Issues surrounding the creation of the Great Commission Task Force last year, and the report to the SBC Convention this summer, involve many agencies and missions endeavors promoted by the SBC. While I have personal opinions about the task force recommendations, I don't know enough yet to evaluate them publicly. I can, though, generally agree that we shouldn't waste mission money on domestic bureaucracy.
Not knowing enough, however, apparently does not stop others from opining,and I will assess the opinion whirlwind surrounding the GCR and its recommendations.
A church's giving to Cooperative Program, has, for some years, been a litmus test of sorts. We tend to view the level of CP giving as an indication of denominational loyalty, manfiestation of Great Commission passion, and, in extreme -- but all too common -- situations, cause to question each others' salvation.
Large churches might give directly to missions projects and missionaries, while still giving to CP. Such a church might have a budget of $2 million, give $200,000 directly to missions, and $100,000 to CP. This sounds good, until smaller churches calculate and point out that the percentage of CP giving is "only" five percent (5%).
It has reached the point (and proceeded past it) that appointees to SBC boards, commissions, and other leadership positions in the denomination are considered unworthy solely on the basis of their churches' CP giving. One recommendation of the GCR Task Force is to calculate "Great Commission Giving," which would include CP giving as well as direct missions spending.
As a result, some say that such an effort is in violation of Jesus' command not to call attention to giving. This creates the situation that the very people who called attention to others' lack of CP giving are now sanctimoniously decrying the recognition of the existence of Great Commission giving.
Hypocrisy, it would seem, is no respecter of logic, nor appreciative of irony.
Unfortunately, the GCR reveals what has long existed regarding SBC attitudes toward CP giving. Without doubt, the CP serves a valid, important function in SBC life regarding out fulfillment of Great Commission living. But insisting that churches maintain certain levels of CP giving in order to qualify as true Southern Baptists, or worthy of leadership roles, is rank legalism.
First, if we assume that the New Testament obligation of individual believers is to give a tithe (10%) to their local church, fine. But the CP is NOT a local church, and congregations are NOT individual believers. Requiring -- even informally -- that congregations give a 'tithe' to CP is nothing less than adding a requirement to New Testament discipleship that is not found there.
Second, no church can evaluate the CP giving of another without judging what should be a matter of conscience and liberty for that congregation. When one church judges another in this way, there is a great danger that it will become envious of the larger church's resources, liberty, or freedom not to give such a large portion of annual budget to CP.
Third,there are much more effective -- and biblically faithful -- methods to guage whether a given pastor would be the sort of denominational leader who is representative of a healthy Southern Baptist church. The ratio of members to attenders is one. Others include the level of involvement of members in discipling, witnessing, and serving; how biblically astute and aware the members are; and the degree to which members' lives contradict the world.
The problem is that these other measures are difficult to assess, while CP giving is easy to see.
One thing, however, remains certain: if one church claims that the pastor of another is not qualified to serve in the SBC because his congregation gives more directly to evangelizing Muslims in India than to the Cooperative Program, something is amiss in our understanding of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Showing posts with label legalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legalism. Show all posts
Friday, May 28, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Doriani on Boring Preaching
"In too many churches, people hear the same applications, in much the same words, week after week. Week by week they hear that they should pray more, evangelize more, serve more; be more holy, more faithful, more committed. Contaminated by traces of legalism, such messages grow dull and predictable. If the preacher's ultimate crime is to promote heresy, the penultimate crime is to make the faith seem boring."
-- Daniel M. Doriani, Putting the Truth to Work
-- Daniel M. Doriani, Putting the Truth to Work
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
SBC: Vice Squad?
The Alabama Baptist and other media outlets associated with the Southern Baptist Convention are frequently dominated by stories of efforts to curtail gambling and alcohol use. Any why not? Wasting the family’s grocery money at the slot machines and driving drunk hurt everyone. But should those things dominate both our discussions and our energies and become what the SBC is known for?
Who among us would not be able to recount the efforts of our own church, or that of people we know, to keep liquor stores a suitable distance away from church property and retain a ‘sanctified zone’ for our pious goings-on? Otherwise ambivalent Christians can be counted on to mount the proverbial holy crusade to keep the pool hall across the street from getting a liquor license.
Why does sanctimony seem so appealing?
“Sanctimony” is a bit strong, you say? The April 2 issue of The Alabama Baptist carries the story of a Prattville church that successfully ‘halted’ the lease of state property – located down the street from the church and its school – to a liquor store (click here for a blog article about it). The Minister of Administration for East Memorial Baptist Church, Bryan Easley, gave the rather revealing reason the congregation was so interested in maintaining its ‘sanctified zone’: “None of us wanted to drive by a liquor store on our way to church and school and home.”
What?
The church was not faced with an issue of its congregants needing to navigate through besotted heathen stumbling around the streets, spilling alcohol and obscenities all over children innocently skipping their way to Vacation Bible School. It was not faced with the problem of drunken revelers sleeping off their partying in church doorways, vomiting on the lawn, or engaging in promiscuity behind the church sign emblazoned with the message “Sign Broken – Message Inside.” (What if our hypothetical hung-over drunkards wanted to hear that message, and proceeded inside to partake?)
Instead, the minister did not want to drive by the store.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the minister and his congregation wanted to avoid other things:
“None of us wanted to drive by a prostitute on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a drug addict on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a mugging on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a gambler on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a homeless man on our way to church and school and home.”
Besides – none of us? On the way to church, school and home? What if they merely saw a liquor store ad in the Yellow Pages as they looked for a fried chicken place that delivers? (See the link to the Sam Rainer article below for the not-so-inside joke.)
Several thoughts come to mind, most of which I am not able to transcribe verbatim, for I would imagine that many who deem themselves followers of Christ and don’t want to drive by a liquor store would also proudly proclaim that neither do they want to “internet surf by someone speaking sternly to fellow believers."
First, let us be clear about the biblical teaching on alcohol. It is NOT forbidden. The biblical prohibition is against drunkenness. The biblical prohibition against causing others to stumble is NOT an absolute mandate to avoid drinking – or anything else, for that matter – but an indication that when a believer KNOWS that his behavior causes another to stumble, he should be willing to lay aside that otherwise permissible behavior for the sake of his stumbling brother. Sinful behavior, by contrast, is always wrong, whether or not it causes another to stumble. It is perfectly acceptable for believers to choose not to drink at all, either for personal preference or to avoid the possibility that another might be caused to stumble. It is NOT permissible for that believer, having so decided, to consider others of different opinions as less pious or less faithful.
D.A. Carson has reportedly quipped “If I'm called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I'll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, ‘You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,’ I'll reply, ‘Pass the port’.”
Second, this sentiment reveals a disturbing mindset about which sins we choose to rail against. We have no problem railing against VICES – those things that all those unrepentant heathen or backslidden believers are doing to degrade society. But poll those congregations that spend enormous energy mounting petition drives against gambling and alcohol, and count how many of their sermons in the past twelve months have railed against gluttony, greed, anger, envy, divorce or lust. We rail against the behavior of others while molly-coddling the sin that corrupts the heart.
Third, this sentiment reveals a disturbing mindset about corporate worship. Not only do we want to be left alone to worship God together, but we also want everyone who doesn’t to quit reminding us that they aren’t, and about the condition from which God called each and every one of us. We create a ‘sanctified zone’ around our church buildings to keep the ‘sinners’ – and any evidence that there are any – a safe distance away. Does the very sight of someone sinning – viewed from the protective cocoon of our late-model automobiles – keep us from worship? Does the very knowledge that someone remains lost outside the church walls keep us from worship? Perhaps our true discomfort comes when we consider that perhaps that knowledge should compel us to do something other than roll up our car window or sign a petition.
It should come as no surprise to members of Southern Baptist congregations that we are known as being ‘legalists,’ and hypocrites, to boot. (Sam Rainer talks about an informal poll on this subject taken by his dad, Thom Rainer, on his blog.)
Last, there is inherent in this attitude a presumption that to be Christian you cannot be even close proximity to certain types of sin (I’m still pondering how the mere existence of liquor, sitting in unopened bottles on shelves in a closed store, constitutes sin to be so studiously avoided…or how Jesus himself would have passed current ministerial muster). There is no thought at all given to why it is only gambling and alcohol that must be safely quarantined, and not all those other sins that stem from our creaturely pride.
Instead of faithfully doing our part as believers to herald the kingdom of Christ – characterized by humility, forgiveness, grace and redemption – we are instead engaging in the ancient lie that we can create our own tee-totaling, electronic-bingo-boycotting, man-made empire.
So, for those who maintain that we can’t drive by a liquor store and remain Christian: ‘Pass the port’.
Who among us would not be able to recount the efforts of our own church, or that of people we know, to keep liquor stores a suitable distance away from church property and retain a ‘sanctified zone’ for our pious goings-on? Otherwise ambivalent Christians can be counted on to mount the proverbial holy crusade to keep the pool hall across the street from getting a liquor license.
Why does sanctimony seem so appealing?
“Sanctimony” is a bit strong, you say? The April 2 issue of The Alabama Baptist carries the story of a Prattville church that successfully ‘halted’ the lease of state property – located down the street from the church and its school – to a liquor store (click here for a blog article about it). The Minister of Administration for East Memorial Baptist Church, Bryan Easley, gave the rather revealing reason the congregation was so interested in maintaining its ‘sanctified zone’: “None of us wanted to drive by a liquor store on our way to church and school and home.”
What?
The church was not faced with an issue of its congregants needing to navigate through besotted heathen stumbling around the streets, spilling alcohol and obscenities all over children innocently skipping their way to Vacation Bible School. It was not faced with the problem of drunken revelers sleeping off their partying in church doorways, vomiting on the lawn, or engaging in promiscuity behind the church sign emblazoned with the message “Sign Broken – Message Inside.” (What if our hypothetical hung-over drunkards wanted to hear that message, and proceeded inside to partake?)
Instead, the minister did not want to drive by the store.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the minister and his congregation wanted to avoid other things:
“None of us wanted to drive by a prostitute on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a drug addict on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a mugging on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a gambler on our way to church and school and home.”
“None of us wanted to drive by a homeless man on our way to church and school and home.”
Besides – none of us? On the way to church, school and home? What if they merely saw a liquor store ad in the Yellow Pages as they looked for a fried chicken place that delivers? (See the link to the Sam Rainer article below for the not-so-inside joke.)
Several thoughts come to mind, most of which I am not able to transcribe verbatim, for I would imagine that many who deem themselves followers of Christ and don’t want to drive by a liquor store would also proudly proclaim that neither do they want to “internet surf by someone speaking sternly to fellow believers."
First, let us be clear about the biblical teaching on alcohol. It is NOT forbidden. The biblical prohibition is against drunkenness. The biblical prohibition against causing others to stumble is NOT an absolute mandate to avoid drinking – or anything else, for that matter – but an indication that when a believer KNOWS that his behavior causes another to stumble, he should be willing to lay aside that otherwise permissible behavior for the sake of his stumbling brother. Sinful behavior, by contrast, is always wrong, whether or not it causes another to stumble. It is perfectly acceptable for believers to choose not to drink at all, either for personal preference or to avoid the possibility that another might be caused to stumble. It is NOT permissible for that believer, having so decided, to consider others of different opinions as less pious or less faithful.
D.A. Carson has reportedly quipped “If I'm called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I'll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, ‘You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,’ I'll reply, ‘Pass the port’.”
Second, this sentiment reveals a disturbing mindset about which sins we choose to rail against. We have no problem railing against VICES – those things that all those unrepentant heathen or backslidden believers are doing to degrade society. But poll those congregations that spend enormous energy mounting petition drives against gambling and alcohol, and count how many of their sermons in the past twelve months have railed against gluttony, greed, anger, envy, divorce or lust. We rail against the behavior of others while molly-coddling the sin that corrupts the heart.
Third, this sentiment reveals a disturbing mindset about corporate worship. Not only do we want to be left alone to worship God together, but we also want everyone who doesn’t to quit reminding us that they aren’t, and about the condition from which God called each and every one of us. We create a ‘sanctified zone’ around our church buildings to keep the ‘sinners’ – and any evidence that there are any – a safe distance away. Does the very sight of someone sinning – viewed from the protective cocoon of our late-model automobiles – keep us from worship? Does the very knowledge that someone remains lost outside the church walls keep us from worship? Perhaps our true discomfort comes when we consider that perhaps that knowledge should compel us to do something other than roll up our car window or sign a petition.
It should come as no surprise to members of Southern Baptist congregations that we are known as being ‘legalists,’ and hypocrites, to boot. (Sam Rainer talks about an informal poll on this subject taken by his dad, Thom Rainer, on his blog.)
Last, there is inherent in this attitude a presumption that to be Christian you cannot be even close proximity to certain types of sin (I’m still pondering how the mere existence of liquor, sitting in unopened bottles on shelves in a closed store, constitutes sin to be so studiously avoided…or how Jesus himself would have passed current ministerial muster). There is no thought at all given to why it is only gambling and alcohol that must be safely quarantined, and not all those other sins that stem from our creaturely pride.
Instead of faithfully doing our part as believers to herald the kingdom of Christ – characterized by humility, forgiveness, grace and redemption – we are instead engaging in the ancient lie that we can create our own tee-totaling, electronic-bingo-boycotting, man-made empire.
So, for those who maintain that we can’t drive by a liquor store and remain Christian: ‘Pass the port’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)