22March2011

Whose News?

Written By robfaircloth

Coverage of recent explosive and compelling stories around the world raises questions about how news is deemed “news.”

In the most recent cycle, we were exposed to dramatic and compelling images of uprisings and public revolt in various middle eastern countries. But that was only news, apparently, until Wisconsin.

Media smelt the Wisconsin cheese and reported on absconding congressmen, picketing (rioting?) union members, bullets on the grounds, and damage to state property. Comparisons were made, interestingly, between the Wisconsin governor and Egyptian President Mubarek, though by that time Mubarek was “old news.”

Wisconsin’s cheese quickly became moldy when Japan suffered a violent earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster.

Now that Momar Ghadafi (how many ways are there to spell his name, anyway?) provides a composite picture of fallen rock star, favorite villain, and cartoon figure, Libya has loomed large and puts all other world events in the proverbial shadow.

Are people still rising up in the middle east? Are states like Wisconsin still facing drastic budget problems? Is Japan still suffering?

According to the news media, not enough to matter.

21March2011

Al Mohler beats me to the punch…again

Written By robfaircloth

I had pre-ordered the book. I was waiting for the UPS man when he delivered it to my door. I read it as fast as I could.

I wrote my review and then happened to scan the Twitter log and found that Southern Seminary President Al Mohler had written my review before me.

If I were in the company of Rob Bell, whose book Love Wins I was on the verge of reviewing, I would say that Dr. Mohler had thrown off the shackles of the hell of his own creation and was experiencing heaven here, heaven now, and that I would not be true to the heaven God created for me if I were to resent Dr. Mohler’s swifter pen.

But I am not.

So, all I can say is that Dr. Mohler gets advance copies, reads quicker, writes better, and, oh yeah, is a whole lot smarter than I.

So quit wasting time and read his review.

20March2011

Shaking the Family Tree: Jesus’ true family does the will of God

Written By robfaircloth

Mark 3:7-35 is one of those passages that you rarely hear a sermon on. In previous chapters, Mark records identifiable episodes with clear parameters. In what follows in Chapter 4, Mark records significant portions of Jesus teaching, mostly in the form of parables.

Here, Mark gives us the proverbial goulash.

What theme could connect reports of crowds so great they threatened to crush Jesus; continued exorcisms; the calling of disciples and the naming of the twelve apostles; family trying to commit Jesus; religious leaders’ accusations of demon-possession; and Jesus’ proclamation that his true relatives are those who do the will of God?

There must be some reason that God inspired Mark — through the Holy Spirit — to record these events as he did.

Mark 3:7 begins with reports of the greatest crowd yet swarming to Jesus on reports of his great deeds. Mark 3:32-35 ends with a description of those “who were sitting around” Jesus, identified by Jesus himself as true family.

What is clear is that Mark summarizes in this passage that exposure to Jesus did not automatically result in discipleship. The crowd saw Jesus perform great deeds repeatedly, his family saw these things, the religious leaders saw these things; yet only a few at this time, seated at Jesus’ feet, become true family.

The difference is not greater perception, more intelligence, a better heart; those who came to Jesus were those whom he called to himself (Mark 3:13-14).

And those who sat at Jesus’ feet did so despite the presence of throngs of people who apparently wanted nothing more than a good show, who wanted to rub the magic lamp and see a genie, who thought nothing of disrupting even Jesus’ eating habits to get what they wanted.

Those who sat at Jesus’ feet did so despite his own family accusing him of madness and seeking to whisk him away to parts unknown, presumably to putter around with the other embarassing relatives.

Those who sat at Jesus’ feet did so despite the accusation of religious authorities that Jesus was not just mad, but possessed by the devil.

Jesus binds the strong man, plundering men from Satan’s family to become members of his own.

18March2011

The Division Bell: Exploring Rob Bell’s Love Wins

Written By robfaircloth

Many have already spoken about Love Wins (Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Robert H. Bell Jr., HarperOne, 2011), and many will continue to talk in coming weeks and months.

I haven’t yet decided whether to post a running review by chapter (a device originated by other bloggers), but will address here my initial thoughts, then review the rest of the book at a later time.

Many might be familiar with Rob Bell because of his other books (Sex God, Velvet Elvis, Jesus Wants to Save Christians), or through his video shorts (NOOMA). Love Wins has gotten much advance publicity because of speculation (based upon Bell’s own releases) that in this book he champions a universalist theory of salvation.

We will see. If the views espoused in his previous books are any indication, his proposing such an idea would not be a huge surprise.

I can tell, at any rate, that reading Love Wins will not inspire in me an emotion consistent with the title: in fact, reading Bell will make me angry.

Not because Bell challenges us to examine an orthodox belief and make sure that the Scriptures actually teach it, but because he challenges us to examine an orthodox belief and determine whether we like it.

From the Preface alone, Bell foreshadows the themes he will apparently expound upon. Bell simplisticly reduces the gospel message to “For God so loved the world…” as the reason that Jesus came. This “message”, according to Bell, has been “hijacked” by other stories, presumably included among them those that recognize the biblical storyline that sin has left men under God’s righteous judgment — hence the need for Jesus — and that many will not come to Jesus.

Many people reject the God of the Old Testament who instructs the slaughter of nations because “my God wouldn’t do that!” Bell caters to that sentiment, and even establishes it as the test of truth, by appealing to those who think “I would never be a part of that.”

The idea that some will believe and gain heaven, while others will not believe and will gain hell, is obviously a strange one to Bell — actually, “misguided and toxic” — and to him actually impedes the “real” message of “love, peace, forgiveness and joy.” At the same time, Bell asserts that the faith he describes doesn’t avoid questions about salvation, judgment, heaven and hell. But as Martin Bashir pointed out in his interview, if Bell’s idea is true that God will ultimately prevail over men’s hearts, even post-mortem — if, in fact, Love Wins — then it does not matter one whit what man does during this life.

One of the most troubling aspects of Bell’s approach is that Scripture is not complete as it is. For, you see, all that “white space” between the letters waits to be filled with with our response. That is, the biblical revelation is not complete until we respond to it, and our response might be negative (“I would never be a part of that”). So the final word about the Word is whether man agrees.

Bell is correct that he hasn’t come up with a “radical new teaching”; self-made religion, after all, appeared in the garden.

15March2011

Sitting on Stools or Standing in Pulpits

Written By robfaircloth

There is quite a bit of recent discussion about the “future” of the Southern Baptist Convention, and whether its icon will be the jeans-wearing, stool-sitting, Message-quoting, Acts29-giving preacher, or the “traditional” suit-wearing, pulpit-occupying, CooperativeProgram-giving preacher.

(See the SBC Voices article on the subject, which cites opinion blogs by both Ed Stetzer and Nathan Finn).

I’m not certain that the Hobson’s choice is an accurate reflection of the state of the Convention. There seems to be a false dichotomy between “traditional” and “hip”, but the discussion raises some interesting questions about the nature of the SBC.

First, in the SBC Voices article, Howell Scott says this about Ed Stetzer: “For those in positions of power within the Convention — who are supposed to be “denominational servants” – to convey such condescension and disdain for ”traditional” Southern Baptist pastors is simply amazing!” Read Stetzer’s article and tell me if you can find a source for Scott’s hysteria other than thin air.

But poorly-aimed attacks on fuzzy and illusory targets are not my primary concern. Two aspects of this article warrant attention.

First, another conclusory statement by Scott deserves a response: “The last of these — cooperation in and through the Cooperative Program — really gets to the heart of the matter about what it means to be a Southern Baptist” [emphasis mine].

Really? Are we certain that we want to ignore, in this context, other important Baptist beliefs? The functional authority of Scripture, regenerate membership, believers’ baptism by immersion, freedom of conscience, and congregational authority are viable contenders for the “what it means to be a Southern Baptist” award.

The Cooperative Program is certainly a laudable effort to concentrate energy and resources toward missions. But we should nevertheless be careful about the level of definitive importance we place on it. Because if the primary aspect of being a Southern Baptist is that we have the best clearing-house for money to be used in a myriad of purposes, then we are not much different than a more efficient Red Cross, or a sanctified United Way.

Second, a comment by Dave Miller raises more questions than it answers:  “You do not have to be a Baptist to be a Christian, but you have to believe basic Baptist doctrine to be Baptist. We need to define those parameters as broadly as possible. Baptism by immersion of believers, priesthood of believers, soul competency, and very little else.”

Admittedly, this is a comment in the stream, and does not reveal Scott’s opinion on the issue, but it reveals the divide about “crucial” Southern Baptist distinctives. Miller’s list, as you see, does not mention the Cooperative Program.

Contrary to Miller’s predicate, “basic Baptist doctrine” is not so easy to define. At one time, basic Bible doctrine would be the Baptist Faith & Message, but many of our non-Southern Baptist friends could agree with most of the BF&M. Miller gets closer to cracking the nut when he ostensibly defines the parameters broadly by limiting those things necessary for one to believe and practice in order to “be Baptist”: believers’ baptism by immersion, the priesthood of believers, and soul competency. When Miller says “very little else,” he politely allows for other things when in fact there is nothing else.

What should be clear is that when we speak of “basic Baptist doctrine” — that which separates us from Presbyterians, or Methodists, or Evangelical Free churches, for instance — we are really speaking of “Baptist distinctives.”

Of Miller’s three “basics”, believers’ baptism by immersion is the easiest. A baptism which follows regeneration and which follows profession of faith is a fairly obvious distinction from those who “baptize” infants, who practice “confirmation” of older members, or who do both for those who desire it.

“Priesthood of believers” and “soul competency” are terms common to many long-time Baptists, but seem to be quickly fading from the collective memory of the average congregation. Even at this point, then, much more clarification is needed before Miller’s suggestion can be properly assessed.

What this debate — as illustrated in the SBC Voices article — demonstrates is that each congregation has wide latitude in determining whether it is “Southern Baptist.” It also reveals the need for much more clarity of thought, so that those churches giving preeminence to CP giving don’t “go Pharisee” on those that don’t.

10March2011

Can the congregation handle divorce?

Written By robfaircloth

Recently, in discussing a lesson on 1 Corinthians chapter 6 with a group of believers, I asked whether anyone had every sued anyone else in court. I was met with blank stares and head-shaking. I asked whether anyone had been sued. Blank stares and head-shaking. Then I asked whether anyone knew anyone who claimed the name of Christ and who had sued or been sued. Even blanker stares and shakier head-shaking.

We discussed Paul’s admonition that believers should not take their cases before pagan courts and judges, and that God equips congregations with people who are fully capable to decide disputes, citing the example of Moses and Paul’s suggestions that believers will judge both the world and angels.

At this point, my group agreed in principle, but was largely at a loss for concrete examples, from their own experience, of believer suing believer.

Then I explained that divorce is a lawsuit.

There was neither blank stares nor head-shaking. Glazed eyes, perhaps.

When confronted with the truth that believers’ disputes should be settled within the congregation, most of us can grasp the application of that truth to one believer’s claim that another believer used bad concrete to pave his driveway.

But our proverbial head explodes when attempting to apply biblical truth to the settling of divorce disputes, and we suppose that such matters should be left to “experts”. It is true that divorce poses thorny and difficult legal questions, the implications of which must meet with standards set by the state. If a congregation were to decide the issues involved in divorce, the resolution should be reviewed by an attorney and submitted to him for appropriate court filings.

Yet why should the congregation — the believers involved in divorce — immediately vault over the wisdom of the church in favor of the “pagan” court? Biblical marriage is an inherently spiritual issue, and the severing of it — whether on biblical grounds or without them — involves serious spiritual issues. Civil courts care nothing about those spiritual issues.

Congregations should certainly be involved in such discipleship that allows it to detect coming marital problems and head them off before it ends in divorce. But if that effort fails, and divorce is inevitable, who better than the church to preside over the issue and demonstrate the grace and peace of God as much as possible in that situation?

Every congregation of Christ-followers whould be willing to address martial problems before they end in divorce. But they should also be prepared to handle the divorce itself, and not to rely upon pagan courts to resolve spiritual disputes.

8March2011

The Grief of Pilgrims

Written By robfaircloth

Christ followers are told clearly that we are strangers and aliens in this land, that we should fix our hope not on the things of this world but lay up treasure in heaven, and that our lives are but a vapor. (Heb. 11:13, Col. 1:1-3, Mat. 6:19, Jam. 4:14).

Paul tells us “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of of God. Set your mind on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:1-3).

Followers of Christ should not fear to die, because death has already struck it best blow, it has played its best hand, it has done its greatest damage. “O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Cor. 15:55). It has done all this yet failed to conquer anyone who lives in Christ.

Yet when a young wife and child die in a car crash, leaving a young husband behind, the reality of a Fall in which physical death reigns from Adam, of the fragility and shortness of life, of a wrecked creation longing for the healing hand of its Creator, all rush in and we can do little but cry, with the prophet, “O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear?” (Hab. 1:2).

Yet God does hear. And he speaks.

He speaks words of comfort, reminders that we are pilgrims, that this is not our home but that our home is heaven. He shouts to us in our pain (C.S. Lewis) that we have died and our life is hidden in Christ, who is our life.

He speaks the truth that Christ, who holds our life, is “a man of sorrows, and acquanted with grief” (Isa. 53:3), which permits us, amidst incalculable pain, to know — if not always say in return — “blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:23).