Archive

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

The Prophet Dwight: For those with ears to hear

April 9th, 2010 Marty Duren Comments off

I would encourage everyone to read Dwight McKissic’s post of April 7, 2010. One excerpt:

Dr. Danny Akin prophetically, positively, and profoundly addressed the race issue in his signature message in chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, concerning the Great Commission Resurgence. Rarely, do we hear of this type of statesmanship and leadership on this issue from anyone in SBC life. Much respect to you, Dr. Akin. I wish the GCR report to the annual meeting in Orlando would include Dr. Akin’s initial remarks on this subject.

For years I’ve asked many of my Black Baptists and evangelical Pastor friends, who would not question one word of the B, F, and M, 2000, why won’t you join the SBC? Their response would be, because it is “southern and racial”. Note: not racist, but “racial”- meaning, the DNA of the SBC is White, and geographically and culturally southern oriented. Therefore, it cannot comfortably or willingly accommodate or assimilate as equals, African American Baptists input, involvement and influence. For years I’ve disagreed with my friends’ analysis. But I’ve since reached the conclusion, they are right.

The entire post can be read here.

Did prosperity theology propel the housing crash?

November 23rd, 2009 Marty Duren 1 comment

HOME FORECLOSURES

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.

Christianity or Americanism?

October 26th, 2009 Marty Duren 3 comments

Second Continental Congress

Second Continental Congress

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.

No use for God

September 21st, 2009 Marty Duren 2 comments

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.”

Categories: Culture, News, Philosophy Tags:

As the furor over the President’s speech subsides, ministers continue to pray for his death

September 8th, 2009 Marty Duren Comments off

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.

If We Were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, We Would Recommend…

August 31st, 2009 Marty Duren 7 comments

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.

John Piper, a tornado and discerning the will of God

August 21st, 2009 Marty Duren Comments off

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