The Evidential Error of Postmodern Christianity

Christianity Today has posted a brief article here entitled Obscene Bible comments reflect failure of church. The article speaks of a particular Bible placed on display in Glasgow inviting those who have been marginalized by faulty interpretations of the Bible to "write your way back into it."

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

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

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or is it simply evidence that people without the Lord Jesus Christ feel no need to reverence the Bible beyond some historical document that is now irrelevant to culture?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

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

Misunderstandings, Monikers, and Misrepresentations Part 4:

“You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:32 NASB

“The whig historian thinks that the course of history, the passage of centuries can give judgment on a man or an age or a movement.” The Whig Interpretation of History, Herbert Butterfield, p88.

Many of the issues that we see within the Southern Baptist Convention today are as much a battle for the history of the SBC as they are a battle for her future. It is innate within human consciousness that the one who writes the definitive history directs the future. Therefore, controlling the purpose of the Conservative Resurgence is key to controlling her future.

In The Whig Interpretation of History, Herbert Butterfield realized that his fellow historians, both contemporary and past, had constructed their own metanarrative wherein select facts were the instruments by which they had constructed their story. Facts that proved not to be beneficial, or even contradictory to their own reckoning, became obsolete materials that inhibited the progress toward the desired destination, and therefore the facts were only beneficial as they were relevant to one’s goal. The facts became pawns upon the chessboard of ecclesiastical life which could be shifted to and fro for the defense of one’s own territory.

These facts became categorized as manipulations of the loser in order that the winner might emerge as the champion. Of course, the winner of history ultimately becomes the writer of history. The one who wins the battle for history gets to choose the hero of his story. Butterfield writes to call his fellow historians to an historical ethic where it is recognized that history is guided by Providence and the ethical historian simply reports the facts and allows Providence to guide the events where He may.

I believe we are seeing a whiggish interpretation of the Conservative Resurgence in some sectors of SBC life. We are passing judgments of value as if value is conveyed by our bestowal. We are prone to honor the successes of those from five centuries ago, while ignoring his failures, yet we dismiss the successes of those who are our own and critique him for his failures. Postmodernism improperly grants one the intellectual freedom to reconstruct the facts into his own perception of reality either by magnification or marginalization. By magnification we make major that which was minimal; by marginalization we make irrelevant that which was central.

Perhaps one of the largest detriments to a postmodern philosophy is its neo-existential undertones. By this I mean that history is accepted only as far as it is profitable. Where it does not serve our desired conclusion, it is dismissed as being irrelevant and therefore unimportant. Where history is spoken of, it is often done so only as far as it is beneficial to one’s preconceived agenda. In other words, postmodernism is not only evidenced in how a person views the present, but it is evidenced in how they view history.

The first error of postmodern historical observation is a lack of historical objectivity. This is seen in conversations that celebrate the greatness of a man or movement without taking into account his errors. If, indeed the heart is an “idol factory,” we must be wary that great men not become idols. Study of any historical movement of the past must take into account both one’s successes and their failures. This is true of all men and their movements. Should we celebrate a man’s birthday for his successes without lamenting his failures then our objectivity will be clouded by an idolatrous mist.

A second error in historical observation that postmoderns commit is historical ignorance. In many places, this is more prone to occur in the investigation of recent history than in the investigation of ancient history. We are prone to view the history of 5 centuries ago through rose-colored glasses while simultaneously viewing the past 3 decades through a kaleidoscope. One shades reality to our comfort, the other distorts reality to our detriment. Both are erroneous.

I find it quite ironic that some will champion a man for a particular shared soteriological outlook and turn a deaf ear to his cry for the death of the “heretics.” Simultaneously some dismiss the giants who walk in our own day as irrelevant, not because of different methodological boundaries, but because of different methodological practices. In other words, they see no problem with it being done differently; neither do they see a problem with it being done the same.

Is it not a contradiction in terms to want to put the first generation of the Conservative Resurgence to bed with the accusation of irrelevance while simultaneously wanting to resurrect the men of the Protestant Reformation as heroes of the faith? Do not misunderstand: I believe Luther, Calvin, etc. deserve a great deal of our gratitude for the contributions made to theology at great risk to themselves. I have greatly benefited from biographies and theological writings of the ancients. But death is the ultimate evidence of irrelevance in theological development. We learn from them, but their death testifies to their frailty. Let us honor the heroes who contributed to the Kingdom of God in centuries gone by. Let us also honor the heroes who contribute to the Kingdom of God who remain among us.

I am not raising a question of superiority, only of recognition. The Reformation was a needed correction within God’s Kingdom. The Resurgence was a needed prevention. The first resurrected the Bible from the grave of pontifical suffocation; the second prevented its death from liberalism’s acidic affects. The act of correction always seems more magnificent than prevention, not because of how much it rescued, but because of how close in proximity was its destruction. We are prone to glorify the acts of correction yet slightly dismiss the acts of prevention, but in the end, both are equal in what has been rescued.

As young pastors, we should be cautious not to develop whiggish interpretations because of postmodern judgments and existential interpretations. There is great danger in offering a corrective procedure while ignoring the preventative measure. The only reason that something would need correction is because prevention has been ignored. Let us honor the corrective efforts of the Reformation, but let us not ignore the preventative efforts of the Resurgence. Let us, as young pastors, be students before we are physicians. We must be careful that we not claim credit for correcting that which has already been prevented. Should God grant us a resurgence of the Great Commission, we should remember that the preventative measures that were taken in the Resurgence are the only reason we even care what the Great Commission says.

Misunderstandings, Monikers, and Misrepresentations Part 3: Reflections of an Under 40 Pastor in the SBC

Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. 1 Timothy 4:12 NASB.

The words that resound from the mouth of the young pastor today are often a lament that, due to their age, they are not taken seriously. Casting stones at the generation that has gone before, the young pastor lambastes the outdated practices of a foregone generation. Pleading for respect, the impetuousness bred into a generation that seeks to live in the culture of immediate satisfaction demands a seat at the table now and not later. If those pleas for immediate attention go unheeded, they threaten to abandon the ship in favor of a raft thinking it will provide much more ease of control and rapidity of movement. However, arriving at the shore quicker may lose its advantage if the cargo is disproportionate to what is required to sustain those who the vessel has brought.

Perhaps the concern of the generation that has gone before is simply that once we reach our destination, our cargo may prove to be quite disappointing, even inadequate. Paul had written young Timothy two letters to remind him of precisely what is important. Apparently, Timothy was facing significant opposition that entailed concerns in regards to his age. Whatever age Timothy was (Interestingly, Guthrie says he could be up to age 40) is of less importance than the truths which Paul communicates to Timothy. Respect is gained through lifestyle, not demand.

If we heed Paul’s words to Timothy as our own, we must understand that there is a certain ministerial ethic that is demanded of us before respect can be demanded for us. Here, Paul lists five necessities for Timothy to follow if he will gain the respect of the older generation.

First, Timothy is to practice a ministerial ethic that is evident in his manner of speech. Though this includes Timothy’s official actions in preaching and teaching, it does not limit it to such. Timothy’s day to day speech is as important as his official activities as pastor.

One prominent blog in recent weeks contained a post asking the question, “Do potty-mouthed preachers belong in the SBC?” This post was complete with videos of differing views of this recent phenomenon. One in particular sought to simply dismiss “curse-words” as nothing more than cultural mores that are impositions upon a person’s freedom of speech. Essentially, in his idea, the only reason a curse word is a curse word is because culture has defined it as such.

Whatever the linguistic development of such words happen to be is irrelevant. The culture, by and large, sees such language as offensive. A pastor need not utilize offensive language to either shock an audience into attention or make a connection with an audience by removing the barriers. In essence, for a pastor to use what is culturally agreed upon as gutter language is to communicate that a person can come to Christ with no change of their heart producing a change of speech. I have ministered to people from many different walks of life in many different cultures and not once have they been offended because my language was different than theirs. As a matter of fact, they seemed to have the idea that my language SHOULD be different than theirs. Timothy was instructed to gain the respect of the senior generation by practicing a ministerial ethic that is revealed, at least in part, by his speech.

Secondly, Timothy was told to have a visible conduct that earned respect. Legalism is often the charge that is leveled at the ones who ask for a life that demonstrates nobility. Paul uses the verbal form of this word for conduct in 3:15 of this same epistle so that Timothy would know how to act in the household of God which is the community of faith. The use of the word as a noun is translated elsewhere as “manner of life” in some translations.

Suffice it to say that Paul was calling Timothy to understand that, should he gain the respect of the people, he will do so by the visible walk that he has. Thus, the command is not one of legalism, but one of witness. If Timothy will conduct himself in the manner worthy of a minister, he will gain the respect of those who surround him.

The charge of legalism is most often leveled at the contemporary debate concerning alcohol consumption among Christians. Some pastors have argued for moderate consumption of alcohol in recent days. Newspapers regularly carry reports of churches willing to buy the first round in order to gain an opportunity to meet the people.

Of course, it will be quickly pointed out that Timothy was instructed to take a little wine for his stomach. There are men much more adept at arguing the meaning of that passage than am I, thus I will simply refer you to them. Mine is a simpler question. Why? Alcohol is an industry that is responsible for more abuses, adulteries, and deaths than anything else. So, why? Why do some insist on its consumption? Why? Do we really think we can fulfill the Great Commission more efficiently if we endorse moderate drinking? Will it really make us more relevant to reach a culture steeped in drink if we join in with them? Is there really one person out there who would not have come to Christ if the pastor had not joined in drinking a glass of wine? So why argue for it? Why?

Thirdly, Paul instructed Timothy to have a ministerial ethic that demonstrated itself in love. The first two qualities focused on the outward nature of the minister, this one begins a focus on the inner nature of the minister. Allow me simply to say that our love must not only be demonstrated for the lost of the world, but also must be demonstrated for the generation of the saved before us. It is true that doctrinal errors have been made in the past. It is true that methodological failures have occurred. But the only difference between theirs and ours is that our errors haven’t all come to the surface. I am unaware of any of the generation that precedes this one who is claiming inerrancy for themselves. Let us be warned, love heeds wisdom.

Fourth, Timothy is told that gaining respect from an older generation requires exemplifying faith. Ours is a tradition that champions faithfulness over popularity. The Anabaptists sought to worship freely in accordance to a full obedience to the Bible. The English separatists sought free worship without state mandated restrictions. The Conservative Resurgence generation has stated that in the early days, they did not expect success. There is at least one common thread that bound all of these together. Their measure of success was primarily faithfulness to God’s word, and secondarily numerical increase; and only then as more of a blessing of God than a concoction of man.

Many of the under 40 movement are demanding a voice with more appeals to their creativity and natural ability than to an active demonstration of faith. Faith is not simply an inward state of belief, but it is an outward action. In other words, faith is observable. It demonstrates loyalty to the Lord. As a matter of fact, the New English Translation translates this word as “faithfulness.” As my colleagues walk in faithfulness to the Lord, I have no doubt that those who have risked much for the rescue of a Convention will not prohibit the passing of the baton at the appropriate time, but will be excited to have the opportunity to do so.

Finally, Timothy is told that by living a pure life, the senior generation will be moved to respect. Towner says that this word corresponds primarily to the sexual nature of mankind. Through the demonstration of sexual purity, Timothy will demonstrate himself worthy of leading the church into the next generation.

The contemporary church finds itself in the difficult situation of a sexually saturated culture that desperately needs a word from God. Homosexuality is gaining in acceptance, fornication has become the norm, and pornography is much of the world’s entertainment. The job of the church is to lift high the beauty of the marriage bed while speaking prophetically against the lusts of the world. Pornography has no justification regardless of the context in which it is utilized.

For a minister to fail to reflect an ethic that is in line with a message of holiness for the sake of cultural connection is to invite antinomianism to rest on our front door. One day we will emerge thinking the animal is at rest, only to find that in our emergence, we have seasoned ourselves with the sugar of compromise, making us a delightful dessert indeed.

Respect is a by-product of the ethic that seeks to be an example. It is not a demand that is gained because of position, prominence, or ability. If the young pastor will consistently demonstrate a ministerial ethic that seeks to exemplify Christian conduct and faith, he need not demand a place at the table, for someone will reserve one for him.

Misunderstanding, Monikers, and Misrepresentations: Reflections of an Under 40 Pastor in the SBC Part 2

But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 2nd Corinthians 2:14-17 NASB.

The buzzword of division among under 40 pastors is ‘relevance.’ Here, as with so much of ministerial lingo, is much room for debate primarily because the word has come to assume definition without having been defined for the larger audience. With no definition comes no consensus, thus the majority can affirm its use without knowing precisely what is being affirmed; further, when a minority cautions its use, they become the subject of derision by its proponents, though the proponents themselves hold varying, or even contradictory definitions of what is meant by the term.

Relevance was once championed for the use of chairs and projection in worship. Now the battle over relevance has to do with street talk and profanity. It has been argued by some (though I think largely the minority) that shock jock language is acceptable because of the audience that is being targeted. “If a preacher wants to reach a sailor then he must sound less like a preacher and more like a sailor,” as the argument goes. In other words, to continue to talk like a preacher is to make one irrelevant at engaging the world of a sailor. This concept seems flawed for at least two reasons.

First, it assumes the irrelevance of the message as it is. The nature of the Gospel is that all men are lost and in need of salvation through Christ, without which there will be eternal separation from God in a place called Hell. That message is relevant no matter the audience.

Second, it assumes the sufficiency of the preacher. It implies that the message itself is of limited power, and is in need of someone to give it life. Therefore, the message becomes in need of the preacher, not to make it known, but to make it worth knowing.

Rather, we should begin with two presuppositions. First, those who respond to the offer of salvation do so because of the power of the word and Spirit. Second, the person who responds to the message of the Gospel does so precisely because they recognize it is different from the message of the world. The Bible calls the minister to be an example, not an accomplice.

Does relevance mean that the preacher is able to communicate something to the world, or does it mean that preacher has something the world needs to hear? In other words, does the preacher have a world to which he needs to make a message relevant, or does he have a message that is relevant that needs to be given to the world? One says the message is irrelevant and needs relevance added to it, in this case by the preacher. The other says the message is relevant and simply needs someone to deliver it to the world.

I cannot help but find the irony that much of what is considered relevant is often derived from polls. These polls are taken from the same people who no longer believe in Satan, Hell, or the exclusivity of Christ. Yet we make our authority for relevance to be the responses received from polls. In turning to the theologically erroneous to develop our practice of proclamation we can hope to establish a blissful ignorance at best.

In 2 Corinthians Paul has spent much of chapter 1 lamenting the difficulties that he has faced. He has been rejected by those that should follow him, persecuted by those to whom he has sought to minister, and criticized by those who did not understand his message. Yet, he counters all of that by reminding us of some truths that will greatly aid in ministry in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17.

First, Christ will lead his people in victory. Wherever the gospel is preached, Christ will be victorious. We must ask ourselves if we really believe the message is able to accomplish what we say it can accomplish. We must determine whether our approach to preaching begins with the assumption of an inherent relevance contained within the message or if relevance is intentional on the part of the preacher. I fear that our over-fascination with intentional relevance may be revealing a lack of trust in the inherent relevance of the message.

Second, the preaching of the gospel will be satisfying to some, and putrefying others. We should not seem surprised when it is rejected. We must escape the developing mentality that a successful ministry will be embraced by everyone. To remove the offense from the Gospel requires removing the Cross from the Gospel. To remove the Cross from the Gospel is to remove the good news from the Gospel, leaving us with no Gospel at all.

Third, we are inadequate to bring the Gospel to a higher level of accomplishment than what is already inherent within it. Any pursuit of relevance that seeks to make the Gospel more successful is to place the adequacy upon the preacher and remove it from the message. In the words of Paul, “Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5). In other words, we don’t make the Gospel relevant, it makes us relevant. Should we lose the Gospel of salvation in favor of a gospel of coping, we shall have discovered ultimate irrelevance. Then we will no longer speak for God and we will no longer have anything unique to say to people.

Fourth, we are not free to peddle the word of God. That is, we dare not seek to make the Gospel more palatable to social desires or cultural norms. We are not to be manipulative with the word of God. Some attempts at relevance hold little of the Gospel message, as if we can stealthily slip in the message of salvation and make the hearer a Christian without their knowing it.

Fifth, what we preach, we preach in Christ and before God. Perhaps a question every preacher should ask is if their message was written in manuscript form, would the Lord be willing to claim that message as His own? Would He hesitate to read every word? If the message is indeed in Christ and before God, then we should expect that God would be willing to own every word of the message.

To seek relevance at the expense of Biblical fidelity is ultimately to be irrelevant. We will say nothing they have not already heard. We are to expose the message in all of its fullness, which by design, is radically different from any other message the world has heard. It should sound different because it is different. The message that we are to communicate finds its locus in the inerrant and sufficient word of God.

It is a message that by nature is offensive to those who are perishing and satisfying to those who are being saved. Is it possible that the perceived losses we have suffered are due more to a lack of trusting in the power of God’s word and Spirit than in a culturally mandated relevance? There is no more relevant message than the simple message of the God who came to save sinners using the Cross as an instrument of reconciliation for those who respond in faith. Anything less is irrelevant.

The Ineffable Glory Thoughts on the Resurrection By Edward McKendree Bounds, Homer W. Hodge

The Ineffable Glory Thoughts on the Resurrection By Edward McKendree Bounds, Homer W. Hodge: "Had Jesus Christ delivered no other declaration than the following Marvel not at this for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good unto the resurrection of life and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation He had pronounced a message of inestimable importance and well worthy of that splendid apparatus of prophecy and miracle with which His mission was introduced and attested a message in which the wisest of mankind would rejoice to find an answer to their doubts and rest to their inquiries ST COLERIDGE"

MISUNDERSTANDINGS, MONIKERS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS: REFLECTIONS OF AN UNDER 40 PASTOR IN THE SBC

Recent days have seen the increasing warning that pastors under 40 are abandoning the SBC for a movement that is more relevant. Large church pastors on the cutting edge are paraded before the followers of SBC goings-on for the purpose of demonstrating “how it ought to be done.” Falling baptismal rates, shrinking churches, and graying heads are cited as supporting evidence of the tragic direction of the once mighty ship of the SBC. Having instilled fear into the heart of the young, the barely 40 pleads with the nearly 40 to come out and “be ye separate” lest the ship sink from a lack of interest. Our participation in the Great Commission is beckoned at every turn, as well it should be. However, according to some, the call is not simply to DO the Great Commission; rather, it is to do the Great Commission “like us.” The newly created box is to do things out of the box.

This is not to say that we are not encapsulated within our own time and culture. However, we must be careful not to act as if the Great Commission is prone to failure. When we participate in the command of Christ to make disciples by teaching and baptizing, we can be sure that the Commission will accomplish its intention. In other words, the power of salvation resides in the Word of God properly taught, preached, and obeyed. Therefore, as an under 40 pastor, and at times a victim of others misunderstandings, monikers, and misrepresentations by barely 40 pastors, I offer a series of posts from one under 40 pastor for your consideration. In not necessarily any order of importance, I offer the first of seven reflections of an under 40 pastor.

1. Theological Integrity.
I was raised during the age of “if it feels good, do it” or “if it works, it must be good.” Now, the slogans of Wall Street and the quips of psychology often plague the methodological approach of our churches. We have rightly lamented the “front door-back door” problem. However, these slogans and quips should be reserved for Corporate America. Too often in church life, we examine the pragmatic success, seek the approval of the polls, and then search for the prohibitions of Scripture. We must regain the notion that the word of God is more than boundaries that should not be crossed, but they are directives that should be followed. By doing so, we will maintain our theological integrity.

The most unpragmatic doctrine of today is Ecclesiology. Supposing we could solve the debates of Soteriology, will it really matter if we fail to address Ecclesiology? As a man who has been twice dunked but once baptized, I fear that if we lose this precious doctrine, we will lose our identity, not as Baptists, but as obedient disciples; those who name Christ as Lord. The commission of our Lord is to make disciples, which includes a proper practice of baptism. We must obey ALL the commands of Christ, which involves the proper practice of ecclesiastical observances, even though they may bring disagreement with other ecclesiastical traditions.

Our coherence of the problems we face today is reflected in the solution that we offer to rectify the problem. If we fail to find the solution, it is because we have misunderstood the problem. Baptismal rates are not the problem; rather they are the reflection of the problem. I cannot help but find the irony of appealing to baptisms as the end-all of success, while simultaneously wanting to undo our doctrine of baptism. Perhaps we are too concerned with waxing the fruit when we need to be deepening the root. In other words, will the solutions offered today cause our roots to grow deeper as Christ-followers, or will they simply make us more appealing to those who gather around to observe what is being produced? Is our interest to develop followers of Christ, or observers of worship? Followers of Christ are interested in what He teaches. Observers of worship pursue “what works for me” and what “feels good today.”

If we seek unity at the expense of a biblical ecclesiology we will lose our integrity as people who have throughout our brief history championed theology. It is our particular theology that invited our being named Baptists. Fundamentally, the methodological problems we face today pale in comparison to the problems that we will face tomorrow if we lose our integrity. The command to honor the Commission is not a command to prioritize His commands according to pragmatic successes; rather, it is a command to obey all that we have been commanded by our Lord, lest He ask of us, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). To claim Christ as Lord and then prioritize His commands is to have a lack of integrity in our theology. We should passionately pursue Soteriology, but in doing so, let us not sacrifice Ecclesiology on the altar of pragmatics. If we sacrifice Ecclesiology, we need not fear the death of our churches, for we will have killed them.