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.

We near the final report of the GCRTF and Marty reminds us of the quiet work of another committee. Yes, how could we have missed the search to fill the highest “unelectable” post in the SBC? Maybe the committee has been glad the interest has been placed on the GCRTF. Their work has been done in relative quiet. The nexus of these two decisions – the Final Report of the GCRT and the recommendation to fill retiring Morris Chapman’s post may reveal deeper fissures at one time apparent.

Our interest here in recent posts is not to exaggerate the divide but to serve a reminder that nothing has really changed. If anything positions have been calcified. When was the last time you heard any word on IMB policies. Yes, we have heard and read the recommendations in the preliminary report of the GCRTF. But consider this.

Let’s say the IMB assumes the role of leading the way to reach un-reached people group populations now living as immigrants in the U.S. We still have policies that will exclude those we may believe God intends us to send from our churches. Only this time the matter won’t be so far away – on the field in another country. No, right here in a church’s own backyard will our sending entity still be following guidelines excluding recommended personnel out of fear of “pentecostal” sympathies. James K.A. Smith asserts a “pentecostal spirit” really reflects an acknowledgment God may really do anything. And though not SBC, he is Reformed in his theology and offers an interesting perspective on the sovereignty of God and the need to be subject to the Spirit of God to do whatever the Spirit may do in exalting Jesus.

It seems the BI group holds sway on this subject. Two years ago it was Frank Cox who firmly believed these policies to be appropriate. In fact, if you want a recap follow the links in the compilation post offered by Timmy Brister last year. While everyone’s attention has been on what will come from listening sessions and reports from the GCRTF, what kind of vetting is taking place for the post now held by Chapman?

For instance, the outcry by some to renounce the announced nomination of Tony Gramling is quite ironic. Where was the outcry when CR leader Charles Stanley’s church gave a small percentage to the CP? He was on the right side so it did not matter. Why have we forgotten the late Adrian Rogers who suggested, “Percentages don’t feed missionaries, dollars feed missionaries?” It was noted that Johnny Hunt’s church gave 2% directly through the CP when he was elected President but gave $3 million to SBC causes. So, those who starved out the opposition when they were in charge now have some in their crowd fearful they are “losing the whole thing.” (Frank Cox)

The issue is not for or against the CP. Don’t miss the issue – what appears to be only slight fissures in the competing visions for the SBC is much wider than it appears. And you can be sure some working quietly are well aware. Chapman’s successor will either lead us forward or take us back. Maybe it would be good to re-visit Marty’s reminder of the import of this decision, circulate the post, email it as Marty does a good job outlining important considerations for this important selection.

With the resignation of Jerry Rankin from the IMB and the opening of the presidency at NAMB, the trifecta of opportunities has been acknowledged as a defining moment for the future of the SBC. I’m thinking recently that, while the two mission agency positions are viewed as extremely important, the lynch-pin may well be the X-Comm position.

Consider a person who gets to give a lengthy address to the X-Comm each time they gather, a lengthy message to the convention every single year, participates in the budget planning for the entire convention and, essentially, leads the committee charged with running the convention 362 days a year. Arguably that person would be the most influential or powerful person in the convention. The president of the IMB might be, to quote Paige Patterson, “the most important person in the world,” but I’m not sure he’s the most important person in the SBC on a day-to-day basis.

If the most important position being filled is the X-Comm president, for what type of person should the search team be searching? A few thoughts:

1. Someone not antagonistic toward any part of the convention’s disparate parts. We have had a few years worth of younger leaders, emergent churches, Acts 29 and Calvinism. If there is one thing true about the convention it is this: there are different groups many of whom are on opposite ends of varied spectrums. The next president of the X-Comm must be one who is able to bridge gaps, not expand them or create them. The polarizing effects of those friendly with the Baptist Identity group need to be kept from this office.

We have had a pretty consistent firing of salvos across the convention toward any who are self-identified as (or suspected by others of being) Calvinistic in their theology. Most recently a paper has been circulated through some southern states detailing how to tell if your pastor is a Calvinist. One or two pastors have even lost jobs as a result. This type of antagonism toward any convention sub-set simply cannot be a part of the leadership motif of the X-Comm president.

2. Someone who is above board and not a subversive. To be in a key part of convention budget planning is to be charged with a huge responsibility, one that requires an ability and willingness to remain free of leadership slight of hand.

People who are involved in manipulative, behind the scenes scheming don’t have the kind of character needed to lead. This position requires engagement with the other members of the Great Commission Council, the convening of SBC entity heads which as been as historically dysfunctional as an episode of Wife Swap. All of the new voices must be able to work as part of a team for the good of the SBC. The X-Comm president needs to be a proven voice of honesty, integrity and openness.

3. Someone with experience. This one might sound odd coming from a person who railed against recycling trustees and for creating opening new opportunities for new people to be involved in convention activities. This particular position needs some amount of convention experience and, I think, more than either of the other two entity openings.

The question is, “How much convention experience is necessary?” Must a person have served at every single level from associational moderator through state opportunities to the SBC Executive Committee? Must he/she have lived and breathed the convention for most or through his/her adult life? Been born with the CP spoon in their mouth? Surely not. Though familiarity should be expected, a DNA strand encoded with the letters “SBC” should not be required.

Rather than simple convention experience, I think the more apt question is, “What did the person do with the opportunities he/she had?” Was it a simple “keep on keeping on” or was vision part of the equation? Were new ideas and strategies introduced to demonstrate real leadership?

It also might be worthwhile to consider what type of outside experience or influence the person has had. Do those outside the SBC recognize his/her influence and value? Is the right person one who has been living in an SBC box? Doubtful.

4. Someone who is more inclusive than exclusive. Related to number 1, but, even more than not being antagonistic, this person must have a record of being welcoming to the widely differing range of styles now represented across the convention. Back in the day we would have said, “Not a person for narrowing the parameters of cooperation.”

I don’t know Troy Gramling. A week or so ago when Nathan Finn tweeted

I hesitate to be so pointed, but I do not think Troy Gramling should be president of the SBC Pastors Conference. We need another candidate

Gramling’s name crossed my plate for the first time ever.

Apparently I’m alone in my ignorance.

Former president of the Georgia Baptist Convention and former SBC presidential candidate, Frank Cox, also had something to say. It was similar to Finn, but I think much more telling. Emphasis is mine:

I think it is time we Southern Baptist [sic] stand up. We are about to lose the whole thing. We need another candidate for SBC Pastors Conf.

What “whole thing” is who about to lose? Surely the Pastors’ Conference is not the “whole thing”? If not, what is? What should Southern Baptists be standing against? A pastor who is too innovative? Any kind of progress?

Perhaps it was simply because Gramling’s church gives a paltry amount to the SBC and is barely considered cooperative, but, honestly, it sounds like the same kind of chicken little “the sky is falling” rhetoric that we heard way back when the Younger Leaders movement started gaining traction in the SBC, for which Jimmy Draper was often castigated by some in convention leadership while the younger leaders themselves were ridiculed as power hungry, impatient, unappreciative or liberal.

5. Should be someone who is known for leading change or leading in a time of change. The X-Comm presidency will set the tone for how and if many recommendations from the GCTRF are implemented with enthusiasm and kept a part of X-Comm’s agenda (as far as that goes). This is a strategic time in the SBC. The nominee cannot be “star-struck” by the opportunity, but needs to be effective in a time of constant change and shifting landscape.

In this writer’s opinion anyone who is thought of as “Mr. Convention” probably is not the person. The last thing the convention needs right now is conventional. I’m not necessarily advocating someone who will push every single boundary–even though that type of person might be my personal choice–but a person who knows which boundaries to push and when as he or she reaches out to build and sustain relationships across the convention while, perhaps, creating a few outside it.

May the search team have wisdom in this process.

We have no movement on our hands here at the present point.  I, like so many others, voted heartily for the GCR in Louisville.  Like so many others, I cheered Pres. Johnny Hunt as he preached at the convention.  I was struck by the sober reality painted by David Platt in the Pastor’s Conference.  I was hopeful that a movement was underway.   That is not to say that we do not have some good words working through the convention.  Much of the rationale for the preliminary report given by Ronnie Floyd to the Executive Committee was great.  Consider his call for a renewed emphasis on the local church and a recognition that the church is the true “headquarters” of our denomination.  Wow, truly great words spoken by a great pastor and leader.  The recommendations?  They seem to be primarily concerned with the top level of cooperative life in the SBC.  Some have said this is simply because the GCRTF can’t change anything else.  We would do well to remember that they do not have the authority to change the SBC; only God can do that through willing hearts of faith.  We need a movement of God.

Denominational tinkering makes not a movement.  I was one who hoped the strong words of Danny Akin in his axiom sermon would start a movement in the SBC toward gospel-centered, Christ-exalting ministry.  I had hopes to see a movement toward participating truly in the Great Commission by living out the Great Commandment.  I had hopes that leaders would rise up and point our convention of churches toward Christ, His commands and His commission with great humility and great zeal.  I still hold some hope…but it is fading.

Most of the firepower in the preliminary report has been aimed at “releasing” NAMB, as if there was lying dormant some latent power in this agency.  Don’t get me wrong—NAMB does many good things, but we have no clear idea who will lead NAMB.  There is also much talk that we might not need NAMB and a real lack of clarity about how the proposed changes at NAMB demonstrate that the denominational headquarters of the SBC is in the local church.  This is not a movement.

There is little doubt that whatever the GCRTF brings forward will pass in Orlando.  Some will take exception with that statement, but I have not met one person who has followed the GCR conversation who actually thinks the recommendations won’t pass.  The problem is not whether what is brought forward will pass.  It will.  The real questions are:  1) How can we implement the recommendations in the current institutional environment of the SBC? and 2) How will these changes specifically lead the churches of the SBC toward the gospel movement that God is already at work supplying to some?

IF this is the best that we can do as a denomination, I will accept it and move forward with my brothers and sisters in Christ, in great hope that God will do mighty things through His people.   I do have a pressing question, though.  What will the leaders of the GCRTF do to demonstrate that these changes will in fact move us toward a resurgence of the Great Commission, a movement based in the gospel and carried out by transformed people? How, in particular, will the churches, seminaries and organizations represented by the leaders of the GCR model for us the means of a gospel movement through these and future recommendations?  I would ask the presidents of two seminaries, “What specifically will be different in your strategic plan as key partners in training pastors and leaders in light of the recommendations?”   To the pastors I would ask, “How will the church that God has entrusted to your shepherding care model for the cooperating churches of the SBC a gospel movement specifically by participating in the recommendations?”  To the other leaders I would ask, “What will be different for you and the church you attend in light of the vote in Orlando?

I ask the questions for a very simple reason:  I want you to be leading voices for gospel-centered churches in the SBC.  I have the privilege of working with 20 Southern Baptist churches in my association.  If you show me how you can be more gospel-centered, Christ-exalting and missional in light of these recommendations, I will join up and serve alongside you for the glory of God.  This is a critical time in our life as a convention of churches GCRTF, please show us your hearts for the gospel and the specific work that we cooperate together to do.  Provide clear calls to mission that other churches can join alongside.   I still want to believe that the GCR is far more than a call to manage the denomination; I want to believe in the movement that might have been, is not yet, but still can be with God’s help and grace.

Change theological education
Seminaries claim that their role is to train people for ministry. They train people to do: teach, preach, evangelize, education, counsel, parse verbs and uncover systematize theology. These are not unimportant. We should consider Christology and Pneumatology. However, Jesus trained people to BE: followers, disciples through relationship. One is functional and pragmatic. The other is ontological. Since you can only act out of who you are (the ontological), which one do you think is more important?

• Seminaries teach knowledge. Jesus modeled a relationship with God and others.
• Seminaries impart information. Jesus mentored.
• Seminaries embraced an enlightenment-based modernity that transitioned teaching from investment and mentoring to imparting knowledge. Jesus did theology in relationship or theology in mentorship rather than theology in lecture.

Seminaries need to focus more on spiritual formation within theological education. More emphasis needs to be placed on helping those that come through their $5 million seminary entrances become whole and healthy Christians than simply imparting systematic theology. Those students from unhealthy churches need mentors to walk along side them and speak into their lives, to invest time and energy with them and help them see areas that are lacking in wholeness. Unfortunately, we assign that to a class or two and expect them to get it.

The church has adopted a seminary-like format. The church has educational systems not formation systems. We lecture. We impart knowledge. And we call that discipleship. The church needs mentors, not lecturers. The church need coaches, not teachers. The church needs relational disciples, not professors.

The church is not as much functional as it is ontological. It is a community of faith. It is the bride of Christ. It is the body of Christ. It can only do out of who it is. But we expect the church to do, and in doing become. We have our doing and our being backwards. Even the language of the GCR is frame through doing language, not a being. The GCR is framed a something to be done. The failure of even the language is that we cannot do apart from being formed by God. We cannot love others with a white-hot passion without loving God with that same passion.

Change the scorecard for success
I have been writing on ministry success since 2008. I wrote a whole series of posts about. I have written an ebook about it. Success isn’t about the numbers. It’s about 3 things: obedience, investment and reproduction. Unfortunately, the SBC measures success in numbers, specifically attendance, money, and baptisms. This is a false measurement of success. Let me demonstrate.

One of the recent presidents of the Pastor’s Conference pastors a church that, when this man was nominated, was hailed as a great evangelistic church. The previous ten years they had averages 140 baptisms per year. In those same ten years, their attendance grew from 700-1100. Does anyone see a problem with that? This church, over a ten year period, baptized 1400 people but their attendance only grew by 400. Where are the other 1000? Maybe they started 5 churches out of that growth. Maybe they counted baptisms from their multi-cultural church partners. Maybe this is a huge transient area and all those people moved. But if those maybe’s aren’t true, this church is not a success. In fact, it is a failing. Yet that is who we celebrate. And who and what we celebrate gets repeated. What we celebrate gets emulated.

If we want to be successful pastors in the SBC we have to pastor large churches. That is what is celebrated. That is what is modeled. No wonder we have pastors hopping around and moving up the ladder, hoping to find that one church where they be celebrated as successful. Why? Because we have unhealthy pastors seeking an unhealthy standard of success.

Success comes as a result of being formed by the Spirit into the imago christi, the human we were created to be. That means success is found through obedience, investment (mentoring), and reproduction. That’s success – being formed by the Spirit, leading to obedience. We then invest in others and see the imago christi reproduced in others through our obedient investment and partnership with the Spirit. It has nothing to do with numbers.

If we want to bring change to the local church we need to celebrate obedient, Spirit-formed people who are investing in others. And we need our theological education to help people become, so they can do. Otherwise, the church will continue to be weak and unhealthy.

When I look at the local church I’m both aghast and amazed. Reading about the church through the last 2000 years I’m aghast at some of the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived lo these many years. Shoot, reading the New Testament I’m aghast at the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived. Even our heroes, like the belching, flatulating curmudgeon Martin Luther, will make one scratch one’s head. It truly is a wonder that the church has made it this far. But made it she has.

She’s made it not because of her resiliency. Not because of her determination. Not because of her moral purity. Not because of her shining example. She’s made it because of whose she is. God is simply doggedly determined to have a people, however imperfect we may continue to be. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

However, as Scripture and history demonstrates time and time again God often leaves his people (or at least some/most of them) to their own devices when they choose to go their own way. The seven churches in the book of Revelation along with many churches-turned-in-to-museums in Europe are some prime examples of that.

But when churches become corrupted, sick, self-serving, unfocused and/or irrelevant to all but themselves, they die and God replaces them with another unlikely group of people meeting in a mud hut or crammed into a small room in some unlikely corner of the world somewhere where Jesus is the main thing and where the gospel rings clear. While it’s tragic to watch churches struggle and die, maybe that’s just a part of a natural lifecycle of birth, death and rebirth that God does throughout history. The church dies in America and thrives in Korea. Who knows but God, whose ways are inscrutable?

This is where we Baptists face our greatest challenge. Our greatest challenge is not figuring out how we will turn NAMB into something we can finally be proud of. It is not in revamping the IMB or revitalizing (or doing away with) the ERLC. Our greatest challenge is in figuring out how we can move a significant number of our 45,000 churches from conflicted, inbred, inwardly focused, self-serving and self-preserving social gatherings to loving, reaching, kingdom-focused, other-serving, world-preserving outposts alive with and for the mission of God. I’m not saying all of our churches are that way. Many are. Not long ago I heard a state executive say that his state’s Associational DOMs unanimously tell him that the number one issue facing local churches in their associations is conflict. In a lunch with leaders from another prominent denomination they told him the same thing is true for them. We’re too busy fighting with each other to be bothered with a Great Commission Resurgence. We like the idea in principle, but we’re too distracted fighting a host of fires that we ourselves too often set. I’ve been told that most of our churches simply don’t have the will to make the changes that will bring vitality and relevance. I also know that, from a denominational perspective, our structure doesn’t lend itself to the sort of outside help/push that can serve as a catalyst for that kind of movement. Local church autonomy, you know.

From that standpoint the GCRTF may feel somewhat helpless. So, they propose to do things they can actually have some control over – which by definition must be outside of the local church. They’ll say that we need a Great Commission Resurgence in the local church, but they’ll do denominational restructuring. They’ll tell us that the local church is vital to our success but they’ll assign the local church’s mission to an agency or entity because they simply can’t make the local church be something other than what it currently is.

So here’s a suggestion to the GCRTF. Take the considerable influence you have and pour it into the local church. Not just your own, but other’s as well. Not just in a once-a-year conference but in an ongoing way. Help that little church in your association figure out how to get healthy. Invite them to partner with you outside of the weekly associational pastor’s coffee-and-gossip session. Resource them. Their pastor wants them to be healthy, but he’s having trouble getting them there on his own. Be an outside voice of reproval, rebuke and exhortation when you can. Help them to see why they are so dysfunctional. Help them see how they can become more effective. Help them and us to ask the hard questions – questions like: how did we get here in the first place? Why haven’t our discipleship efforts produced better disciples? Why have our spring and fall revival services not produced more revival? Why hasn’t our curriculum helped to prevent these problems that are now so large? Can we break unhealthy cycles? To do so what sort of things must happen? How can we get our focus off of ourselves and back onto Christ, the gospel and the Great Commission?

Our problem, as I see it, is that by and large our churches are not healthy. Healthy churches are like other healthy organisms – they show the signs of life, vitality and growth. Unhealthy churches are like other unhealthy organisms – they are weak, feeble and distracted by the things harming their health. Generally speaking, when we are unhealthy our thoughts, time and money are consumed by our problems. If I have a broken leg and you preach to me that I need to be running the race, well….good luck with that. Fix my leg and I’ll jump in. Ignore my leg and I’ll continue to watch from the sidelines.

So, use your bully-pulpit. Speak prophetically to our churches at the annual meeting, in Pastor’s conferences, in articles in your state Baptist paper. In articles in my state Baptist paper. Through BP. And get involved. You were asked to serve on the GCRTF because someone believes you can be of help outside of simply your own local church setting. You’ve obviously got time to attend all kinds of speaking engagements and what not. Turn down a few of those and spend that couple of days getting involved in the life of a church near you that desperately needs the kind of help you just might be able to give. I know it’s not sexy. There’s nowhere to report what you’re doing on your ACP. You’re not going to receive recognition at the annual meeting. It’s risky business. You might fail. After all, some of those dysfunctional churches simply don’t want to get better. In the end changing hearts is God’s job and we can’t plan, structure and organize God or his activity. We can plan, structure and organize NAMB. [Of course, that may fail, too. Been there, done that. More than once.]

If the local church really is where it all begins and ends, then give us something tangible in your recommendations for the local church. If you’re going to recommend the restructuring of entities then gear the restructuring to best assist the local church. That will most certainly mean that significant recommendations will have to be present for the six entities that were strangely left out of your initial report altogether – the seminaries. How will they equip men and women for service in dysfunctional, inbred, inwardly-focused churches that don’t have a lot of motivation or incentive to change? How will NAMB encourage and resource the local church to reach America beyond the south? How will the IMB encourage and resource the local church to take the gospel to the nations? How will the ERLC do anything that matters for a local church who’s members hardly even know it exists or why?

If a true Great Commission Resurgence will only take place at the local church level, and you’ve said that that’s true, then let your recommendations be driven by the needs of the typical local church. Help them get healthy and I just have to believe that they’ll want a resurgence in the Great Commission as much as you do.

In a day where technological advancements could make theological education more accessible, we find our seminaries takings steps to make their campuses more accessible, read “attractive,” with a new entrance at Southern Seminary at a reported cost of $5,000,000. And, if we are not beautifying the campus with a new chapel or dressing up Pecan Manor, we are acquiring fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is not that these two investments are reckless. The question begging to be asked is just when cuts are being made and dollars are scarce, what about doing theological education? It is a bit like major insurance companies resisting health care reform then announcing ahead of the vote they will increase premiums by as much as 30%.

Hutchinson believes we need more money for theological education. The SBC Outpost reported in the past how a number of the seminary presidents were pushing for an offering akin to Lottie and Annie. Perhaps if some of our seminaries took a more aggressive approach to a new kind of theological education they would find more support for this idea from churches and not have to lobby the Executive Committee.

Donors like their names attached to large projects. How may we help them attach their dollars to students desiring theological education? That may be a good place for Hutchinson to put his energy.

And what seminary is he writing from?

In the spirit of interesting analogies, Missioscapes contributor and former SBC Outpost contributor, considers the parallels of the health care debate and the current GCR Task Force Preliminary Report and its implications.

March 18, 2010

Similarities Between Health Care Reform and the #GCR of Southern Baptists

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.

Second Continental Congress

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.