole-miss-students-vote-start-looking-new-mascot/
All this in spite of a 94% student government vote for keeping the mascot the same just 7 years ago, in 2003.
See here: http://a.espncdn.com/page2/s/caple/030916.html
Does this story have anything to say to us regarding the possibility of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Now, back to the topic of the post…
David Rogers,
Technically, I didnt say the South won. I said that the South didnt lose. We just decided to not fight anymore.
Also, to take my comment and swing aaaaalllllll the way over to changing the name of the SBC was quite a swing over a big holler. I hope you didnt fall out and break your neck.
BTW, my great, great grandaddy rode with Gen. Nathan Beford Forrest in the War against Northern aggression. He was a sargeant in the General’s cavalry.
Also, out of the state of Alabama, the story goes that the Crimson Tide was getting whipped something fierce at halftime by the Penn State Nittany Lions one time. So, to get those boys fired up to play ball, Coach Bryant, in his half time speech, told those boys that those Yankees from Pennsylvania were the sons of those men, who came down here, and burned your grandaddy’s barns and cotton fields, stole their food, raped their grandmothers, and stole all of their whiskey. So, get out there and show them Yankees what for in the second half. Well, as they were they leaving the locker room, this big, ole, humongous offensive tackle walked up to Coach Bryant, with tears streaming from his eyes, and he said,”Coach Bryant, which one of them Yankees stole our liquor?”
That last joke was in honor of CB Scott.
David
Vol,
I did say I was hijacking the comment stream. I was not really responding to your comment. It just reminded me of this other story.
Speaking of Nathan Bedford Forrest, though, there is also a move to change the name of Nathan Bedford Forrest Park, in Memphis.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/mar/20/forrest-park-placed-on-historic-register/
Brother CB,
My call to you, as your brother, remains the same.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Just War theory would be a good topic for another post sometime, if someone were willing to take it on. I know I’m not prepared to, right now. But it is a topic I’d be interested in hearing different perspectives on, from people who take the Bible seriously, and claim to follow Christ.
You know what they say, Vol Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. My history books say that Ol’ Abe gave them rebels a sound spanking.
I’ve gotta go with Dave here (Yankee fan notwithstanding). If you surrender, you’ve lost.
BTW, I just read an account of the surrender at Appomattox. Dignity and respect on both sides.
David Rogers,
You asked if I was Theonomist / Reconstructionist
I really have not embraced the labels because very few understand the terms.
I usually use Sam Waldrons six false statements about Reconstuctionist to determine if the conversation proceedes.
I have yet to have one Southern Baptist not agree with
at least one of those errors.
This is how I would describe myself
A Reformed Baptist who is a member of a Southern Baptist church who believes in the Twin Mandates as Biblical.
Blessings
Robert I Masters
FTME,
Again, I understand you. I really do. And I wish that your heart could be the heart of the whole earth, but it is not. And because the whole earth does not have your heart, sometimes we have to have war.
At the same time FTME, you have to remember that some eyes have seen things your eyes have not and I pray yours never do. Never.
FTME, I know we have brothers and sisters over there. We have brothers and sisters in most all places and I pray for and support guys like you in hopes we have many, many more. But another issue that we must face is; Satan has many children in all places, and many of them run whole countries.
Brother please know that out of necessity for personal peace I have searched my heart and soul about this long ago. To the best of my understanding I am at peace with God on this and the journey was a long one and I have not taken it lightly.
David Rogers,
There is such a reality as a “just war.” But there is no such reality as a “good war.” All war is hell.
And David, I do take the Bible seriously. And I do follow Jesus.
I hope all you southerners know I was just kidding, right? I don’t want anyone going all crazy on me in Orlando.
Business took me to Washington DC this week and I have just returned. I took about 3 hours out of one day to walk around the Capital and down to the White House. There was even a rally at the Capital with some 2000 disgruntled fishermen with signs that said, “I FISH & I VOTE”. Everything had such high security that we could no longer enter the Capital or walk up to the fence of the White House. To me, that says something about how “politics” takes us further away from our original intent and purpose. I have to assume that political systems are self-destructive and will someday implode. I thought how our Nation now sits in a gridlock because of two (2) extreme and strong thoughts from both Republican and Democrat parties. I thought of how much power sits in the rooms of the Capital on a daily basis that cannot seem to get much done, at least, from what I hear on the news. The news is right, our system is broken and there is really nothing that can be done about it. As Christians, at this point, we will say that God can turn our nation around, but, I do not see that anywhere in scripture. It worked temporarily for Israel, but, not America. You see, it is not about America, it’s about God’s people, God’s elect. We are the ones who need to turn back to God and basically get out of the streams of politics. That is not the kingdom way of doing things and somehow we have missed it. Paul said, “For the kingdom of God [is] not in word but in power.” (1 Cor. 4:20) I think we need to figure out what kingdom this “power” works in and begin to place all of our focus on that. If we fight the world’s system with the world system processes we get the same results that the guys that fish get. The uncommon approach I find in God’s word is the use of a “staff”, 5 smooth stones, breaking of jars, 300 soldiers and so on. Now, we just look and sound like everyone else. We must be able to handle the familiar things like a slingshot called “Prayer” and be wise enough to realize that we have not proven any of the political armor the world wants us to fight with, and shouldn’t use anyway. We may make our vote count by choosing the lesser of the two evils but our greatest work is done in and through the church by the tools and power of the kingdom. If this is truly the last times, we are not going to make changes to anything as prophesy is fulfilled. Our main focus must be on something that does not fit the mold of our political system. In a way, we need to set aside the things we have been fighting so hard for and pray with the same effort and desire toward God and simply let Him set them up by parting the waters and allowing us to escape to the other side. It seems to me that God’s program has a better and successful ending than anything we can think or imagine.
Great post, David. For almost two (2) years now, God’s grace has been upon me about this and my spirit has been so sensitive toward the political drives within our nation and, especially, His church.
Brother CB,
I take you at your word that you do not hate those in Afghanistan or Iraq (including our enemies) and that you truly desire peace and I am praising God for this. Yet, I could never have gathered this from your flippant suggestion that we destroy the lives of 60,000,000 people. When it comes to such matters, please consider your words and their connotation(s).
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
There was nothing flippant about what I said. It just is what it is. War is hell. What is flippant maybe is that politicians just wave their hands in the air and send our sons and daughters off to war and then argue as to why they did it and who “tricked” them to vote that way in the first place.
Brother CB,
You said:
Then you said:
Maybe it is just me, but I cannot think of any other way of understanding such a quote in the context of the destruction of 60,000,000 people. However, I will take your word for it that you did not intend it in a flippant manner as I believe you to be an honest man and brother in Christ.
With that said, I have now shared with you my heart for a tone more reflective of your love for Muslims, our persecuted brothers and sisters and even your enemies when discussing such things. And now I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion. Last word to you…
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
FTME,
I did make that statement. That is true. And I constructed just as you quoted.
But here is the difference in your understanding of it and your understanding of it.
In a later comment I said: “….you have to remember that some eyes have seen things your eyes have not and I pray yours never do. Never.”
FTME, within in that statement is is the reason you see my original statement as flippant and I do not. And let me say; I hope you never have a reason to think the statement anything other than flippant as long as you live.
Bruce, I thought that was a very good comment above.
CB,
I think what FTME is asking for is that you reconsider your mindset from a Biblical, rather than practical or political, perspective. How is what you’re saying consistent with the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies, turn the cheek, and return good for evil.
Granted, war is hell. From a typical American political mindset it makes sense that we save “ours” and let “theirs” burn. But this is hardly a Christian mindset.
Furthermore, even if we must participate in war, it should be with a tremendous sense of sorrow, not “this is what war looks like and so let’s just deal with it,” which is certainly the attitude you have.
Andrew H.,
Don’t you think it would be more fair to CB to say, “which, from my perspective, seems to be the attitude you have”?
David,
Thanks for the nuance, but any time I am writing, I assume the reader knows that it is from my perspective. Again, as FTME said earlier, “it seems,” “from my perspective,” that CB is being flippant about killing 60 million people. It is hard to interpret his comments another way. See below.
“But another issue that we must face is; Satan has many children in all places, and many of them run whole countries.”
“And once you get into a real “killing war” no matter the size of the war or the factors that brought you into it, the only way you can get to go home is to win it. And to win it, you have to kill people.”
“War is hell. Therefore, may God bring “our” children home and may He have mercy on “theirs.””
“How to deal with Iraq or Afghanistan?? I heard someone mention sea of glass and sea of glass”
As I just got through posting over on the comment stream on Rastis’ post on The Camel Method, that conversation got me to thinking about a few items that tie in both to his post, and to this one.
In Spain, whenever new missionaries arrived, or volunteer teams from the States, one of the things we always tried to “coach” them about was how they talked with Spaniards about capital punishment and gun control. In normal conversations, those are issues that easily come up between Americans and Spaniards, and the opinions of the typical Spaniard on those topics are usually very different than the opinions of typical Southern Baptists. But, if you allow yourself to get drawn in to a discussion on these issues right off the bat, you often end up closing the door to discussions about the gospel. Another typical question (though, Spaniards would usually try to be discreet in the way they asked it) was, “Who did you vote for?”, or, more to the point, “Did you vote for Bush?”
On all of these issues, there is a balance between full disclosure and honesty, and avoiding things that are unpopular in a given cultural context, and that are not really essentials of the gospel, in order to not put a stumbling block in the way of being able to share in a meaningful way about the gospel. If someone asks you, point blank, though, it is never a good thing to be less than honest. It is important, however, in my opinion, to be as tactful as we can, to not major on minors, and to have good sound reasoning (that makes sense to someone from a different cultural context) to back up our positions on different issues like this. It is sometimes good to clarify, “That is just a personal opinion of mine, and is not really tied in to my religious beliefs, per se.”
A similar question is the use of alcohol. As IMB missionaries, we all pledge to be total abstainers on the field. So, that is not an issue at stake. To not do so, would be a lack of integrity. However, the way we communicate our choice to abstain to Spaniards when they offer us alcohol, or ask about why we do not drink, is very important. It is much easier for them to accept it, if we present it as a personal preference, rather than a religious conviction. Also, if we do present it as a religious conviction, we run the risk of communicating, from their perspective, that total abstinence is an essential requirement of our religion, thus placing an unbiblical stumbling block in front of our presentation of the gospel. None of this is merely hypothetical. These issues are the daily “bread and butter” of what missionaries in places like Western Europe have to deal with.
With Muslims, there are other issues, as Rastis, and others in the comment stream over there on his post, will be discussing. But, I think there are parallels, as we talk about the general issue of missionary contextualization and full disclosure.
Thank you, Dave.
I am encouraged by your reply.
Bruce
Andrew H,
I would ask you to go back and read every comment I made to FTME in its entirety. Don’t cherry pick what I have said.
If you will do that you may realize that for you to suggest I lack a “tremendous sense of sorrow….” is an error of judgment on your part as to my position.
Also, I was not describing “what war looks like….” I was describing what war “is.”
Many people talk about what war “looks” like from various perspectives. But war is one thing; war is hell. And without “tremendous sorrow” you will not fully understand that reality.
Also notice what I said to David Rogers in comment 117. Brother, even if a war is just, it is never good.
But, in the end here today, I would really appreciate you guys not saying I have a “flippant ” position about war or that I don’t think biblically. That is poor analysis on your part.
David Rogers,
You asked about a just war. Daniel Heimbach there at SEBTS has written well relating to the subject. Check out his position when given opportunity.
Ed Young’s Tax Policy and DAvid Rogers concerns about Political Idolatry
Would be very fascinating indeed if David has the time to navigate these exceptions in this link
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15617
to this former President of the SBC’s Sermon on Tax Policy.
Stephen,
Romans 14