Did foolish purchases by low income adherents of “prosperity theology” play a role in the real estate market collapse in the US? The Atlantic Monthly seems to think so. A Hanna Rosin article in the December 2009 edition (read it here) posits that prosperity gospel proponents encouraged church members, many of whom were poor Latino immigrants, to claim the blessings that God had for them, including the blessing of getting loans through sub-prime lending.

Read the rest here.

For many years, observers of the church in America have been warning that too many believers may have inadvertently swallowed a bitter pill thinking it was good medicine. The re-prioritizing of the two kingdoms, man’s and God’s, has long been a temptation and it seem that we are destined to see it repeated over and over again until the return of Christ.

Whether the belief that England was in a covenant relationship with God, thus the moral authority to launch crusades against infidels, or that France was in a covenant relationship with God, thus the moral authority assumed by Joan of Arc to crusade against the antagonistic English, or the belief that “New England” was in a covenant relationship with God since “Old England” has turned away from the covenant, nations and peoples since the ascension of Christ have sought to pick up, dust off and wear the mantle of Israel’s covenant with God. Almost without fail this leads to an idolatry from which there is rarely a return. Even many pre-WW2 Christians in Germany welcomed the influence of the Nazi Party as if it were the evident blessing of God on “the Fatherland.” Thankfully the Confessing Church stood against the embodied blasphemy that was the 3rd Reich.

Amid the many “taking America back” ideas that permeate that portion of Americans who are Christians there seems to run a common thread of misunderstanding. There has never been a Christian America and never will be. Just as there has never been nor ever will be a Christian Sudan, Ghana, Canada, Russia or Egypt. “Christian” should refer to people who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, not countries, bookstores or concerts. While it should be obvious to any reader of the Scriptures that Jesus died to save Americans, He did not die to save America. To think that God has only used America for His purposes is to misunderstand history; to think that God has chosen American for special blessing in a way that He has chosen no other country is to misunderstand theology. Second Peter 2:9 makes it clear that the “holy nation” God has chosen in these day is the church, not a geopolitical entity. The church exists within the borders of United Nations national charters, she does not take the place of them or become them. The ongoing conflation of the two kingdoms has created an unhealthy relationship between church and government even here in the United States where both left and right leaning Christians equate the presence of the Kingdom of God with whether or not we get a single payer healthcare option or we finally drill for oil in the arctic preserve. It bears remembering for all American believers that every time the church has crawled in bed with the state, the government prospers and the church is left cold, wretched, miserable, blind and naked.

Valid questions for all American Christians are: Do we worship America or Jesus Christ? Have we been brought into the relationship marked by Christianity or the religion of Americanism? Consider the following as possible indicators that we might have switched kingdoms:

Does your blood pressure goes through the roof when you see someone burning the American flag, yet you can hear someone take the name of Jesus in vain and you don’t flinch?

Are you angered when you see disrespect to an American soldier, yet when the persecution of Christians is reported on the news you give it not a second thought?

Will you walk across a restaurant to thank a service man/woman you have never met, but never thank your pastor for taking care of the flock?

Are you worried more about the country going into socialism than you are praying for the financial obedience of your own church?

Do you actively recruit people to your political positions, but ignore the need those same people have to know Jesus?

Does the national anthem or “American the Beautiful” brings tears to your eyes while worship songs bring dullness to your ears?

Are you more concerned when the Constitution is ignored than when the Bible is ignored?

Are you more appreciative of freedom of religion granted in the First Amendment than of freedom in Christ promised in John 3:16?

Is there a greater place in your heart for Washington, Adams and Jefferson than for Abraham, Paul and Peter?

Is it more important to you to support war or to try and bring peace?

At the National Prayer Breakfast in 1973 Former Senator Mark Hatfield said, “Let us beware of the real danger of misplaced allegiance, if not outright idolatry, to the extend we fail to distinguish between the god of an American civil religion and the God who reveals Himself in the Holy Scriptures and in Jesus Christ.

If we as leaders appeal to the god of civil religion, our faith is in a small and exclusive deity, a loyal spiritual adviser to power and prestige, a defender of only the American nation, the object of a national folk religion devoid of moral content. But if we pray to the biblical God of justice and righteousness, we fall under God’s judgment for calling upon His name, but failing to obey His commands.”

Hatfield had it right. God help us not to get it wrong.

From former Cambridge professor, author and famed atheist, Richard Dawkins:

“Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in “Natural Theology,” that the creation of life was God’s greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we’d amend the statement: Evolution is the universe’s greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.

Indeed, evolution is probably the greatest show in the entire universe. Most scientists’ hunch is that there are independently evolved life forms dotted around planetary islands throughout the universe—though sadly too thinly scattered to encounter one another. And if there is life elsewhere, it is something stronger than a hunch to say that it will turn out to be Darwinian life. The argument in favor of alien life’s existing at all is weaker than the argument that—if it exists at all—it will be Darwinian life. But it is also possible that we really are alone in the universe, in which case Earth, with its greatest show, is the most remarkable planet in the universe.”

[...]

“Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.”

The rest of this article may be found at The Wall Street Journal.

————————————————————————–

From a Facebook response written by Beth Duren Lancaster:

“The first question that comes to my mind is, What if evolution was God’s idea? Would there then be no use for God after evolution was set into place? If God invented evolution, then God would be the author/designer/creator/sculptor of evolution. Would we say that since we have the completed works of Shakespeare, we’ve no need for the Bard himself? We have lightbulbs (“greener” and far better than the original), so no need for Edison? The Mona Lisa hangs on display, so da Vinci is useless to us? Now, I can’t stress enough my awareness that these are far from perfect comparisons (I don’t know of any Edison disbelievers), but I’m not at all trying to offer any sort of proof for the existence of God so perhaps it doesn’t matter. Why would an invention or creation (maybe too charged a word for Dawkins) render the inventor or creator useless?

Dawkins works from the premise that God does not exist and has never existed. So that certainly aids in his conclusion that evolution renders God useless, but it’s definitely no disproof of God. Perhaps that isn’t Dawkins’ intent, but then what would be the point of the article? (And when is that ever NOT Dawkins’ intent?) Dawkins’ is supposedly highly skilled in his own scientific field, but has always appeared to me to be a real lightweight in fields out of his specialty. In other words, he’s a pretty lousy philosopher and seems nearly devoid of any sort of grasp of theology.

I do completely agree with the ending of his article. Either God exists scientifically or God doesn’t exist at all. There’s no ‘true for you, not true for me’ when it comes to God’s existence. Be a devout believer, a seeking agnostic, or a solid atheist, but good grief don’t think you’re doing anyone any favors by being everything to all. If you take a stand for nothing out of fear of offending someone, you give up all chances of ever challenging anyone. If our motivation is to challenge another person by sharing beliefs and discussing differences in effort to build relationships and better both parties, then we shouldn’t have to fear offending people. Believers and non-believers can both challenge each other, but too often our motivation is to convert just to prove ourselves right, and that’s simply a picture of the inward fears of humanity. Sometimes stepping on each others toes can actually be a good thing, but we shouldn’t feel the need to put on combat boots before we do it.”

This article first appeared on Examiner.com.

As President Obama gives a national speech today to school children, there are some in the United States who continue to pray for God to kill him. Citing the "imprecatory Psalms," at least two local church pastors have made it clear that they regularly and actively are praying for the death of the President of the United States.

Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California, may have been the first to get national attention for his stance. Drake, who announced on "The Alan Colmes Show" that he was "asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers" against the president, is widely known in Southern Baptist circles for submitting the resolution that led to the widely questioned "Disney boycott" a number of years ago. Unofficially dubbed "Mr. Resolution" by convention messengers, Drake’s pattern each year has been to offer numerous resolutions to the convention, most of which are rejected or never make it out of committee. So well known is he for this annual ritual that when he was elected as Second Vice-President of the SBC in 2006 comic joy was expressed from the dais that "Wiley won’t get to offer resolutions next year."

Drake, upon his election, immediately added, "2nd Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention," to all his correspondence and when his 1-year, non-renewable term was over, changed it to, "2nd Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention, 2004-2005." He caused a minor stir when he flew to Nashville for the fall meeting of the Executive Committee with the expectation that Southern Baptists should foot the bill, a privilege normally extended only to the sitting President. Eventually there was reimbursement, but a clarification also issued that Drake was not qualified for travel expenses.

The SBC gadfly is also a "birther," that is one who does not believe that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, not a legitimate president. He is even named on a lawsuit to that effect. Drake, also a member of the "Minutemen" organization and a vice-presidential candidate on the 2008 American Independent Party ticket in California, is now recognized by most Southern Baptists as being so far to the right that he’s not even on the wing. Said Art Rogers, pastor of Skelly Drive Baptist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, "I’m to the right of center on the American political spectrum. Wiley is on another planet."

Continue reading at Southern Baptist Examiner.

As we draw to the end of this series, we feel compelled to point out what all of us felt was an obvious point. It has been reported that some who read this blog have the mistaken impression that we do not support the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. This entire series was written by seven guys who are offering suggestions as to what we see are necessary changes that the GCRTF could recommend. To suppose or pre-suppose that, despite our clear words, we are somehow against the GCRTF demonstrates a failed judgment of our motives and a EPIC FAIL in the evaluation of our writings.

For those who are newcomers to this blog and may not be as familiar with our past involvement with “The Dark Side,” the men listed on the Editors page were, for 2-3 years, avid (some might say “rabid”) critics of the SBC and, often, some in its leadership. Though motives were questioned then as well (both by us and toward us), to a person our goal was to try and instigate some type of reform that would address the backroom politics, good ole’ boy nomination processes and bureaucratic redundancies all of which we felt were suppressing the SBC’s creative talent and innovation, disenfranchising younger leaders and threatening the long term viability of the Southern Baptist Convention. While we were critical of some of the entity heads within the convention, we also recognized that any lasting change would have to come as a result of the “blog conversation” moving into the arena of official leadership. On June 18, 2007, on the last “SBC” commentary on my (Marty) first blog, SBCOutpost, I wrote that “change must come from Frank Page, Thom Rainer, Geoff Hammond, David Dockery, Timothy George, Danny Akin and others of their tribe.” Sans Geoff Hammond, each of these leaders is involved at some level of driving change in the SBC. Knowing that these men have stepped up to the plate does not make us mad; it gives us varying degrees of hope from fleeting to great.

Having said that, anything that appears to be criticism from our end should be read as a hope that the GCRTF will go the distance and not be, to use biblical phrasing, “of those who shrink back and are destroyed,” but will press to the farthest extent and let the convention itself decide. In other words, we believe the GCRTF should bring “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” to Orlando and let the assembled messengers determine how to proceed from there. We do not want them to “shrink back” out of fear, uncertainty or concerns about walking on the toes of feudal lords.

Therefore, if we were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, we would make the following recommendations:

1. That the Southern Baptist Convention intentionally downsize is structural complexity by recognizing the series of autonomous relationships that exist between churches, associations, state conventions/fellowships and the national body and that the local churches must take the lead in re-shaping this autonomy to all extremes in each direction.

2. That the Southern Baptist Convention re-focus NAMB’s ministry tasks, retaining only on those areas that empower the churches through national coordination and facilitate the planting of churches in frontier areas. This would be best accomplished through decentralization. NAMB should begin to act as a true missionary sending agency while funding those missionaries accordingly.

3. That the Southern Baptist Convention cease from the practice of voting on “Resolutions.” The purpose of resolutions in theory makes sense, but in practice they are great tools for making Southern Baptists look like fools. We have long passed the point that our society cares at all what we think about its ills; resolutions have become points of disparagement for our host culture, another stigma that must be overcome by Southern Baptist churches and do nothing to help us fulfill the Great Commission.

4. That the Southern Baptist Convention focus its coordinated efforts toward only what local churches, associations, or state conventions cannot do alone or by voluntary networking. By definition this implies the closure of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

5. That the Southern Baptist Convention instruct the International Mission Board to implement strategies that empower national believers rather than seeking to primarily deploy western missionaries and make those stories a focus of all promotion.

6. That one-third of the trustees on Southern Baptist Convention entity boards be comprised of men and women younger than 40 years of age and that the total number of years that a single person shall be able to serve on all boards combined is twelve.

7. That churches be given the option to direct their Cooperative Program funds through their local association consistent with the mission of the local church and the accountable practices at all levels of our cooperative effort toward fulfilling the Great Commission.

8. That all bodies within the SBC–local churches, associations, state conventions and fellowships, and all national entities–strive for absolute accuracy in reporting of statistics and that a differentiation be made between what is accomplished by our own direct ministry efforts and those of groups with whom we partner both in North America and internationally.

9. That the Southern Baptist Convention explore alternative methods of theological training that retain an emphasis on conservative, classic theology, but are local church-centric and host culture specific. A new educational paradigm should be introduced which places Missiology on the same plane as Theology proper, Christology and Pneumatology and staffed accordingly.

10. That funding the Cooperative Program not be considered as the basis for being a cooperating church. The basis for cooperation should be missional engagement as the local church furthers the stated goals of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Cooperation” should not be reduced to money.

This post was originally published at Examiner.com.

Early Wednesday afternoon, around 1:50 local time, a sudden tornado traveled from south Minneapolis into the city damaging the Convention Center, a Lutheran church and a music shop. Dozens of homes and trees were damaged in the early touching down, while a different tornado crushed the roof of a North Branch middle school about 50 miles away, bringing doubts as to whether that school might open on time. The tornados were described as “weak” as the Weather Service gave both wind funnels a rating of EF0, the lowest on the scale.

Perhaps it was the “weak” designation that prompted popular Minneapolis pastor, John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church, to wonder on his blog whether God was giving a gentle warning to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America who were about to debate the ordination of practicing homosexuals into the ranks of their ministry. Piper wrote of seeing the cloud from distance, posted a picture of the damaged steeple of the Central Lutheran Church where the ELCA attendees were meeting and divined that the purpose of the tornado was related to the ELCA’s decision, writing, “The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction.” Not the possibility of one of the damaged houses being a crack den, or the school being a poor use of money or the music store having the name “Electric Fetus,” which, had I been God, would have received a lightning strike in addition to wind damage.

Finish reading at the Atlanta Southern Baptist Examiner

Following the “Twelve Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence” chapel message by SEBTS president, Dr. Danny Akin, a movement was born. In June’s SBC meeting in Louisville, KY, president Johnny Hunt recommended the formation of a GCR Task Force to explore how the convention might respond to the ideas presented (reduced to ten from the original 12). Eighteen people were appointed to the task force initially with 4 others being added later (Hunt himself makes the twenty third). Chairman Ronnie Floyd has announced that the first two meetings, both this month, will be held in Atlanta and Rogers, AR. Great things are expected by some, the same old thing is expected by others.

Out of the 4 million committed members of Southern Baptist churches (not the supposed 16 million on rolls), there are 3,999,977 who have not been asked to be GCR Task Force members. Count us among the masses, as none of the writers on this blog are among the chosen. Just for fun, though, we asked ourselves this question: What if we were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force? Or, at least, what if we were on it? Rather than waiting for task force decisions to be made and follow them up with critique, we decided to put ourselves in their place and see what ideas might be generated.

Our attempt is to be careful to only address what we feel is within the purview of the task force, rather than what only the convention itself can do. This is also something that the convention peanut gallery might do well to remember. The GCR Task Force can only make recommendations; it cannot implement a single change, be it structural or ideological. It can only study, review and recommend to the gathered convention next June at Disney World Orlando.

First, we would read The Five Dysfunctions of a Team before our initial meeting and take its lessons to heart. Patrick Lencioni’s seminal work on the causes of team malfunctions lays a framework that cannot be overlooked. It will not be enough to pray and ask God for things to go well. This team of eighteen have never worked together; some have (or had) never even met each other, yet the expectation is a report that will be nothing short of revolutionary. Without a specific plan to create teamwork on short notice, a lot of time stands to be wasted and the end product could be in jeopardy before the first gathering in Atlanta.

Lencioni argues that the foundational component of any effective team is trust, ergo its absence is the root cause of dysfunction. When the team members cannot have absolute trust in each other’s abilities, motives and efforts it creates a mental morass where healthy conflict cannot take place. The atmosphere becomes, “Oh, that’s a good idea” or “Yeah…,” followed by awkward silence, rather than, “Uhm, that sounds good, but here’s why I don’t think it will work” or “Now that you have trotted that out, I’m going to shoot the legs off of it.” Lack of healthy conflict further manifests itself in a lack of commitment to the end result (which could result in members resigning or being less than enthusiastic about the outcome), an unwillingness to have true accountability and then carelessness about results. When you are not in for a dime, who cares about the dollar?

Trust can be quickly gained if there is a level playing field where no attention is given to ranks, positions and titles. The freedom for meaningful conflict will come when those with “power” (Floyd, Hunt, Mohler, Akin, et al) make it clear that there is no advantage gained and that all ideas will be judged on merit, not on the prestige of the presenter. It will be crucial that Ronnie Floyd and Johnny Hunt facilitate this and we would insist on it.

Second, we would remember just why those calls for live streaming or open meetings exist. There is a trust factor across the convention that the mere reading of a book cannot fix. For the last 30 years, whether valid or not, there is the perception that too many decisions in SBC life have been made in “smoke-filled” rooms, midnight phone calls, or by improper pressure and influence being placed on convention processes. Already there are whispers in the wind that some decisions are set in stone before the task force has even met. Because of these issues, many people now want the GCR Task Force to have completely open meetings and perhaps even live stream the proceedings.

We would not do this, but would proceed in this fashion: we would schedule three meetings that are completely open to any Southern Baptist who wants to attend. (One meeting of this “town hall” style has already been planned.) At these we would schedule 1- 2 hours of open mic with a two minute limit for any attendee to voice concerns or ideas. The task force will have to determine whether any usable ideas are generated, but at least there is a process in place for input. These three meetings and these three only we would live stream for anyone interested in watching online.

The other meetings would be closed. At the conclusion of each we would issue a press release summarizing the topics discussed, but not solutions to be recommended. This would allow the group to have confidence in their ability to have open, honest discussion without being sniped at for every comment made. It would also keep the convention up to date with the process as it unfolds. The final step we would take to help ensure integrity in the process would be to publish the name of every person who attempted to unduly influence the process and the higher up the denominational ladder the person was that tried, the bigger and bolder the font would be when we published the name.

Third, when encountering #IX of the GCR Declaration (A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure) there will be inevitable talk of consolidating or closing seminaries. We would insist that Al Mohler (SBTS) and Danny Akin recuse themselves from those discussions. No matter how diligent an effort is made to avoid undue influence, the issue will not be with the men themselves, but with the impressions given and friendships made among task force members. While in these discussions, it will already be difficult for task force members to avoid thinking, “We need men like this leading our seminaries” and perhaps they will be right in thinking so. That, however, creates an out of balance situation for the other presidents, and thus the other seminaries. Certainly at the drop of a hat a hundred graduates, trustees and supporters could speak as to why the other four presidents are the kind of men to lead those respective seminaries in addition to these the two on the task force. In fairness to the other four and to protect the process, Drs. Mohler and Akin should not be allowed to participate in seminary discussions. Any and all enrollment information, CP support, etc, can easily be gotten from the SBC Executive Committee or the offices of the various seminaries.

Potentially making this matter even more complicated is the Council of Seminary Presidents, the name given when they convene to discuss theological matters concerning the convention. This council has an agreement that when they deal with any matter that requires their involvement, after debate and discussion, they put forth a unified front with whatever decision is made. Our concern would be that the presidents not involved in the discussion might be forced to choke down a cyanide pill under the guise of presenting to the convention a bill of health.

(We do not see as large a concern regarding the IMB and NAMB, since each has a representative on the task force who can provide concurring or contrasting opinions.)

Fourth, we would seek statements from the president of each SBC entity and the chairman of its board of trustees to the effect that, no matter how far reaching any task force recommendation might be, there will be no public criticism or disagreement. This is a matter for the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to decide, not those who work for us. If this or that entity head or trustee board start making statements or fighting the process, it will create fiefdoms that will make medieval Europe look positively communistic by comparison. The politics of the convention are filled with an inglorious history of manipulation and improper influence; the GCR effort is an opportunity to put all of that aside for the furtherance of the Great Commission.

(Further, we would ask every state convention or state fellowship executive director for a similar statement of agreement.)

Fifth, we would do our best to ensure that these discussions are guided by mission, not by dollars and cents (although sense would be just fine). After all, this is about the Great Commission, is it not? But, because so much talk has been generated about “efficiency” there is a danger that many decisions will fall under the domain of “cost cutting” turning the SBC into the denominational equivalent of Big Lots or Goodwill. What should guide us is the missio dei and all decisions should be subservient to that. The mission of the SBC, whether you call it a “Great Commission Resurgence” or something else, should be seen as within the mission of God, not separate and distinct from it. We would be hesitant to make any recommendations that we could not reconcile with the missio dei.

Finally, because there has been concern about #IX becoming the focus of the entire work of the GCR Task Force, we would make sure that every recommendation concerning restructuring was tied into at least one of the other nine points of the declaration, since, arguably, the other nine stand head and shoulders above it in relation to the gospel.