;)
Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions, News & Culture
What perspective should we, as Christians, take toward culture? What is the basic task to which we, as Christians, have been called here on Earth? How should we relate, in our attitudes, actions, and priorities, to the world around us? Should Christians be involved in politics? What is the ultimate goal of Christian missions? The answers to these questions are complex. And, there is nothing close to unanimity among those who claim to follow Christ as to how best to answer them. Yet, the repercussions are very significant, and affect at a fundamental level many of the choices we make, in our everyday life, as Christians.
The Background of the Discussion
I am not the first to think and write about these questions. Far from it. One of the most significant and influential contributions to the on-going discussion is H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic, Christ and Culture, published in 1951. More recently, D. A. Carson advanced the discussion with the 2008 release of Christ and Culture Revisited. I do not pretend to be anywhere remotely close to being in the same league with these theological giants. The issues are so complex it is tempting to leave commenting on them to those who are more qualified than I. Yet, as I have mulled over these questions, I have come up with some thoughts I would like to offer for discussion.
Niebuhr, in his seminal work that has framed much of the subsequent discussion, describes five different general approaches that Christians of various stripes, throughout the centuries, have adopted, which he designates as Christ against Culture, The Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ the Transformer of Culture. One of the most significant observations to be gleaned from Niebuhr is that, even though we are not always aware of it, each one of us comes from one general perspective or another on these particular questions that colors the way we approach the specifics; and, if we are able to understand the model from which one is operating, we will have significant insight into the motives behind the positions he/she takes on various issues. Rather than taking the space here to review each of these different models, and potentially misrepresent or oversimplify Niebuhr’s thesis, I refer you to Niebuhr’s book itself, Carson’s review of Niebuhr’s models in his book, and/or the audio files available on-line of the interesting lectures that Carson has given on this subject. A briefer synopsis of Niebuhr can be found here.
The Transformationist Model
Most (not all) Christians today would be in agreement that the first two models—Christ against Culture and The Christ of Culture—are overly extreme, one being overly reactionary, and the other overly accommodating. According to Carson (and, no doubt, many others), the model favored by Niebuhr himself (though he seeks to maintain a semblance of personal detachment in his presentation), and one that has become increasingly popular among Christians of various theological and political convictions—both on the right and the left—is the Transformationist model. The basic premise of this model is that, as Christians, though we live in a fallen world, in which evil exerts a great amount of influence, we are called to be salt and light, exercising a redemptive influence over the structures of this world, letting the leaven of Christian ethics and morality work its way through the lump, and contributing toward the progressive and eventual Christianization of culture and society.
As I understand it, the extreme version of this model, on the right, is that of the Reconstructionists/Dominionists/Theonomists, and, on the left, that of Liberation Theology. However, there are many others a step or two toward the middle, both among conservatives (“Culture Warriors,” and “Seven Mountains” crusaders), as well as among more liberal versions of Christianity (some “Emerging” Christians, and even some—not all!—who would prefer the label “Missional”), who would not answer, strictly speaking, to either of these descriptions, yet who, in their basic approach to these issues, follow a Transformationist model.
The Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture Model
Personally, as I study Scripture, and reflect on what it says, I am not totally convinced by the Transformationist model. In what follows, I would like to present an alternative model that I call Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture. Though the name itself, and the description I give of this view, are mine, I don’t pretend the basic ideas behind anything I say here are original. If they are truly biblical, they cannot, at the same time, be truly original. Besides this, various others have already articulated a view, which, though not using the exact same language, is very similar, in many aspects, to mine. From what I have read, and listened to, of Carson, for example, I would consider him to be among these. Also, I recently heard an excellent message online by J. D. Greear, touching on many of these same issues, with which I resonate very much. However, I don’t presume to speak for either of them as to their level of agreement with everything I write here.
Our Understanding of the Terms Christ and Culture
Key to a good understanding of the various perspectives one may take on Christ and Culture is the definition given to the terms Christ and culture themselves. In the model I am proposing, I take as determinative for our understanding of the term Christ the commission of Jesus to His disciples, and, consequently to the Church throughout the centuries, in John 20:21, in which He sends them to carry out the same task with which the Father had sent Him. As the Body of Christ on Earth, we are His hands, feet, eyes, and ears, continuing on, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the same work that He inaugurated in His first advent. We do not yet, however, represent Christ in His post-second advent role as sovereign Ruler, which remains to be manifested at a later date.
As far as culture is concerned, I see a significant parallel with what the New Testament, in many passages*, calls the world, encompassing the structures, thought systems, and godless values that comprise the present world order. This, however, does not preclude the appropriation and use of such cultural elements as music, art, and literature for the glory of God. For example, when we speak of Christ against Culture, we do not mean to imply the idea that Christ is opposed to music, art, and literature, etc., in and of themselves, as independent categories. These are, rather, neutral elements that may be used equally in the service of Christ and His Kingdom as well as in the propagation of the godless value system we call the world.
Called to Suffer
Having made that clear, the first aspect of the Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture approach is the recognition that, as Christians, we are called to suffer here on this earth. Though there have been certain times and places down through history in which professing Christians have been more accepted and less persecuted than at other times and in other places, and there have been assorted seasons of spiritual awakening impacting the general attitude toward Christianity in a given time and place, this is not the norm, either from the standpoint of history, or the Bible. At times, the advance of Christendom has, ironically, been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the persecution of authentic Christian disciples. Bible prophecy, as I understand it, does not present a view of the end-times that would lead us to expect this reality to one day disappear or gradually diminish as history progresses. It would appear that Jesus’ words describing the path that leads to life as narrow, and those that find it few, are just as applicable in the end-times as they were in the time He first pronounced them.
Called to Rescue the Perishing
The next aspect of this approach is the call to “seek and to save those which are lost,” rescuing them from the cruel dominion of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and calling them to come out and be separate from the ungodly structures and systems of the world, symbolically depicted, in Revelation 16-19, as Babylon the Great. However, those who are rescued are not rescued solely for an existence of eternal bliss in the fully consummated Kingdom of God in the age to come. They are also called to live this present life as signposts of the coming Kingdom as members of an alternative community, in which they grow together in faith, hope, and love, continually experiencing spiritual healing, and ministering it one to another in the therapeutic community that is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Called to Serve
Closely related to the call to “rescue the perishing” is the call to serve. It is at this juncture that the Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant model departs significantly from the Christ against Culture model. While it is true that culture, inasmuch as we equate it with the structures and systems of this world, will almost always set itself up in opposition to uncompromising Christian discipleship, the calling and purpose of Christians, in this present dispensation, is not to condemn those who are presently subject to this world, but to lead them to salvation through faith in Christ, who came to “give his life as a ransom for many.” As those sent out by Jesus, in the same way as He Himself was sent by the Father, we identify with His call “not to be served, but to serve,” and to direct this service to the very ones among whom we are to live as candles in the midst of the darkness.
In the Midst of Culture
As faithful suffering servants, we do not isolate ourselves from the world around us, and the dire condition of those who groan under the oppression of its cruel taskmasters. We are not passive quietists living our own lives, and minding our own business, separated from those we are seeking to rescue. No! The love of Christ constrains us to actively and enthusiastically pour ourselves out in acts of service and practical kindness, following the example of our Lord, who healed the sick, and set the captives free, and graciously showered His love upon them, during His first advent here on Earth.
Called to Be Faithful
As faithful suffering servants, we also patiently wait for the consummation of the Kingdom in the day when our Lord returns to judge the wicked and the just, and establish His visible rule over all the cultures and structures of this earth. In the meantime, we refrain from seeking to forcibly introduce the Kingdom of God, with its ultimate implications, ahead of time, cognizant of the fact that on those occasions when Christians have sought to exercise dominion over the structures of this world independent of the physical presence of Jesus Himself to take charge and rule the nations with an iron rod of justice, the end result has more often than not proven disastrous for the true advance of kingdom values. None of this means that, in the meantime, we refrain in any way from actively rescuing the perishing, diligently working toward the edification of the community of the redeemed, and passionately serving the needy and oppressed in our midst to the very best of our ability, with the strength and wisdom the Holy Spirit gives us. Indeed, we seek to be the most faithful stewards we possibly can, knowing the way we live our lives here on Earth will have momentous consequences for eternity.
——————————–
*See, for example, Matthew 4:8; Luke 12:30; John 8:23, 12:31, 15:18, 16:33, 17:6-19, 18:36; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 2:12, 11:32; 2 Corinthians 10:1-6; Galatians 4:3, 6:14; Ephesians 2:2, 6:12; Colossians 2:8, 20; James 1:27, 4:4; 2 Peter 1:4, 2:20; 1 John 2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1-6; 5:4-5, 19.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I just read Al Mohler’s post this morning on Glenn Beck’s recent call for Americans to leave churches that place an emphasis on “social justice” or “economic justice.” Overall, I am very pleased with the way Mohler, often vocal on “culture warrior” issues, has addressed that. He says many of the same things in his post that I say here, and I find nothing that he says with which I disagree, technically. My only observation is that, in addition to calling out Beck’s impropriety for treating this issue in a shallow manner, and liberal churches for replacing the centrality of the gospel with a social and political agenda, he doesn’t really say anything about conservative churches and Christians who are basically doing the same thing from the other side of the political fence. That is a big part of my point here: it doesn’t matter if we are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat–if we replace the gospel itself, with its implications for the transformation of the lives of individuals, with an agenda to “Christianize” culture and society, we have gotten off-track of what we, as Jesus’ disciples, have been called to do.
Comment Preview
David:
Raised in Upstate South Carolina I was challenged by two books at an early age Liston Pope’s Millhands and Preachers from the 30’s and then the early 70’s revisit Spindles and Spires. What is the prophetic word of a preacher in a textile Town; and how much can he prophesy and keep his job; and how much can his children think about it without everything coming undone.
Summer of 1970 in a summer job I got to be friends of the son of the Most powerful textile magnate in the country; man close to William F Buckley; the textile magnate reputedly commandeered Goldwater to run in 64, and gave more money to Nixon in 72 than any other man in America.
I visitted in my friends home on one occasion and saw the pictures of his Dad in top level national budget meetings with Nixon.
So I got to thinking about things like cotton dust levels in textile mills and fair wages and such.
The man’s son and I had an email exchange last fall. We’re friends, though we travel in different circles.
I recently had conversation with another fellow who is gaining national acclaim in his circles. His family was raised in textile labor. I hope good hopes my efforts to explore the ascending writer’s world will be published in a few months.
I think it will.
That said, as is no surprise to you; I am convinced Robert Parham has a better answer for your question than Richard Land. As you know for a while they both worked together in Foy Valentine’s CLC before the SBC broke in two.
Today as an example Parham spotlights four topics from Glenn Beck to fears of violence swelling up on the outskirts of the Tea Party movement and what is the proper response.
I encourage all of you to take a look at Parham’s page today at http://www.ethicsdaily.com
In the Baptist Battles I got acquainted with Reinhold Niebuhr’s Great Nephew, Gus Niebuhr. Gus has recently written a book, Beyond Tolerance with 10 excellent pages about Louisville, Ky’s civic community and how Baptists at their best before 1990 were a progressive influence there for the common good.
And I must say that Baptist Preacher’s son Marshall Frady who many consider to be the greatest social justice journalist of the last half of the 20th Century was a strong influence. His take on Billy Graham has recently been nuanced by Steven Miller’s book on Graham and Nixon, Race, and the Rise of the Southern GOP.
A historical study by Christine Heyrman whose title escapes me right now is a must read for you. It studies how Political pressure forced Protestant clergy in the South to compromise their convictions on Slavery roughly between 1780 and 1840.
And my friend Helen Lee Turner wrote a great essay, from her doctoral dissertation at UVA in early 80’s about the CR in the SBC as a reaction to the 60’s. Her essay is in Nancy Ammerman’s editted collection of scholary works on the Conservative Resurgence, Baptists Observed.
For further study and deepening of your topic I commend all these sources to you.
In my next comment I have a question for you about Judge Pressler and Ten Commandments of Alabama Judge Roy Moore.
Could be a fireball of a topic you have opened up here; another one back to back with Miller on Inerrancy; speaking of which, not to mix apples and oranges but as that one is winding down toward the end of that round I discoverd Jim Denison of Texas, answered all his questions about Inerrancy unsoundness in 1995; which Marv Knox confirmed in 2001 in a link I left for Miller to consider.
David,
How does this fit in with Strider’s vision of Revelation 11:15 that he posted last week?
If Glen had read Strider’s post, would he have identified him as a liberal because his ministry seems to have “social” issues at the core? I think Mohler was spot on with his critque of Beck.
Thanks for sharing this post today.
Stephen,
Though I wasn’t very active in the comment thread in Dave Miller’s last post, I did read your interchanges with him (with the exception of the comments he deleted, or is still holding in moderation). Your comment here is, at least, for the most part, on topic. For that, I thank you. Also, I recognize that, from time to time, a very relevant link can help to further a particular discussion and shed light on a particular aspect of it. I myself posts links from time to time in comments on comment threads.
Where I share in Dave’s frustration with your commenting patterns is that you rarely interact personally with the topic of the post. Even here, in this comment on this post, though you do direct us to some relevant thoughts of others, and share a few human interest anecdotes, you have not let us know what you think about the actual points I make in my post. I am not even asking that you agree with me. I (and Dave, as I understand him) just ask that you participate in the actual discussion we are attempting to have–not divert it into another discussion, or muddy the waters by continually referring us to other resources that are, at best, only tangentially related to the actual topic being discussed.
What, for example, do you personally think of the “Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture” model I present here? Do you think it is a good representation of what the Bible actually teaches on these issues? Would you word it differently, or make some adjustments, if you had to come up with your own model on the relationship of Christ and culture?
Rick,
My concern related to Rev. 11:15, as I tried to communicate on the comment thread on Strider’s post, is interpreting that verse from a “realized eschatology” viewpoint. Though I, in many ways, am sympathetic with the “already-not yet” schema articulated by Ladd (and many others), I see the transformation of culture (at least, in the way I have defined it here in this post) as something that will take place after Jesus returns, and not before. The “kingdom(s) of this world will become of our Lord and of His Christ,” when He returns to set up His Kingdom on Earth. In the end, I don’t hear Strider as necessarily disagreeing with this, though. I think, perhaps, we are really saying the same thing, as expressed by me here in my points about being “in the midst” of culture, and actively serving those who still live in darkness.
I’m not sure what Beck would think if he were to read Strider’s post. I don’t really listen to a whole lot of what Beck has to say, anyway. I wonder if he would make a distinction between “social justice” in places like “Middle Earth” and “social justice” in the good ‘ole US of A?
David,
I’m wondering if you are tying the eschaton, the end, of the matter to a method, rather than an outcome.
As I read today’s post (and thank you for posting it as an expansion of the thoughts in the comment stream from last week), I see that you pit the suffering servitude of Jesus against the dominionist/restorationist militants. (Sadly, I cannot use the CR acronym for Christian Reconstructionists as it has already been coopted. I guess, I’ll just call them Recons for short.) Granted, recons have a particular outcome in mind that stems from a legislative and political agenda, but more importantly, their methods are antithetical to those of the Christ who said, “My kingdom is not of this world or else my followers would fight for it.” I think it is good to oppose their methods and for that I applaud this post.
However, I do question a blurring of distinctions when it comes to outcomes. For instance, if we are faithful in suffering servanthood and we are diligent in executing the Work of God in this world, what will the outcome be?
Jesus said he had to be about his Father’s Business. That business appears to be the building of the Kingdom through the establishment of a congregation of people (commonly referred to in English as the “church”) to accomplish what is articulated in Jesus’ declaration of the gospel In Luke 4 as:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
And he said that it was fulfilled that day in their hearing. Since he has made this declaration we have seen tremendous strides in society in areas of orphan care, care of the widows and elderly, the unborn, slaves, women, etc. We are seeing transformation and it is affecting the whole world, even though they aren’t Christian. Little Muslim girls are attending school in Afghanistan – something that has NEVER happened before. Slavery is regarded worldwide as EVIL, not a societal institution like in Paul’s day. These and many others, whether it be the existence of hospitals or capitalism or the rule of law or democracy — all are direct or indirect results of the leavening influence of Christianity.
Is it possible to affirm your method of suffering servanthood while also acknowledging the gradual growth of the mustard seed that is spreading through the earth and the birds of the field are nesting in its branches (even though they may not be actually “in” the kingdom)? Are we seeing the church accomplishing in the NT age what the nation of Israel had been tasked with but failed to do in providing an example that inspired humanity to pursue the better angels of God’s nature?
Can we not affirm the outcome of a visible rule and reign of Jesus Christ in the hearts of men in a community of believers and call that the triumph of the Kingdom?
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating we all rush out and become postmillennialists. For that matter, I personally avoid any millennialist schema as I am not altogether convinced that anyone has it exactly right yet. But I think we can see that the gospel as Jesus articulated it is spreading. At least on the scale of the last two millennia it has been. And the places where we’ve seen epic failure are those who would institute a top down Reconstructive type of government, whether it be the Munster Kingdom or our own Shakers here in the US. Recons of all stripes will fail because of their methods. But conversely, the quiet spread of suffering servanthood is both inexorable and unstoppable and visible to the discerning eye.
David:
Your last paragraph is strong, and passionately stated in the best tradition of the Rogers legacy.
But as you suggest, we live in a real world and have to make political decisions on an imperfect calculus.
That is where I come down with Robert Parham over Mohler and Richard Land.
I find it most fascinating that you and Billy Graham’s Grandson Tully Tchividjian are exploring the same ballpark contemporaneously.
I offer this link not as an irritant but out of my fascination with the exploration you have ignited here.
http://www.crpc.org/blog/?p=801
Tully has a great quote in about comment 8 of the discussion there, roughly
I want to write the songs of nations, without regard to who writes its laws.
I think the two of you are talking the same language.
Stephen,
What do you see on this blog that is contradistinctive from Mohler’s approach to culture? I don’t get the impression from him that he has a “hunker in the bunker” attitude at all, nor do I find him as militantly politcal as say Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Feel free to illuminate me on the differences you see between Tully and Al.
As for the quote, this sounds like something Bono lives by. I’m by nature contrarian (I know – this comes as a shock to everyone)so Bono’s adulation is almost a sure way to get me not to listen to him. Instead, I purchased one of the finest protest albums in recent year, The Proclaimers “Life With You” (2007) which might tickle your fancy if you have a thing for Scottish duos. If nothing else, I’d recommend reading the lyrics for a decent helping of social commentary.
Of course this discussion lends itself well to the Lewis quote stating that our world does not need more good Christian writers (or musicians, or artists, or etc.) but that it needs more good writers who are Christian. I think John Grisham fits the bill nicely as he does release his Christian literature through Christian channels. On the flip side, Coleman Luck got his book “Angel Fall” yanked from Zondervan precisely because it didn’t “fit” the genre. One of the best dark fantasy novels dealing with theological themes since Ted Dekker’s color books.
Talking Ball park here, Rick; trying to honor your question with a reply
1)Roughly Parham coalesces in these matters in the world of the Christian Century and Sojourners; where Mohler is in the world of James Dobson, Francis Schaeffer and DJ Kennedy and what’s his face out in Texas, World Magazine.
Marvin Olasky
Mohler may be attempting to smoothe out his reputation a little from the Karl Rove Days with Land with this moderate distancing from Glenn Beck.
Still, Mohler has a lot of explaining to do to the likes of Barry Hankins and DAvid Gushee and Carey Newman on these matters.
May pick up on that later with reference to Billy Graham and Steven Miller’s recent and highly celebrated look at Billy and the Southern GOP; an advanced nuance.
The quote Tully used was not Bono; and what I understand of Tully’s branch of the Graham family, it is more like Mohler’s; though there is some infighting between DJ’s daughter and Tully’s folks at Coral Ridge; but I think that has more to do with Kennedy’s daughter’s vanity than with a World View.
3) I am growing to be more enamored with NT Wright, than CS Lewis; at minimum Wright is more timely than Lewis.
4) Oscar Romero of 80′s El Salvador in my book is a Saint; and Jesse Helms has a lot of explanation to do if you want to incarnate the religious cultural divide in reallives as it played out in the SBC matrix of the 80′s.
5)If you are interested in novels that intersect the grand themes of the Bible, then google into the heart of the works of Ron Rash with search for Shelton Laurel Massacre in World Made STraight; and then get a copy of World Made STraight, and then you will most likely want to read Serena, if for nothing else his great end time Preacher in there, MacIntyre. The Preacher is not the central charact by any means, but developed roundly enough to be most memorable.
At least he was for me.
And see what you make of Rachel in the novel as an exilic character like her namesake in the Old Testament.
And google Suttree as a Barefoot Jesus. Great oblique look into the world of Cormac McCarthy.
Rick,
Your comment #6 is very thought-provoking, and really gets down to the core of the issues I am discussing here. I thought about how best to reply, and have come up with the following way: I have posted over at my personal blog a new post including a review I wrote last year on Vol. 7 of Latourette’s “A History of the Expansion of Christianity.”
Here is the link: http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/review-of-latourettes-history-of.html
I think it frames the context quite nicely for the actual points we are discussing here. It is a bit lengthy, so if you don’t have time to read it all right now, I totally understand. In any case, here is a relevant snippet I have copied from my introdution to my post over there, which might serve to further the conversation:
“The main point I am wishing to illustrate, through my posting of this, is that the question of the advance of the gospel, and of the Christian movement, across the centuries, and around the world, is complex, and made up of many ebbs and flows, in which it has seemed, at times, we were taking three steps forward, and two steps back, and, at other times, two steps forward, and three steps back. All in all, I personally (not necessarily Latourette) would argue that, little by little, the Great Commission is being fulfilled, and we have warrant, both historically and biblically, to think that it eventually will be fulfilled to the degree Jesus intended and envisioned when He gave it. However, that does not necessarily entail, along with it, the Christianization of the world, or the the total transformation of culture or the societies in which culture is rooted.”
David,
I will get to the post a bit later as my lunch hour will end soon and I don’t want to dive into something I won’t be able to finish at a sitting.
Your salient point, however, is: “However, that does not necessarily entail, along with it, the Christianization of the world, or the total transformation of culture or the societies in which culture is rooted.”
I concur.
And discussion of what that looks like exactly can lead us down many paths. The most dangerous of which seems to be, for Americans anyway, the identification of where biblical theology leaves off and Baptist culture takes hold. One way to spot it is to see what Christianity looks like in other cultures. Strider gives us a hint of this. “The Jesus Sutras” give us another hint. Historical studies like “The Radical Reformation” give us yet another. Lots to talk about there. Would like to hear some other voices on this.
David, this is one of the best posts I have ever read. I recently had a lengthy (cordial and productive, I hope) exchange with Rastis over Christ and culture.
I may have some questions or comments later, but right now I just want to say thank you and amen.
Stephen,
FYI & FWIW, I just got through reading the article you mention by Parham over at Ethics Daily. At least, I think it was the one. With the obligatory caveat that I don’t necessarily sign on to everything Parham has to say, even on related issues, I found myself basically in agreement with what he wrote there about a growing culture of hate in the U.S., and some of the things that may be contributing toward it.
However, on the same Ethics Daily page I also found an article by Miguel de la Torre, commenting on Beck’s recent proclamation, that basically lays out a classic defense of the Transformationist approach from the left that I reference, and disagree with, on my post here. He also posits the typical false dichotomy that those who don’t go along with his Transformationist perspective either come from a Christ against Culture perspective, or a quietist, isolationist perspective. A good part of my intention with my post here is to tear down the assumptions behind that false dichotomy.
Dave,
Thanks. It is sincerely an honor for me that you would say that. And, I look forward to any comments or questions you might add.
It doesn’t look like we’re going to reach 290 comments on this one, though.
Stephen, when someone quotes the SPLF about racism, their judgement is suspect. The SPLF is one of the most racist organizations in America. They see racism is nearly every idea contrary with theirs.
Now, I understand that there are always those who attach themselves to any movement seeking to advance their own agenda. Skinheads, Nazi sympathizers, et al. But to use the SPLF as an authoritative source reeks of left wing propaganda and immediately discredits the pundit in the eyes of a significant segment of America.
Of course, Parham and I don’t see eye to eye on many issues anyway, so my bias must be worked through in order to appreciate any article by him.
Interesting story up today at religiondispatches about Ralph Reed hovering around the Tea Party Movement.
Will be interesting to see how the folks in the Manhattan Declaration network tack in regard what appears to be some upcoming overtures from Ralph Reed. That will limn the realpolitik of Al Mohler it seems to me as in my mind Mohler, and Richard Land worked closely with Reed and Karl Rove to the best political effect of the culture issues during the Bush 41-43 era.
Maybe they will have a new more detached relationship with the Tea Parties.
Like Rasberry, I have some reservations about the group De La Torre referenced.
De La Torre was in breakout session of the Atlanta Covenant meeting of 2008 with President Carter. In fact I was in same room with President Carter with one of the Hispanic Justice advocates; maybe not De La Torre but he was there best I remember.
Who’s to say on any given day just what passion and prophetic pronouncements in the name of God are prudent.
The Samford Proff’s Blessed are the Peacemakers about the 8 White Ministers to Whom MLKing Jr. sent the letter from the Bham Jail is prime example of that.
And Oscar Romero was the Saint when it came to El Salvador in the 80′s and Pope John, for all his great witness against communism in Poland was of lesser virtue in his chastisement of Romero.
So it weaves here and there, and none of us know how we will act till faced with it in incarnated ways.
The recent movie Blood Done Sign My Name is great personal reference for facing similar dilemmas to a lesser degree in South Carolina in the early 70′s.
Forgive my wandering musings; before I knew it I started testifying.
I have tried to bring the religion dispatches writer Posner; tried to bring this site and blog to her attention.
Will be interesting indeed if this conversation evolves to include her; even Gus Niebuhr.
May not be entirely appropo, but what was it Maya Angelou said at Coretta Scott King’s funeral and I roughly paraphrase:
I called on the Lord and
he spoke to me
And we shall see
What the End will be.
David,
I believe that most conservative Southern Baptist Pastor types, are more engaged in political activism than they themselves prefer. Placing myself in that category, we would prefer to so mold believers that they would be active in the affairs of community, and while exercising their spiritual gifts so impact the community as to actually be an effective flavoring, preservative, and light.
I believe God has chosen to use America to export the Good News. I think it ludicrous to believe that we have attained such stature on the world stage through the puny efforts, or intellectual acumen of sinful men. Rather, it seems to me God has chosen to raise up a nation at such a time as this where we could develop the natural resources He has provided for the export of His Message to the world at large.
I further believe God will take His hand off us as His instrument if we turn completely from that task. Therefore, I feel compelled to impress upon those who God has given me responsibility for to work diligently to preserve the freedoms so unique to our country. Not that we might be free, because we might be better individual disciples should we not have our personal freedom, but that we might continue to develop the resources of the land and convert them into such currency as makes for effective dissemination of God’s Word.
Now, I’m not sure what category that places me in. I love America. I was a Marine in Vietnam, once a Marine, always a Marine. I consider myself patriotic. However, I’m willing for America to fall, if it will advance the cause of Christ in this world. My experience with Believers in the world’s two most populous countries, has convinced me that a “Bill of Rights” is not essential to living effective lives for Christ. It is essential to maintaining the freedom to export The Gospel. I’m an activist for that reason.
David,
I grew up in a “the world is evil” Baptist church and home – not so much legalistic, but certainly with the idea that we live in a sinful world and need to be aware of the effects that sinful world can have on us.
I have perhaps broadened my view a little, but never left that behind. And to be honest, until I began discussing it with Rastis, and reading this, haven’t really challenged my viewpoint much.
I see things the following way, tell me what you think of what I think.
1) Humanity was created in God’s image in a world of beauty and joy. Human nature was originally a beautiful, godly thing. I would say from this that music, arts, beauty, creativity – these things are not inherently evil. In fact, they are part of the nobility of those created in the image of God.
2) Adam and Eve embraced sin. Not only was the image of God marred in some way and our nature turned toward sin, but the world suffered the curse of sin. This means that there is a tendency to use those abilities and ideas that God put in us in sinful ways.
3) The world has been sown down with Satan’s lies and the “god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers.” Jesus told us that the world that hated him will also hate us.
4) I like the “transformational” idea. We need to be in our culture, in our world for the purposes of transformation. Ultimately, our goal is to be a part of God’s mission of transformation. We cannot accomplish that through total separation from culture, but neither can we accomplish this through excessive submersion in our culture.
5) So, as Christians, we are in a world which originally was created for God’s glory but is now under Satan’s deception and dominion. That means that human expression, creativity, arts, mindset, etc may not be inherently evil but are likely under this deception. We are strangers and aliens – our loyalty is to Christ not to our nation or our culture.
Still working through this. I think my mind is so steeped in the old-style “world is evil” mentality.
Mike,
I think the very first post I wrote here at sbcIMPACT, entitled “The Role of the American Church in World Missions,” speaks to several things you say in your last comment. I would be interested to hear your response:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2007/09/08/the-role-of-the-american-church-in-world-missions/
It seems odd to me that the way to make a more effective contribution to the task of world missions is through greater political activism at home, so that we will be richer, and, then, be able to send more of our riches overseas. Is that what you are saying? If so, sorry. But, I don’t buy that.
Dave,
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be torn between various aspects of the Christ against Culture model, and the Christ, the Transformer of Culture model. What I am proposing here is an alternative, which, although sharing some characteristics of each of these, is not beholden to either. While in the past of much of Evangelical life, the Christ against Culture model may have been the biggest culprit for getting us off-track in our ultimate mission, I believe that today (with the exception of a few extreme fundamentalist groups) the Transformationist model, due to its appeal both on the right and the left, has more potential to get us off-track, and is largely responsible for doing just that in many, many cases.
David,
I see no conflict between your position and mine according to the referenced post. I’m not sure what you’re “not buying.”
It seems odd to me that anyone would eschew that political action at home which make possible a wider forum for the message of Jesus Christ.
Certainly I believe God will work His ultimate will, but I also believe He allows us to make choices upon which our usefulness in the conduct of His work is dependent, both nationally and individually.
Living in a country where one has opportunity to impact policy is a matter of stewardship, I believe. That I believe said policy should reflect a desire, on the part of Believers, to facilitate the spread of the Gospel rather than the accumulation of personal wealth, should not be a cause of disagreement in my opinion.
Dave,
You said a great deal that actually informs last week’s posts. It helps to know your background, even as sketchy as you laid it out, and where you are coming from.
Thank you.
I was raised in a very legalistic family where the world was evil (with the exception of some personal preferences of my pastor/father) and we were to avoid compromise and be separated. It was when I started reading Francis Schaeffer that I learned to appreciate the arts from a Christian perspective. Ever since then, I’ve been more sympathetic with the approach that by my late father-in-law who believed that God made man upright but he has sought many inventions.
I have learned to find beauty where it exists. A lot of artists are perverts of the worst kind, whether they are musician, actors, painters, or whatever. However, they have enough of the image of God stamped in their souls that they are still able to create beauty. We live in a fallen world and I do not mean to excuse sin, but at the same time, I don’t think we benefit the cause of Christ by stamping out smoldering wicks or snapping bruised reeds in two. Rather, the beauty that they create is often a door to their heart for the gospel. Unless we learn to see beauty, appreciate it, and embrace it for what it is – a marred image of the indelible stamp of God in their lives – we will only alienate ourselves from those whose hearts God may be trying through us to redeem.
Few Baptists I know have any real appreciation for the arts, literature, ballet, sculpture, etc. I have my suspicions why this is, but in the end I think it is tragic.
To be honest, David, I am just trying to figure out what I believe on all this. I like what you say. On a lot of things, I’m pretty settled doctrinally and comfortable in my position. I think on this one I’m still wavering. I hear someone advocate one side and say, “That makes some sense.” then I hear someone speak on the other side and say, “Yeah, sounds good.”
Hate it when someone requires me to think – especially on a Monday!
By the way, if the end result of all this stuff is that being a Christian requires that I attend opera – NO WAY!
Mike,
If I understand you correctly (I keep saying this, because I realize that perhaps not), it sounds like you are making a “the end justifies the means” type of argument. I think, we must ask, first of all, whether the political activism we are engaging in, in and of itself, is what God really intends for us as His children. I am not necessarily saying “yes” or “no” here. I guess what I am saying is that, if the motivation for that political action is to help usher in a transformed culture, that it is, although perhaps well-intentioned, likely misguided, and a distraction from what we should really be about. If, however, the motivation is more out of rescuing people from darkness, serving them, and restoring them to wholeness, whether spiritual, physical, social, or emotional, then that may well be a good thing, and something well worthy of our efforts. When we ask ourselves these questions, we must seek to be as brutally honest as we can, though.
And, I’m not really sure how keeping America economically prosperous plays into the overall agenda of God for eternity. It sounds a little too close to the prosperity gospel to me.
Mike Rasberry’s Marine Testimony in comment 17 I found interesting.
One of my heroes in my family in Uncle Fremont, buried In Arlington Cemetery, though he was not a Marine.
And I have a cousin who is fighter pilot,and another a Navigator.
Not too many years younger than Rasberry I found the testimony of James Carroll, the Catholic writer and thinker fascinating about Vietnam. His father as Chief of the DOD in 69 literraly had a case of apoplexy when the son Was Ordained a Priest and in his first homily made a strong statement against the Vietnam War, about 69.
In addition to his memoir about his relationship with his Dad, Carroll is author of the novel Prince of Peace which I read about 82 or so.
And I found all the talk about McNamara and the Fog of War fascinating.
Recently the controversy about Boykin and Bobby Welch as discussed by UVA’s Charles Marsh in Wayward Christian Soldiers I found fascinating, especially when he invoked Bonhoeffer in the discussion. And his thoughts on the divide between Schaeffer and Billy Graham and the 74 Lausanne Covenant intrigues me as well.
Which brings me to this poem.
I don’t mean it anyway as a taunt, because I am still thinking it through myself.
But to Nixon’s see how it plays in Peoria, I will float it here; risky business to some degree but should juice the discussion a little.
I just came across this in the last few days.
The Title is Gospel:
Gospel
by Laurie Corzett
Sally, won’t you go downtown
Pick up some teabag party clowns
We’ll teach ‘em tricks of trade
from streets walled in by degradation
Ain’t this nation grand
for glad hands raised in celebration
of shames we dare not name.
Hallelujah Hallelucinations
Hallowed ground baptized in blood
Saved from the cleansing Flood
by sticking to our kind
however we’re defining us today
If we were meant to live a different way
wouldn’t He have told us?
October 28, 2009
David,
I never said, America must stay economically prosperous. When I speak of converting the blessings of God into currency, I’m not simply speaking of financial. Currency is a medium of exchange, and now God is bringing the world to America’s door.
Middle American English is the Business language of the world. Some demographers believe 85% of the worlds’s population will be trained by Americans, or people who were trained by Americans. That means that the English language has become one of the most effective tools for reaching people for Christ.
As to economic prosperity: I do not subscribe to the prosperity gospel, as I alluded in a previous post. I’ve seen some of the most oppressed peoples, and poorest peoples of the world, serve God with joy. Effective Christian living has nothing to do with externalities. It has everything to do with a growing personal spiritual relationship with Holy God through Jesus Christ.
However, I do believe we have a responsibility to do the very best we can with what we have, as good stewards of His beneficence. Believers must be involved politically in a land where He has given us such freedom in order to facilitate such stewardship. Some political administrations seem bent of destructive economic policies, as well as attacks upon freedom.
Think not that when more personal freedom is curbed, freedom of worship and exercise of Christian beliefs will not also be curbed. Again, I’ve no use for the health and wealth crowd, but that in no way absolves Believers from being the best stewards possible of His provision.
Today’s policy makers, and no few churchmen, seem to believe that stewardship means preservation, rather than utilization. But perhaps that is another issue.
Okay Mike. Maybe I misunderstood you.
But I’m still trying to get a handle on exactly how political activism ties in to good stewardship. Maybe if you described a little more what type of political activism you are talking about, I might be able to follow you a little better.
David,
As I read todays comments and the struggles that many (myself included) have regarding our place in culture, I could not help thinking about our Sunday School lesson on Sunday in Lifeways “Life Lessons” series.
As Paul was addressing the church very harshly because of their compromise with sinful behavior in the church he said, “by no means referring to this world’s immoral people, or to the greedy and swindlers, or to the idolators; otherwise you would have to leave the world” (1 Cor. 5:10).
Yes, we live in a fallen world, yes it is all tainted by sin. I believe our task of confronting/transforming culture is secondary to transforming lives with the Gospel. That may be the measuring stick for those on each end of the spectrum. If transformation for the left becomes only (or primarily) social justice – that is off track. On the other hand, if those on the right (me) get so wrapped up in political transformation, where is the Gospel?
Thank you for bringing on this discussion.
Steve in Montana
Steve in Montana has a strong point.
Even so how do you engage Glenn Beck and the Tea Parties?
Or is that the point, you don’t.
And if that is the point, then shouldn’t the Memphis Declaration reorganize and start a movement to defund Richard Land and the ERLC in Orlando this summer.
stephen,
One of our struggles comes from the fact that we do hold dual citizenship. My relationship to Christ and His Great Commission should be of highest priority. If I can only do one thing, then it should be the Gospel. I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God. I am also a citizen of the United States of America. As a citizen it is not only a right, but a responsibility to be involved, informed, active. It is also a good thing to feed the hungry and seek social justice – but that is not the Gospel.
Steve in Montana
What about the Sermon on the Mount.
If the Sermon on the Mount is not the Gospel, then What is?
Is their a hierarchy in the Gospel; kinda news to me.
I know this board on occasion frowns on links but I can’t say it any better than this; from a fellow I know to be an SEBTS grad, I think in the last days of Randall Lolley; and I have to say what a grand product he is.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15760
Let’s see here–Lolley left in, what, 1988. Probably due to pressure from the CR (Score one for the good guys). Further, the guy is posting on the Liberal Hag Rag “Ethics Daily”. Therefore, anything he says is of marginal value to begin with.
David,
I enjoyed reading your proposed model. It has spurred many thoughts over the last couple of days. I am new to sbcIMPACT, introduced via Facebook by my former youth pastor Dave Miller (Youth pastor during the big hairdo, metal music and Reagan era). In the spirit of this forum I would like to make the below comments not necessarily as points of contention, rather as points of discussion.
I would like to first talk to your definitions of Christ and Culture. In reference to Christ, I agree whole heartedly with your definition that ‘As the Body of Christ on Earth, we are His hands, feet, eyes, and ears, continuing on, through the power of the Holy Spirit’.
In regards to culture I am struggling with aligning it directly to the New Testaments definition of world. I believe culture is a living byproduct or result of man’s innate ability to create and organize into ideas, structures and systems which are prevalent in social, economic, political, religious, science and the arts. Since man was influenced by Satan’s lie that we could truly know good from evil apart from God, culture will always be influenced by man’s desire to sin. Does that make culture in and of itself godless or valueless? What if we create cultures in alignment with God? Could we not say that we create cultures within our own Churches or denominations?
I also believe that culture is living meaning that it changes over time based on the value that we place on the culture at any given time. Israel, with God, was a powerful creative force that was feared and revered. I would have loved to have seen the beauty and splendor of the wilderness tabernacle or to see the majesty and reverence of the Priesthood. Israel was revered to the point that Moses before God pleaded for their lives based solely on God’s reputation that was evident in Israel’s culture to all the surrounding areas. Although, when Israel lived apart from God their culture changed and was influenced by their own sinful desires or the desires of the surrounding godless cultures.
So to your point, we are called to ‘pour ourselves out in acts of service and practical kindness, following the example of our Lord, who healed the sick, and set the captives free’, although Jesus did seek to challenge the culture of his day. He influenced the despised (Women at the Well), the rich (Matthew), the religious (Nicodemus), the military (Roman Centurion) and the government (Herod). He did not seek to change these systems or cultures through activism, although, he built trust with individuals that would in turn have an influence and impact on their culture.
A corporate example of your ‘Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture’ model could be found in S. Truett Cathy the founder of Chick-fil-A. He has created a corporate culture based on the purpose of glorifying God in the midst of a fast food retail culture that glorifies money. He is willing to glorify God by being closed on Sundays at the risk of being scoffed at by other fast food retailers. The purpose statement of Chick-fil-A states “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.” Because of his servant leadership style he has been recognized with numerous leadership awards that have a daily influence on leadership skills being taught across all of corporate America. This to me is Christ in the midst of culture!
Thanks for your post and influence to think on this subject!
Steve Jackson,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful interaction with my post. You have some very valid points. When I gave my definition of culture, in the post, I was not intending to give a technically correct one. I freely admit the definition you give is much more accurate, from a textbook point of view. Yet, in seeking to explain the model I propose, the definition (or description) of what I mean, when I say “culture” in the context of the post, is helpful to me for getting across what I am trying to communicate.
I think I was trying to get at something similar to what you are saying, when I said this:
“This, however, does not preclude the appropriation and use of such cultural elements as music, art, and literature for the glory of God. For example, when we speak of Christ against Culture, we do not mean to imply the idea that Christ is opposed to music, art, and literature, etc., in and of themselves, as independent categories. These are, rather, neutral elements that may be used equally in the service of Christ and His Kingdom as well as in the propagation of the godless value system we call the world.”
I struggled, when I was writing my post, about whether or not to specifically include the other elements (in addition to music, art, and literature) you mention, when you say, “man’s innate ability to create and organize into ideas, structures and systems which are prevalent in social, economic, political, religious, science and the arts.”
I think, in a very real and significant way, we, as Christians, are indeed called to be faithful and serve faithfully in the midst of all of these areas of culture. But, at the same time, an important element of the model I am proposing is the reality of suffering, all the way up to the end. Our appropriation and use of these different elements of culture will always be as an alternative to the “world’s” appropriation and use of these same elements of culture, and we will usually be despised by the “world” for our appropriation and use of culture. And yet, we are to keep on serving, and being faithful in our service toward the very ones that despise us.
I think we must be careful in the way we use Israel as a model. Israel was a theocracy. I don’t believe it is God’s intention for us, in this present dispensation, to set up new theocracies. The government of God over His people, in this present age, is channeled through the Church, and not through secular government. One day, when He comes again, this government will be extended to all the structures and systems of the world. But, for the time being, we live as signposts of that coming reality, not as the full manifestation of it.
I do agree with you that Truett Cathy’s example, in the way he has been faithful in the area of business, is a worthy model of servant leadership in the midst of culture, and fits in nicely with what I am talking about here.
Thanks again for your comment. It has been helpful for me in thinking through all this more carefully.
Words have meaning. Icon and Conspirator; the connotation of those words were given relish yesterday in my viewing of The Last Station, Movie about the last Days of Tolstoy.
When Tolstoy signs a document and says I have become a Conpirator, the camera pans up to the wind blowing in the majestic trees of his beautiful location in Russia.
In re comments 22, 25 and 35 I commend this movie to especially David Rogers and Rick Presley. Look for it immediately cause most likely if it is in your area, it will only be for a short time on the heels of Helen Mirren’s nomination for an Oscar for her role.
Some of you may remember Malcolm Muggeridge series on PBS in the Late 70′s The Third Testament. Tolstoy was a feature of that series, and to the best of my memory Schaeffer was a fan, as was William F. Buckley.
For me aspects of the movie accent Rogers example of Niebuhr here; maybe Tolstoy in a way being a Hebrews Chapter 11 “these then” kind of witness to Niebuhr’s thought in Christ and Culture.
The two of you see the movie if you can or rent it soon as out on DVD; and please come back here and let me know what you think; even if we get entangled on other more polarizing strains as it continues.
For sure, icon, conspirator; and the rustling of the wind will be given image and resonance for your devotional life.
I hesitated on the word devotional for a minute; but I think it works.
And later, may come back to how a Pen/FAulkner nominee just recently gave me a deeper resonance and understanding of RAchel and Exile.
Richard Land, C Street and Theological Arrogance.
An interesting example to explore in this framework are the remarks of Welton Gaddy, Baptist Minister, last night on National Television about the church state issues concerning C Street.
Will be interesting to see if Richard Land engages the discussion in light of the avenues in DC Focus on the Family and other groups in concert with Karl Rove’s strategies in the 90′s and beyond–add Newt Gingrich–how their family values strategies may be seen in a new light in regard the discussion now about C Street.
I guess I just don’t understand how anyone who has such disdain for the vast preponderance of Southern Baptists and their elected leaders remains a part.
Welton Gaddy always seemed more concerned with the ultra liberal agenda of Americans United for Separation of Church and State than for genuine interaction with Baptist Churches.
SBCIMpact has become a venue for vitriolic attacks on Southern Baptist leadership by angry holdovers from the CR. It becomes more difficult to engage in meaningful discussion when every topic is hijacked as an avenue for venting.
Mike,
First let me say I am not part of the “ownership” of this website. (In the past, I think I have caused some of the former owners to sell their stock in this blog and move out of town, but I am not an owner. David Rogers would become a Buddhist and Dave Miller would become a Braves fan before they would let me in the gang. Rastis would become Islamic and start riding and smoking Camels rather than writing about them before he would allow such to happen:-)
But let me say, I don’ think any of the owners are anti-CR. I am sure they all are basically sound guys.
(except for Dave, David and Chris having a little lack of understanding when it comes to ecclesiology. I am working hard to help them though.)
They do allow guys who are in opposition to the CR have more freedom than the guys at other sites do. They also give pro-CR guys more freedom than at some other sites also.
But I tell you what I think they would like just once. (And frankly, I would also.)
I think they would like to have an entire post and comment thread without the CR being superimposed upon every issue.
I wish we could just for once come over here and fight over something just for the fun of the fight and leave the CR out of it. I would just like to come over here and beat up on people like Rick Presley and Gene Scarborough just for the pure joy of it and not have to defend the CR all of the time.
That is my blog dream. A good gang fight without the CR being involved.
David Rogers; with your time and Spain and interest in church state matters in the European Union I think you in particular would be interested in this article I came across this morning, which intersects notions in this thread.
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8247
You mentioned Truett Cathy above. He was named for George Truett as I understand it.
Not to antagonize anybody here on SBC IMpact but I was in Religion class many years ago with Truett’s son Dan and the proff was one of the fellows who with Jack Flanders at Baylor authored People of the Covenant, the book that so inflamed Judge Pressler in the 60′s.
One thing I always admired about Truett, was when Kirby Godsey was under attack at Mercer, Truett was a trustee, but stood by Godsey. Whether that makes Chic Fil A suspect in the eyes of some corners of the CR, I don’t know.
But I agree with you his work with Win-Shape and other philanthropic efforts are outstanding and most honorable; and the policy announced couple years ago that no favoritism will be given to the 2nd Generation of Cathy’s in corporate management positions is strong evidence of virtue as well.
I’ve said before I think it would be grand if somehow a retreat with the likes of you and Dan, Harry Dent’s daughter, Ginny Brant; Jim Henry’s daughter, Kate Campbell; and your Dad’s contemporary at NOBTS Robert Marsh; his son Charles; yall go away for a weekend and have a series of conversations in re the after effects of the CR in the SBC; especially focussing on the core of this blog on the proper role of the church in civic life for the Common good.
What did Dent, Billy Graham and Nixon; what is their legacy.
And what was the virtue and or miscues of Baptist involvement with Jimmy Carter’s Presidency.
On down to Rove and Land and the Bush family 41 and 43.
Would be an interesting conversation for sure.
CB,
Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate it (and no sarcasm intended, honestly).
Mike will be the first to tell you that I love a good tussle. I think part of the problem I’ve had is that I’ve not spent enough time getting to know you before we joined in the joust. My bad and for that I apologize.
I love a good clean fight, so from here on out, I’ll be more sparse with the sarcasm and a lot more pugilistic – Marquis of Queensbury Rules, of course.
rick
Thomas Jefferson of Phyliss Schlafly; that seems to be the divide in Texas these days. Robert Parham has a take here that is interesting.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15781
And here is the link that goes to the heart of the Schlafly question, at the core of the CR, at least in the days when Pressler and Jesse Helms were driving the resurgence.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15778
How can Baptists be a part of transforming culture if they can’t be honest about the influence of religion on the founding of your country; if they flirt with something close to a Baptist imperialism.
That said I was looking at comments 12 and 13 in this thread again, and I sincerely appreciate Rick Presley and DAvid Rogers addressing my concerns.
It is interesting Oscar Romero’s name came up with the Texas School text committee, though I don’t think their sentiment is the same as DAvid Rogers.
It may be an interesting item to study further.
I do think Romero was a Saint.
I continue to be convinced the CR has not taken an honest look at rightist Southern Baptists in Texas in particular have never come to grips with the baggage left from the 1948 Senate race.
I may share that link with you later. While some may consider it an esoteric; I think it frames lot of the shortcomings of “conservative” Baptist thought in particular when it talks about such concepts as Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture.
In the late 80′s I had lot of correspondence with EllenRosenberg in re her book Southern Baptists, A Subculture in Transition.
If you read her book I think you will see lot of the Texas Regulars influence on the Texas School Board; and while Al Mohler may get a pass on some of the items discussed early in these comments; I doubt if you will see him or Richard Land addressing Parham’s concerns about the Texas history text mindset with any virtue and enthusiasm.
To put it mildly, to that degree I’m convinced Richard Niebuhr would be disappointed in them.
Stephen,
Just because Richard Niebuhr said some things which are beneficial, that doesn’t make him an icon to be emulated, or even applauded in every instance.
I would never seek for his approval, we are known as much by those who oppose us and by those who support us. I’d much rather have the approval of God in Heaven than a liberal philosopher/theologian steeped in rationalistic intellectualism.
You continue to extoll Niebuhr as if he were some recipient of Apostolic authority. Yet, you never expound Scripture to support your thesis. Everything you do seems rooted and grounded in man’s rationalistic understanding, and should it not fit that template, you “spiritualize” it.
To deny the first eleven chapters of Genesis as science, requires as much faith as to accept it as such. The hypotheses of those who seek to disavow are as yet not proven. Else, why a continual search for the answers to those mysteries.
For me, I believe Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of the creation by Holy God. Called me unlearned and ignorant, or call me simple-minded. We’ll settle it in Glory.
I really have no objection to teaching the theory of evolution in school. That forces are so set against offering the Genesis account as a viable alternative, proves to my mind that the prince of the world system opposes it, which further strengthens me in my position.
Mike on Genesis and Welton Gaddy on Texas History; those two topics bring me here this morning. First this excellent link to advance this discussion to what Judge Pressler’s world has wrought in the Texas Public School system as it influences the History of our Great Natiion:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4964/53/
You may find the comment line there to your liking as many reactionary one would have to imagine Baptists weigh in at ABPnews.
Intelligient Design and Creationism are not science. The consensus of High school science teachers, many of them devout Professing Christian have come down that way.
I agree with MikeR, the discussion about the History of religious fundamentalists resistance to Science in High School classrooms should be taught,preferrably to advanced Social Studies Classes in High School, but not in the Science classes on equal footing with science.
As a Bob Jones 11th grade teacher said in the Greenville News about ten years ago, if you can get them to think about anything it’s progress; I concede that’s a paraphrase, but an honest one.
The Devout Dartmouth Christian Ken Miller in Finding Darwin’s God has answered these questions long time ago, and the discussion between Jeffrey Lyle and Underwood at Baylor at 2004 settled the issue for all but the most feeble minded.
With that I hope we will find the oxygen here to pursue the matter of which is more substantive for America’s children to know: The Letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists; or Phyllis Schlafly’s reactionary career with the John Birch Society and the Jesse Helms network in the 80′s and 90′s??
Again Mike R before you come after me chomping at the bits,please take good notice of the comment line of the ABP story linked above.
Thank-you
The Tea Party Movement and the Judge Roy Moore wing of the SBC is discussed at this link.
Lot of the SBC leadership, including Judge Pressler, have networked with Rick Scarborough and Judge Moore in the past.
Would be interested to see how you work this real life example into your thoughts on Niebuhr, and earlier Idolatry of Politics.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2388/is_the_christian_right_afraid_of_the_tea_party_movement/
Ed Young invokes the OT’s Rehoboam on Washington and the Tea Parties; Reho from the book of Kings. May be fodder for whole new topic here, but in the meantime
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15826
Young has substantive history from his days in South Carolina with Harry Dent; Steven Miller’s book on Graham and the Rise of the Southern GOP; Dent, Nixon’s Southern STrategist and chair of the Billy Graham Crusade in 1980 in Columbia.
Dent’s daughter Ginny Brant has been an IMB trustee during the CR.
So this is interesting in many ways.
Stephen,
Can you explicate just a bit more? This looks like stream-of-consciousness with thoughts only half-formed as a post.
You said, “Ed Young invokes the OT’s Rehoboam on Washington and the Tea Parties; Reho from the book of Kings. May be fodder for whole new topic here, but in the meantime…”
Why? How does a successor to the wisest man that ever lived similar to Ed Young? In his rejection of the advice of old timers? In listening to the advice of his peers? In dividing the kingdom?
How would you expect this to be fodder for discussion?
You say this is interesting in so many ways. Can you name 3 ways in which it is interesting? Without more explicit posts, not only can I not connect your dots, I’m not even sure what the dots are. I attribute this to my feeble-mindedness and lack of sufficient background knowledge of about you, your activities, contacts, and the nature of your name-dropping allusions. If you could lead us gently by the hand here, it would probably be more instructive.
At least to me.
Rick:
Check Parham’s link above on Young and REhoboam and we’ll go from there.
Honestly I had a thorough response for you and it got zapped evaporated as I was going for the submit click here.
After you read Parham’s link; we’ll go from there.
Here is a key quote from Parham in reference to Young and his audience; his world of influence:
A third reason is that the right certainly knows that a statement repeated often enough becomes truth for its followers, especially when it goes unexamined. If enough right-wingers say that Obama is not listening, then he must not be listening. When preachers pontificate the same phrase that pundits prattle, the undiscerning fail to hear the duplicity of redundancy.
What the “not listening” accusation represents is the high fever of those who aren’t getting their way and who lack the ability to present a compelling argument for why their way is a better way. They are out of political power. Their ideology is buckling. Their perceived racial and class entitlement to power is slipping away. The world is changing.
We need to recognize what that phrase means, why it is being used and where it can lead. Untruth anywhere is a threat to truth everywhere. Hate talk is a short step away from actions of hate.
Passivity and silence are unacceptable positions for people of good will. Proactive engagement and rebuttal are required.
I did, Stephen. I thought it was a puff piece with not much in there. I got the impression from your post that you saw something more significant than what was actually reported in the piece. Basically Parham strings together some quotes, comes to a half-baked conclusion and closes with a statement of the blooming obvious with all the depth and wisdom of Rodney King’s “Can’t we all just get along?”
As long as we are quoting media sages, let me quote from “The Unit” where Mac taught his daughters this mantra, “If it’s in the news, it’s not true. If it’s true, it’s not in the news.”
The more involved I am with the media and the closer I am to stories they report, the more inclined I am to give this proverb credence.
Rick, I think it was Mayor Bloomberg of New York who said about the News If it bleeds, it leads, and if it doesn’t bleed stick a knife in it.
Even so I think Parham rightfully realizes the substance of Young’s remarks, as the tip of an iceberg of his career; something we may pursue here if we are allowed to; and if we both have the inclination to do so.
Karl Rove’s friend Richard Land will be speaking at U Chicago, President Obama’s stomping grounds, April 15 on religion and politics
http://erlc.com/erlc/speaking/
I hope folks who mighta missed it check the tiny url in the Vitriol thread; link to most important discussion that nicely frames Ralph Reed and the tea party morphing to inerrancy, I hope Martin Marty and the good folks at U Chicago will query Land on.
White Ribbon and the Tea Parties for Rick Presley, an arts and culture exercise pregnant for discussion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/12/the-white-ribbon-review
I prefer quantum entanglement as the explanation (from a physicists point of view) for the Karmic type of angst that plagues the guilty. Everything is connected, but we don’t know what the direct effects are since the gravitational field for three (or more) different massive bodies moving through space cannot be predicted.
Basically, stuff happens. We don’t know why. But we do know that our participation in it affect it. Somehow. Esther 4.