;)
Standing in Truth
Posted by Strider in Baptist Life, Church & Missions, News & Culture
Pilate asked Jesus, ‘What is truth?’ He was being facetious when he said it which is ironic since he was talking to The Truth at the time. After years of the truth being bruised and battered many of us are now willing to join Pilate in his cynicism. I think that would be a catastrophic mistake. This post has been building in me for some time so I hope it does not come across as a rant. I am sincere in my call to us to stand on the truth unapologetically. Why is this necessary? Because too often we don’t, and as I will try to explain in this post, many don’t even want to.
When we first came to Middle Earth we were astounded at the attitude of people concerning truth. Even though I live in a dogmatic Muslim society they have faced so much deception and propaganda that they honestly do not believe any concrete truth is knowable. It begins at birth and carries throughout their entire lives. It would be painful to tell little Abdul that Daddy was killed in a car accident so they tell him that Daddy is visiting friends in a nearby country (I am not making this one up!). Mommy is leaving for work and little toddler is crying so the Aunt says, ‘Mommy is just going to the street corner and will be right back’. It never stops. Once a young lady I knew who was to be married soon was not told her father had died until a month later because if she knew the marriage would have to have been postponed. This daily routine of lying is ingrained in the culture in which I live. People are not ashamed of lying, it is expected and encouraged. The Government and the religious institutions all participate in this. When I have challenged some of my friends concerning historical events there is not even an attempt to believe that something is knowable. The assumption is that all those involved in everything from the Crusades to what happened in the latest traffic accident down the street is told by those who are lying in order to put themselves in the best light.
It is into this atmosphere that I come proclaiming the Truth. I can not tell you the number of conversations I have had where the hearer sincerely wanted what I was saying to be true but refused to commit to it because they did not trust themselves to discern truth at all. “Wouldn’t it be great if God was really like that? But of course, everyone has a different idea and we can not know what is true.” This is why I am so gratified to find people who disagree with me. At least they are engaging the truth. We can debate, argue, question in order to find truth. But for most here they don’t see the point in trying.
So, let’s take this discussion back home. I have a theological belief about preaching. I believe that real preaching is speaking the words that God wants said to those who are listening. When we have a good speech it can be powerful, motivating, it can even be true. But when we preach- in the Biblical sense of the word- we are proclaiming God’s Word. Not just any true word, but the word that God has for His people now. This is a great joy to do but it takes on some serious responsibility with it. My mom tells a wonderful story of the time Grandma accidentally gave her and my brother delicious brownies for a road trip. But Grandma messed up and put the brownies in a plastic bag that had been previously used to hold dirty diapers. Yeah, those brownies did not taste as intended. The Bible says that it is the same with our mouths. Blessing and cursing should not come out of the same mouth. So also truth and falsehood. We want to proclaim the truth of the Gospel to those around us in a way that will transform their lives. It doesn’t happen often enough and I believe this is a key place to start. We have a fantastic message but we are storing it in bags that were used for dirty diapers. Don’t believe me?
I will now use two contentious difficult issues to make my point. I have heard it said by many people that they would not vote for a President who wants to kill babies. Well golly, nobody would. Ah, but we elected Obama and he is ‘pro-abortion’ which kills babies so you see we have elected a President who wants to kill babies. Ladies and Gentlemen we have not. Stop saying that, it is not true and you malign the real truth when you talk like that. President Obama (and no, I did not vote for him) has never once said, ‘I would really like to go out kill some babies today.’ He has said that he would like to see the number of abortions decrease. He does not believe that the fetus is a baby and he very mistakenly believes that Roe V Wade is good law. He is wrong. We should oppose him on these issues. We should fight for the rights of the unborn. But we must do it standing on the truth. When we overstate our case, when we exaggerate or when we demonize our ‘enemy’ we do what Jesus did not do. Consider how Jesus engaged the Pharisees. He pointed out the truth of who they were and what they were doing in graphic brutal detail. But what was the result? Nicodemus comes to Jesus to seek truth. Nicodemus and Joseph (Pharisees not disciples) take Jesus body and bury him in Joseph’s own tomb. Jesus was truthful, but he invited these ‘enemies’ in and they accepted his invitation. When have we done that for our political enemies? We don’t. That is why the abortion industry is the least regulated industry in our Country. There have been plenty of centrist politicians over the years who would have compromised and produced legislation to reduce abortions. President Obama claims he would. But we wont take them up on it because it might make them look human. Our aims are not to limit abortions and save lives our aims are to destroy our political opponents at any costs. One of those costs has been the truth and I am telling you that cost is too high.
But the abortion debate is too contentious and now some of you are no longer interested in engaging me about truth and the topic of this post and would rather find ways to demonize me. Ok, that should not be too hard for you to do. But before you do let me continue with another subject. We have carried our political rhetoric into the Church. When we discuss issues on blogs or in person we use others words and actions to find a way to ‘win’ the debate. Consider just about any theological discussion. Calvinism, missiology, church polity, women in ministry the debates rage and the more we talk the less we hear each other. ‘All Calvinists are anti missions and don’t want others to hear the Gospel.’ ‘Arminians believe it is all up to them and will do anything to manipulate others for decisions.’ Have these things ever happened- maybe- are these statements true? Of course not, even those who say them don’t believe them. We don’t mean these things, we are just trying to win an argument. Consider the Calvinism argument. We love to quote, as I have done myself, those Calvinists who opposed William Carey going to India. We love the quote where the old crusty church leader stands up and tells Carey that if God wants to save the heathen He can do it Himself without William Carey’s help. Have you ever considered that Carey was himself a member of that Church and a Calvinist himself? Of course not, that would not fit your meta-narrative and as John Stewart says, ‘If the facts don’t fit your meta-narrative then change the facts!’
So, the point of my post is this: Stop changing the facts. I know it is difficult. We live in a culture that does not understand truth. We used to have nightly news and now we have 24/7 opinion. Our anchor people don’t even pretend to be offering us the facts. They openly tell us what they want us to think and feel. Even Peter Jennings wasn’t that out of step with reality! When we argue with each other we need to hear what the other is saying, understand what they really mean and what they really believe and then address that. Only then will we be standing in the truth. Only then will we be free from being manipulated and being manipulators. We believe in Truth. We believe He is not an abstract concept to be used or set aside but a living person named Jesus. He has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth but we wont go there if we insist on using falsehood to our own advantage. We may win the argument, we may manipulate and lie and see power restored to those to whom we believe should have it in our government and in our churches. If we do that we sacrifice our privilege of sharing the truth and it is only the truth that will set men free.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
GOD BLESS YOU FOR SAYING THIS!
And yes, I’m shouting. I have felt the same for years and it is so good to hear you say so.
I have some individuals whom I love dearly, but they have no credibility when they speak because I’ve rarely found anything they say to be true or factual. I nod politely, say, “uh huh,” and go about my business totally unaffected and indifferent to what they have to say because it is so unlikely that I will hear anything truthful.
I wonder if most people treat us the same way.
Jesus said not just that he speaks the truth, but more importantly, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He wasn’t talking or even showing us the way, the truth, and the life. He was BEING the way, the truth, and the life. We talk of truth in the abstract and in the particular. None of us would say, “I am the truth.” We would consider this hubris. Yet we all preach, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay,” and that anything this is more than this is blasphemy and disingenuous. Meanwhile we engage in, subscribe to, and propagate rhetorical excess, never admitting that it might be blasphemous because it demeans the truth that Jesus claims not just to represent or speak on behalf of but to actually be.
Excellent, most excellent, post.
Thanks Strider. This is why you are one of favorite bloggers. I am leaving in 30 minutes for a weekend missions conference or I would take more time to respond. Maybe if this string is still going when I get back I will comment.
Personal experience I witnessed More Truth this last week Watching God In America on PBS than I did participating and observing a discussion about the CR at the Blog SBCVoices.
One of the highlights of my cyberspace life was an exchange with the Producer–Mike Sullivan, thinks is his name, same as Tom Hanks character in Road to Perdition–yesterday in the Noon hour at the PBS God in America chat site. Got in two questions, one on Karl Rove and Oliver Stone, another on George Truett.
As for the politics of abortion, I have a deep and abiding and freequntly public profession, there is more Truth in Karen Gormley’s easily googled peregrinations Parsing the Politics of Abortion, than there was in Timothy George’s eggregious ERLC Pamphlet of 93 that excoriated and in my opinion maligned not only SBTS Proff Paul Simmons, but Bonhoeffer’s Confessing Church.
As for Obama, my Truth on that matter resonates with DAvid Remnick’s first Chapter in The Bridge.
My Father was a preacher. I knew him well, his moments of Glory and episodes of Insecurity and Despair. But on occasion when his heart was in tune with his Groping for words to register with those in the congregation whom God Almighty himself had put in his charge to Shepherd, were those moments when he was bigger than himself, brought time to a standstill and let God’s chosen folks who had their ears open to hear, transcend this Mortal existence and dwell in Eternity Itself.
Amen.
Rick and Ron, Thanks for the kind words. And Ron, may the conference be a blessing.
Stephen, name dropping is useless for me as I have been overseas so long that I don’t know anybody in contemporary culture. But your last paragraph was a quite beautiful illustration of what I was getting at when I described real preaching. Thanks for that.
Strider,
This is a most important topic for Christians today. Many get caught up in issues of the day and try to address them before taking time to remember that Jesus was described by the Apostle in John 1:14 as being “full of grace and truth”. It is an interesting recipe, one of which the Christian majority do not possess today. We seem to want to declare truth without the main ingredient and that ingredient is not found at the local convenience store. Most have no understanding of grace, much less possess and distribute it to “hearers” and those in darkness alike. Like Peter, I often speak the truth without grace. My words cut off ears and deny the truth by poor discernment when I should have already been reading the Word, fasting and praying and exercising my faith consistently. I am nowhere near the kingdom when my disgust of sin overwhelms the proper way of speaking the truth in love. How many are affected by our careless and thoughtless approaches to “issues”. Wouldn’t our response be proper after we have come out of the Holy of Holies? Wouldn’t the mixture of grace and truth be better balanced in our hearts if we lived the love we are commanded to have toward our wife without the expectation of submission? Wouldn’t the things we verbalize be the right truth to speak if it came from the overflow of a heart that is loyal to God? Or, maybe, if we simply prayed for wisdom even if we think what we have is sufficient?
What a great ending to the day. Thank you for addressing this Strider.
Strider,
Your post leaves me in a moral quandary. How do I answer “does this dress make me look fat?”
While I have not been over on this side of the world for long, westerners honesty and straightforwardness are attributes they like about us. This gets played out every time I go down town in my city. Inevitably, some car will pull to the curb and shout to the crowd asking for directions. To my surprise, they are not asking the crowd, but they are talking to me. Of the 50+ locals crowded onto that corner, they ask the one white guy how to get some where (I have even had an ambulance stop and ask me for directions on his way to an accident…). The only thing I can figure out as to why they wold do this is because they know we will just say we don’t know and not make up directions to “save face” and “preserve the relationship.”
Strider:
Thanks for the kind words you had for the testimony about my Father.
That said I am having a little disconnect this afternoon here at Impact with Truth.
I have tried most civilly to engage the DAvid Miller Blog on the Tug of War. In the last three hours or so, he has deleted 7 posts I made. As it stands now we have things standing that mention my name, but no item for the reference as my statement was taken down.
I asked DAvid Rogers a question and he kindly answered it and then Miller took my question down.
David Rogers says each blog poster in this group thread has the right to determine what remains and what gets deleted in the comments to his particular blog.
As a matter of Truth Telling and Fairness I propose you make an exception with David Miller as he has made a strong case he is unfit to allow free civil give and take on your board.
either make moderation of his posts a consensus matter between at least three of you, or take away his status on this board.
Meaning, send him back to his Tyranny at SBC Voices; let him comment here, but take away his authority on this board which he is clearly abusing.
Thank you
Stephen Fox
3:30 Tuesday.
Another alternative, Stephen, is just to not comment on his posts. Only respond to people you know will not delete your posts.
Rick:
I just survived a quick street basketball game so forgive me if I come across a little cocky. Don’t mean to be. I hit the winning shot and got me some respect from some 12 year olds in the neighborhood. Don’t laugh, no telling how good these kids are gonna be.
As you know the world of SBC inerrancy is not the only Baptist game in town. Other things are happening. People are standing tall in many places. I think this Standing Tall Link I give here, also has a lot to say about the Tug of War going on in SBC life now.
Kind of a history lesson right off the presses. I would also direct some of your attention to ABPnews dot com where the conversation on Dietrich Bonhoeffer invoked David Rogers name to relative good report.
But matters at hand when it comes to standing Tall:
http://texasbaptistscommitted.blogspot.com/2010/10/another-reason-why-we-need-tbc.html
STanding in truth, Ken Chafin in debate with Paige Patterson said in April 87 in my presence A Bible in the Hands of a Believer who will not submit it to rational means of Investigation is a Dangerous thing and has often been used to buttress up Injustice.
Since for all practical purposes I am banned from the Tug of War Discussion moderated to Oblivion there by Rev Miller, I do want to do some free conscience Truth Telling here in the relative Free Air of Strider’s thread.
The Various comments of Greg Alford, Tim Rogers and Rick Presley on their differences within what the SBC has now become I have found amazingly articulate.
That said, I think they are misguided. Topical Preaching is a Grand tradition rooted in the Text. Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream Sermon was a Topical Sermon I would suggest and it Trumped WA Criswell’s Topical Sermon to the SC Legislature of Fifty Six.
Bill Self’s 86 sermon at 2nd Ponce in Atlanta on the eve of Charles Stanley’s reelection was Topical and I must say Timely and Grand titled: Why I am A Baptist.
Fleming Rutledge and Barbara BRown Taylor have preached some of the most magisterial sermons I have ever heard, all rooted in Holy Text.
The only Christians who actually stand in the truth are those that affirm ierrancy. Actually, anyone who denies inerrancy is not a Christian. “That doctrine is not salvific” you whine? True, but there is no one who is truly saved who denies inerrancy. So, it doesn’t cause you to not be saved, but those who deny that doctrine have in common the fact that they also deny other key elements of the gospel and are, therefore, not saved. That would include pretend christians who were preachers where they spent their time Groping for words to register with those in the congregation where they preached their false sermons with a false gospel.
Joe,
Great point. Most say they do believe in inerrancy but their works do not support it. If our entry point into this inerrancy is salvation by grace through faith and then we claim that the bible is broken in places, we must add works to compensate for our salvation just in case Ephesians 2:8,9 has a bit if error in it. Therefore, the applied faith is in both God and man for our salvation. It has to be! That is blaspheme to say God isn’t sufficient.
Bruce,
Excellent observation. Now, of course, someone could get saved and never have been taught the inerrancy of scripture. I mean, when I share the gospel, I don’t think I ever go into inerrancy. And someone could be a Christian and not understand inerrancy–they may not have figured it out yet.
However, a true Christian who denies inerrancy–that’s like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a moderate Christian. Fairy tale material.
Joe,
Is this what it says in your Bible?
Acts 16:30-31 (English Standard Version)
30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and biblical inerrancy, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Rick,
Perhaps you missed this part above–”“That doctrine is not salvific” you whine? True, but there is no one who is truly saved who denies inerrancy. So, it doesn’t cause you to not be saved, but those who deny that doctrine have in common the fact that they also deny other key elements of the gospel and are, therefore, not saved“
Joe,
By other key elements of the gospel, do you also mean dispensational premillennialism and a literal six day creation? These often seem to go together.
Can one believe in inerrancy (as stated in the Chicago declaration)and not hold to a literal six day creation? This is an apples and oranges question, by the way, as neither position is dependent on the other being true. I was just wondering what you thought.
And speaking of the Chicago Declaration, you would agree with these articles, right:
Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Article XVIII.
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
By other key elements of the gospel, do you also mean dispensational premillennialism and a literal six day creation?
No.
Can one believe in inerrancy (as stated in the Chicago declaration)and not hold to a literal six day creation?
I’m going to have to say I guess it’s possible. I believe in a literal 6 day, 24 hour day creation. I’ve talked to some folks and read stuff by others who affirm verbal, plenary inspiration (a la Chicago Statement) that allow for the possibility of creation taking longer than 6 days. Even R.C. Sproul, who most certainly is no liberal nor a moderate (because he is a Christian), says that in Hebrew Genesis chapter 1 has elements in it that you might find in poetry. My question for someone who held to creation not being six 24-hour days would be “Are Adam and Eve the first and only people created directly by God?” Also, I would ask if they affirm the historicity of the remaining narrative. If they don’t, their claim to believe in inerrancy is what good ol’ Col. Potter used to call “Horsefeathers”.
In short, as to the topic of the post, if someone going to claim to be standing in the truth but they deny inerrancy they are not standing in the truth. This is especially true of false preachers who, in their own minds at least, brought time to a standstill and let God’s chosen folks who had their ears open to hear, transcend this Mortal existence and dwell in Eternity Itself. The only way a preacher can truly, faithfully communicate God’s word to man is by preaching the inerrant word of God–the Bible. If they don’t believe it is inerrant, they are not a Christian not because rejecting inerrancy causes someone to not be a Christian. Rather, those who reject inerrancy are also ones who affirm pluralism, reject the miracles recorded in the Bible, question the virgin birth, and deny the substitutionary atonement.
Thanks, Joe. That does clarify your position.
I guess that puts people like Hugh Ross and C. S. Lewis outside the fold, or at the very least believing in horsefeathers.
Does anybody disagree with Joe about Inerrancy and Salvation?
Cause by Joe’s Definition Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a Christian, nor Dorothy Day, and possibly not Bonhoeffer.
Laura Bush is lost and on the Road to Hell according to Joe and Mickey Mantle for sure even though Bobby Richardson said he had a death bed conversion.
How many people on this board are willing to put their name on the line and say they agree with Joe that to be born again, you must believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture.
And how many folks will read Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind and let us know if that changes their view on the First Eleven Chapters of Genesis.
I think Joe has confessed at SBCVoices he is now an Independent Baptist. Should the IMB and NAMB no longer accept CP contributions from churches who want publicly subscribe to BFM 2000. Seems that would fast forward the conversation to the place Joe says it should go.
Stephen,
Many are throwing around the word “believe” differently than what I understand it to be. Believing is publically exhibiting the controlling factor of your life. I believe in exercise and so does Charles Atlas. The difference is that I believe in an errant exercise program and Charles Atlas believes in an inerrant exercise program. A side by side comparison proves it, too. No one really has to claim anything here. The results will be the proving factor. Most Calvinist may not go out soul winning and Armenians say that is terrible. I’ve been to Tuesday night visitation in an Armenian church and discovered that most of them live (believe) like they are Calvinist.
How many people on this board are willing to put their name on the line and say they agree with Joe that to be born again, you must believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture.
…there is no one who is truly saved who denies inerrancy. So, it doesn’t cause you to not be saved, but those who deny that doctrine have in common the fact that they also deny other key elements of the gospel and are, therefore, not saved
Reading is still fundamental, STeven.
No, Joe we have gone around this merry go round before and I don’t want to stink up the board here, but somebody has to call you out on your foolishness.
You run rabid at other sites and no one seems to care.
You are the one with the literacy problem.
Clark Pinnock spoke to this at Ridgecrest in 87 with Mark Noll as I have said many times before and in many venues.
By your construct Pinnock is in Hell for Eternity.
Jerry Vines, for One, as I read his Tribute to Pinnock upon his recent passing, says Pinnock is with the Saints in Heaven for Ever.
So I guess in the calculations of Joe Blackmon, Jerry Vines is on the Slippery Slope himself and No Christian should ever pay him any attention here on out.
But maybe I misunderstand you again. When you gonna get around to page 51 of Macculloch on the First 11 chapters of Genesis.
With that I’m moving onto other things unless your reply is convulsively ridiculous
…there is no one who is truly saved who denies inerrancy. So, it doesn’t cause you to not be saved, but those who deny that doctrine have in common the fact that they also deny other key elements of the gospel and are, therefore, not saved
Reading is still fundamental, STeven.
Jill Lepore has Stands with a Great Truth about the Tea Party Movement in her new book The Whites of their Eyes. As Strider mentioned Obama here, Abortion as wedge issue for the Health of this country hopefully will run its course, be spent by 2012.
Sean Wilentz has great look at the underbelly of the Tea PArty movement, the Glenn Beck aspect that recently networked Richard Land.
Wilentz rightfully explores the difference between William F. Buckley conservatism and Birch Society conservatism.
There is an analogy to the way in which inerrancy was used in the SBC; kindof the Communist Conspiracy card that worked well for Birchism in the 60′s.
That is where the truth standing is for me these days as I try to consider everything from Bonhoeffer to the recent PBS Series God In America.
SBC’s Frank Page and Jim Demint are named as Theocrats and Complicitous in Theocracy in this recent Religion Dispatches piece that elicited the following response from a Nick Jones Of Birmingham, Alabama:
It is after all, only an illusion, right? I think that it is sad that too many people were fooled into believing that the GOP has their best interests at heart–when in fact the GOP only has the GOP’s best interest at heart. That interest being to pay as few taxes as possible, keeping their wealth, grow their businesses to make more money , pay their workers as little as legally possible, keep anyone who is not like themselves out of power and to maintain the status quo, thereto. These fooled Americans who voted for the Tea Party candidates really believed that “God & Guns & Country” will turn this Nation around. They sold their souls to get it done and like sheep being led to slaughter will be the ones to lose. Anyone familiar with Ezekiel 16:48-50 knows the real reason that Soddom and Gommorah were destroyed–and the GOP has been guilty of every one of those atrocities for decades–and it is getting worse than ever. From my doom-n-gloom viewpoint, we are on rocket sled to hell with little chance of redemption.
–Nick Jones, Birmingham, AL