Theological Musings

heesy title for this post notwithstanding, I find nothing amusing or cute about an AP news article that was released today.

When the news about Ted Haggard’s resignation amidst confessions of “sexual immorality” broke last year, I opted not to blog about it in specifics. (I can’t even remember now if I wrote anything at all about it.) My choice to not use his name or specifics was for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that I didn’t want a bunch of Google traffic based on his name.

I also wanted to be extremely reserved in passing judgment. Not that I didn’t think that what he admitted to was pretty serious. And not that I didn’t think that the way he handled it was extremely inappropriate for a man of his position.

In the midst of the fallout from that scandal (what a cliché that is, eh?), I had concerns about the way his former church handled it, as well. I thought about writing some posts about that and comparing it to some of my own personal experiences with how churches often deal (or don’t deal, as the case may be) with sin amongst its leaders.

Today, however, I find myself not feeling so reserved. And I find myself torn between feelings of tremendous sorrow and harsh anger. I’m trying to err on the side of sorrow here, but it’s difficult.

So, what was the news that came out today? Well, it appears from this news story on Yahoo (HT: Kansas Bob) that Mr. Haggard is asking for support for the next two years because he doesn’t think that he and his wife have “adequate earning power” and won’t for at least two years.

But here’s the rub: Mr. Haggard reportedly received a severance package which included $138,000 in salary, he made $110,000 + an $85,000 bonus (?!?!) last year prior to resigning, he continues to collect royalties on his books (although I imagine the market for them has declined a bit), and lives in a close-to-3/4 of a million dollar home, which is on the market.

So, Mr. Haggard apparently thinks that he needs people to support him, despite all of that. Why? I can’t think of any good reason, either logically or scripturally, why Mr. Haggard should be entitled to financial support from others.

I will still refrain from passing judgment in a strict sense, but I think that perhaps Mr. Haggard got a little too comfortable asking people for money, expecting financial support to an extreme level, and living off the generous gifts of others who quite likely have a much lower standard of living than he.

Lord have mercy.

I’ll just leave it at that.

Until next time,

steve

have been reluctant to take on too many political issues here on this blog. One reason is that I recognize that many of my brothers and sisters have strong differences of opinion regarding political action, patriotism, etc. And I want to completely respect those differences. (Hmmm, that never stops me from talking about other controversial subjects, though…hmmm )

Anyway, I have been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way in which debates are framed regarding religious liberties in our nation. The message that I seem to keep getting is that we want continued religious freedom, yet somehow that always seems defined as making sure that Christianity gets top billing.

In other words, it’s not enough for us to have the freedom to pray. We want the freedom to make everyone else around us listen to our prayer. It’s not enough for us to trust in God. We want to make everyone else articulate that their trust is in God, too. It’s not enough for us to live “under God”. We want to make sure that everyone else declares that we are a nation “under God”, as well. (Of course, this begs the question whether or not we really are a nation “under God”, but I’ll let that go for the moment.)

I have watched while one leader after another talks about the “attack on Christianity” that is allegedly taking place in our nation. But is it so much an attack on Christianity, or merely a recognition that our version of a “Christian nation” is not what our nation was originally founded to be?

Today, we received another in a long series of phone calls from Jay Sekulow’s organization, ACLJ. The American Center for Law and Justice has been calling us to try to get support for their legal battles against Michael Newdow, the well-known atheist who has attempted to stop prayer at the Presidential Inauguration, remove “under God” from the pledge to the flag, and now apparently is trying to remove “In God We Trust” from our money.

I politely asked the lady on the other end of the line to take us off of their call list. Why? Because I don’t care about Christian freedoms? No, that’s not it at all. What I don’t care for is the fear and misrepresentation of events that continues to be the norm in Christian political action groups.

See, in the recorded message that they played for me, Jay Sekulow said that if Newdow succeeds, there will be “no public religious expression allowed” (I think those were the exact words). I’m sorry, but that is an overstatement of the facts, and is designed (whether intentionally or not) to spark fear and action in the hearts of Christians all across our nation. After all, who wouldn’t want to stand up for that, right?

Ironically, in a statement on ACLJ’s own website, this explanation is given as to why the national motto should remain what it is:

The price of freedom in this country is that sometimes you are exposed to words, expressions, or phrases that you do not agree with or that offend you. That is the price of freedom.

The problem with this statement is that it never seems to apply when, for example, merchants choose to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. Or when someone wants to talk about evolution. Or when an atheist expresses his desire to pledge allegiance without saying “under God”.

Are we really in support of freedom? Or are we trying to make this nation something that it’s not? I’m afraid it’s the latter.

Paul wrote that we should pray for our government (1 Timothy 2:1-2) so that we could live at peace. I believe that the implication would be that we could worship as we wish without government interference.  But this does not extend to making sure that we can publicly force others to say words that have no meaning to them personally.

I would love to see politically active people like Jay Sekulow, James Dobson, and others think through the ramifications of their positions before scaring others into aligning with them.

Any thoughts?

Until next time,

steve

ast year, I wrote a post questioning the whole concept of a “War on Christmas“. I had hoped that this year, things would be a bit calmer. But it appears that some still want to hold to the idea that Christmas is threatened. And others are feeling the same frustration I did last year (and still do).

I don’t have a whole lot else to say other than what I said last year, but I do want to point you to some other good thoughts on the issue. Blogging buddy Tony Sisk is covering this topic this year on his blog. Frankly, I wish I had thought to write the thoughts he is expressing in his posts! It’s good stuff, and passionately written. Go check it out and let him know what you think. His articles so far can be found here:

• “Is There a War on Christmas?“
• “Merry Christmas…Yeah, Right“

Update: Good homeschooling friend and blogger JenIG (Jenefer Igarashi) also had a great post recently about the idea of celebrating Christmas, but not even worrying about the “holy day” concept. Fascinating take on this subject, and one that has me intrigued.

Until next time,

steve

his post is already eight days overdue, but I’m finally getting around to writing about it. Fox News had an article on October 19 from the Associated Press with this headline: Texas Seminary Bans Promotion of Speaking in Tongues. The article concerns a resolution that was passed at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. According to the Fox News article, the resolution states:

Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.

This is a very interesting occurrence, considering the decision made within the last year by the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board. The Ft. Worth, TX seminary referenced in the Fox News article is a part of the SBC.

I resisted the urge to post about the tongues issue when the IMB first made their decision. It was blogged about heavily by other bloggers, and I didn’t feel like I had anything new to add to the discussion. However, seeing that now that decision has, in part, fueled a similar controversy at one of the SBC’s seminaries has caused me to change my mind about writing about it.

Now, I realize that I have several (quite a few?) cessationists reading this blog, and I think it is important to make it clear that I do not view this as an issue that we need to divide over. In fact, that’s really the point I want to make. The SBC through its mission board and one of its seminaries have chosen to make this an issue of division. This is sad on several levels.

One of the main areas that I feel this is saddening is in the fact that, in both controversies, the issue at stake is private prayer practices! In the case of the IMB’s decision regarding its missionaries, the following statement makes this point:

[I]f “private prayer language” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

This is not the public speaking of tongues that is being addressed, but rather the use of tongues in private prayer. (As a very ironic sidenote, the IMB chose not to make this decision retroactive; so existing missionaries who practice a “private prayer language” are still acceptable representatives of the board, but new ones are not. This actually seems, in my mind, to undermine the stand they are taking.)

Similarly, the issue at SBTS was with regard to private practice. Again, to quote the Fox News article:

[New seminary trustee] Dwight McKissic of Arlington said during a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that he sometimes speaks in tongues while praying.

It was this statement that caused the matter to be brought to a resolution. Not surprisingly, McKissic was the only dissenting vote in the 36-1 passing of the resolution.

For me, the issue is not an issue of whether or not the gift of tongues is still valid today. As I mentioned, there are cessationists (those who believe that the gift of tongues is not valid since the writing of the book of Revelation) who read this blog, and I don’t find this to be an issue over which to divide. It’s an interpretive issue, and one that we cannot afford to hold to so tightly as to cause division. From that standpoint, this series of events should cause even a cessationist to be concerned.

To be sure, there are many (apparently including trustees at SBTS and IMB) who believe quite strongly that their position is correct, and therefore want to insist that any working alongside them hold to the same position. But we are not talking about issues of the Gospel here. We are talking about issues related to Christian practice, and there is great danger in making these issues divisive.

My personal opinion is that the tongues issue should be handled as an “in-house debate”, and it is to the shame of the entire body of Christ (not just the SBC) that resolutions such as the ones mentioned in this post have been passed and publicly identified. My hope is that many in the SBC will see the danger of these types of resolutions, and will rethink these decisions.

(As a quick note, I think it’s kind of funny that I posted this article with regard to an event at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, right after posting an Aside pointing out a conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary!  Pure coincidence, but perhaps further evidence that my concern here is not with the SBC in general or cessationists in particular!)
Until next time,

steve

m I arrogant? Now, before my friends jump in the comments section to assure me that I’m not arrogant, let me clarify that this is a question that I am asking myself personally, and not posing to you, my readers. But a couple of incidents recently have caused me to realize this is a question we must all be willing to ask ourselves from time to time.

Sometimes, we’re confident in something. That may come across as arrogant to others. Sometimes we’re passionate about something, and that can come across as arrogant to others. I realize that we can’t always keep others from thinking that we are arrogant, but we can make sure that we examine ourselves to make sure we aren’t truly arrogant. Hopefully you’ll understand what I mean as you read this post.

Several weeks ago, I had lunch with someone that I don’t know very well yet. We’ve had some brief conversations, and decided to do lunch together. This brother in the Lord has a very sincere heart, and a maturity beyond his years. As we talked and he began to share some of his thoughts, I was impressed with the depth of his thinking. This is a guy who takes his love for the Lord seriously, and has a passion for ministry.

As the conversation continued, I began to share some of my thoughts about simple church. I shared some of my experiences and thoughts, and even tested the water with a few of my more controversial ideas. Just thinking outside the box. My regular readers know what I mean! And without realizing it, the more I shared, the more animated and passionate I got.

There were a couple of times where I had a small thought in my head, “Maybe I’m going too far here”, but in my enthusiasm to share with someone so passionate about the Lord, I ignored the thought and pressed forward.

Finally, I took a breath, and he was able to get a word in edgewise. He sat back, looking a bit like he had just been run over by a Mack truck, and said, “Man, I feel like you’re trying to sell me on something.”

My heart sank. My mature friend went on. “I feel like you have animosity toward the church, and you’re reacting against it.” No, I wanted to scream. It’s not that! But words came slowly.

I regained my composure and quietly said, “I’m sorry. I’m not trying to sell you on anything. This is such a passion for me that I get carried away sometimes. I’m so sorry.”

The lunch ended peacefully, and I hope I get the opportunity again in the future to chat with this friend without getting so worked up at my own thoughts and ideas. But I came away from that lunch realizing that I had crossed the line into arrogance.

Here I was diagnosing all the ills of the institutional church, pronouncing the cure, and expecting everyone to just say, “Ohhh, but of course. You’re right!” And meanwhile, I ignored the voice of the Spirit of God prompting me to back off and humble myself.

That’s arrogance. Normally, I’m not that way about it, as far as I can tell. But in that conversation, I was arrogant. And it grieved me to realize it.

You see, there’s always a tendency, when we think we have the answers, to put confidence in our answers. I’m learning that there is a necessary humility, even when we are 100% certain our answer is right. (I’m not saying that I am 100% certain. I’m just saying that even with 100% certainty, humility is necessary.) It’s not ever supposed to be about me. Truth comes from God, and I must recognize that every ounce of truth that I have comes from Him, and none of it is a product of a self-created ability to reason.

Another situation occurred just today that caused me to examine this issue again. This time, it wasn’t me putting forth the arrogance, but it was what I perceived in others. And it reminded me that, once again, I need to watch out for the temptation to become arrogant myself.

The situation today was a post and resulting comments on another blog. Now, I realize that some who read this will know what I’m talking about, but I am not going to name names or link to the conversation directly. It was sparked by a March 5, Washington Post article about professor and author Bart Ehrman. If you haven’t heard of Bart Ehrman, he is a theological professor who calls himself a “happy agnostic”. He is the author of (at this time) 19 books, the best-selling of which is Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

Now, let me interject a very, very important disclaimer here: I do not endorse all of Bart Ehrman’s views! I must be very clear about that, for those who stumble across this post and misunderstand. My comments here have very little to do with Bart Ehrman’s views themselves, and more to do with how we respond to them. And let me also add that I have no problem whatsoever with someone disagreeing with Ehrman (or me, or anyone) and saying that he is wrong. Pointing out error is not, in and of itself, arrogance. And while I’m adding disclaimers, let me also point out that, even though Bart Ehrman is a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, and I am on the faculty of another university in the UNC system, this has absolutely no bearing on my opinions here!

The post that I read in response to the Washington Post article, however, used the term “stupidity”. In what I perceived to be a sarcastic, mocking (I guess you could say it was satirical) tone, the author of the post expressed his dismay that Bart Ehrman’s views would even be considered novel. The things that Bart Ehrman questions have been raised by many others before him. And, in the opinion of many Christians, they have already been successfully refuted by many. So, this particular blogger felt that it was just plain stupid for Bart Ehrman to even make a deal out of the issues presented in the Washington Post article. And he stated that it was even more stupid for people to be swayed by Ehrman’s questions.

Enter the wonderful comment thread following the article. Some commenters were very fair, so I’m not trying to paint with a broad brush here. But there were several comments that caused me to feel like it went too far. Consider some of the following statements:

• There are a few of us out there that actually LIKE Bible history and meaty teaching… but sadly, few.

• Oh, [Ehrman is] a well educated college guy? Well, then he is a well educated, willfully ignorant unregenerate block head.

• The intellectual arrogance of someone who assumes that “you’d see it my way, if you just thought about it” always baffles me.

• I look at [the list of issues raised by Ehrman] and I think “Well duh. I’ve known this stuff, like, forever.”

These kinds of attitudes (and again, not all of the commenters were presenting this attitude, but the statements above represent four different individual comments), in my opinion, cross the line into arrogance. “[W]illfully ignorant unregenerate block head”? And ironically, one even refers to Ehrman’s views as “intellectual arrogance” while demonstrating the exact same attitude Ehrman is being accused of having! And boasting about how long we have known a particular truth? Folks, this is not a Christlike attitude!

Contrast these comments with the gracious words of Darrell Bock, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, as quoted in the Washington Post article:

I think Bart is writing about his personal journey, about legitimate things that bother him….I can appreciate people feel differently. But sometimes I wonder if we are not all guilty of asking the Bible to do too much.

That strikes me as someone who is able to point out the error in Ehrman’s thinking (as Dr. Bock did in the part of the quote not included above), yet do so without resorting to schoolyard mockery.

This all reminds me very much of the story Jesus told about a Pharisee and a tax collector praying in the temple. The Pharisee, as you may recall, prayed with a loud voice saying, “I’m so glad I’m not like that man over there.” According to Jesus, his prayer accomplished nothing in his standing before God. The NIV interestingly identifies the audience of this parable as “some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else” (vs 9).

So, once again, I come back to asking myself the question: Am I arrogant? As I sit here and blog about the journey I’ve been on in the area of simple church…as I blog about my views on various theological topics…as I share with people over lunch…is my attitude one of humility and graciousness, or am I just so arrogant to think that anyone who doesn’t see it my way is a “block head”? I pray that the answer will be that of humility in my life, to the glory of God.

Until next time,

steve