SBCOutpost

Confessions of a former religious-right Christian conservative
By David Sanders

Secular critics of Christian conservatives’ involvement in partisan politics have always been driven by fear of what would happen if the movement gained enough power and influence to advance an agenda that mixed religion and politics. In the late 1970s, it rightly seemed that counterculture revolution had taken a toll on the country.

What started as an effort to give a voice to the “silent majority” quickly grew into something more - a political force that in time would impress its will on the American political landscape.

Coming of age politically in the late 1980s and early 1990s and having been one who identified himself both as conservative and Christian, I easily made the leap and became a self-identified Christian conservative, a political term.

Enamored with the take-America-back-for-Jesus crowd, I forsook the timeless words of more complete conservatives: Edmund Burke, who asserted the importance of the rule of law, tradition and social order, and Russell Kirk, who affirmed divine revelation and the links between property and freedom. Instead, I opted for what was then the modern-day political philosophy offered by Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

The downside wasn’t that I became any less conservative, but that I became less Christian. Perhaps it was a personal weakness or a lack of grounding in my faith, but my Christianity during that time became more of an outward expression of political involvement and less about the inner transformation of a life that comes only through self-reflection, prayer and the work of the Almighty.

In my mind God had no use for Democrats, because he was Republican.

I could quote you chapter and verse from books claiming that America was set apart and founded as a distinctly Christian nation ordained by God himself for his chosen (American) people. At the time, I gave little credence to the fact that even though many of the nation’s founders were strong men of faith, most of their exhaustive references to the Sovereign Creator were political language born out of the tactical need to appeal to a higher power - one that reigned over the sovereign who sat on Great Britain’s throne. 

Faith did play a role and religion was valued at the time of the country’s birth.

The founders understood that government wasn’t the means to carry out God’s will. Instead, most realized that fallen and imperfect man would be susceptible to overreaching, at times vulnerable to greed and corruption. So they declared independence, formed a government and divided its power among those who would govern the governed in order to protect the very freedoms and rights that had been trampled by England.

Some Christian conservatives ignore this valuable history lesson. Their activism and political involvement have become primary expressions of their faith, leaving the (wrong) impression that the nation’s salvation and abundant life for its citizens can be realized through temporal means - by supporting certain policies or backing particular political candidates. Many times their evangelical zeal is for advancing a political agenda.

In listening to the words of many well-meaning religious-right types, it’s hard to distinguish a religious conviction from a policy position or vice versa. Reducing Christianity to an accepted political orthodoxy, which is paraded around during election time, used to whip the faithful into a frenzy. Perpetuated by “leaders” who bargain with candidates and their operatives, promising votes in exchange for access and influence, it cheapens the faith and borders on sacrilege. 

Conversely, the temptation by some in the religious right to simply project personal religious convictions onto all policy matters can have the undesired effect of undermining the very conservatism they claim to advance. Some Christian conservatives argue “What would Jesus do?” a justification for lurching leftward on issues like the environment, immigration and foreign trade.

Not everyone has a theology degree, but justifying government activism by using Christ’s words that were intended for his followers and the church, is a hermeneutical error and ignores the scriptures’ jurisdictional instructions for the family, church and government. 

Translation: Applying to the government the belief that “Whatever you do unto the least of these, my brothers, you do unto me” can be a very expensive proposition. 

For a short time, the gospel according to Reed, Robertson and Falwell colored my indistinguishable religious and political views, but I came out of it. Thank you, Jesus!

In the spirit of Christmas cheer the editors of SBCOutpost have gathered various SBC luminaries to perform for you a Christmas song wishing you blessings for the holiday season. We hope you enjoy this and will play it to family and friends as you celebrate the joy of the season.

12 Days of Christmas

Pastor Dwight McKissic was welcomed this past Wednesday to the program “Praise the Lord” on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. His appearance, archived here, has caused some consternation among the blogging brethren.

Therefore, Dwight McKissic has released a clarification and amplification of his remarks on TBN. We at SBCOutpost are pleased to reproduce those remarks here:

I’m disappointed that some bloggers have misrepresented what I said on TBN. Thank God that the video recording vindicates me and documents the fact that I in no wise advocated moving the SBC to “a open charismatic position”, unless you consider the positions of the late SWBTS professor Dr. Jack Gray, Dr. Jack McGorman, Dr. Ken Hemphill, Evangelist Billy Graham “to be an open charismatic position.” The position that I stated on tongues is the position I’ve always stated at SWBTS Chapel, KCBI Radio interviews and debate at the SBC in San Antonio, on my blog and elsewhere. Please don’t hold me accountable for what any other guest on TBN might have stated or how they prayed. I stand by what I said 100%. I said nothing that I have not already stated in numerous SBC venues. Unless one considers the results of the Lifeway poll which indicated that 50% of Southern Baptist Pastors who believe that a private prayer language is a legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit is inaccurate, then I was advocating a Baptist and biblical position, not an “open charismatic position.”

My “ just do it “ comment was in reference to praying in the Spirit, which I clearly expressed that I’m not convinced that all believers must pray in tongues in order to pray in the Spirit. Whether one defines praying in the Spirit as praying with words understood under the influence and control of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:18; Jude 20), or praying with words not understood under the influence and control of the Spirit (I Cor. 14:2) or even without words under the influence and control of the Spirit which would include silence, meditation, groans, moans or sighs(Romans 8:26,27; John 11:33,38)—my answer to the host question regarding the necessity of all believers to pray in the Spirit was—“Just Do It”, meaning, praying in the Spirit based on any one of the three ways I defined it above. I believe when persons pray in English or their native tongue under the influence of the Holy Spirit they are praying in the Spirit. I do not believe that it is necessary to pray in tongues in order to pray in the Spirit and I made that clear. Unfortunately, some have chosen to misrepresent my viewpoint.

There was no attack by me or anyone else on the panel from my vantage point on Dr. Paige Patterson. Here again, I’ve been falsely accused. There was simply a restating of the facts—no attack. Certainly if you don’t consider Dr. Patterson’s press release stating that my chapel message was “harmful” to the churches was an attack on me, then I don’t understand why my referencing his public press release would be an attack on Dr. Patterson.
The only desire that myself and the panelist on TBN have for the SBC is that we experience a revival in America likened unto the 1^st and 2^nd great awakenings. I hope that bloggers would correct their posts or take them down—because they simply are not true. Finally, one of the problems with this subject matter is the fact that the SBC has no official position on praying in tongues in private. I believe it is high time that the SBC adopts an official position and that would settle the controversy in the SBC surrounding these issues.

I close with quotes from two men in the SBC that I value and respect dearly who addressed the issue of tongues long before the current IMB tongues controversy. However, I find their comments relevant today. Dr Billy Graham stated:
“Although there is honest disagreement among Christians about the validity of tongues today. I personally cannot find any biblical justification for saying the gift of tongues was meant exclusively for New Testament times … Indeed, tongues is a gift of the Spirit …

Today there are Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists, as well as Pentecostals, who speak or have spoken in tongues.” ( Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit (Dallas: Word, 1988), pp 226,234.
Dr. Jimmy Draper stated in The Church Christ Approves regarding tongues:
“Primarily a private gift.—The restrictions on the public use of this gift are such that the primary use has to be private. Paul said, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (I Cor. 14:18-19). He apparently spoke in tongues in private, but in public he preferred to speak his natural language.” (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974) p. 57

Dr. Draper also stated in The Church Christ Approves:

“Only the sovereign Holy Spirit has a right to forbid or command in personal devotions!” (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974) p. 55

As it relates to the issue of tongues in SBC life today, many who serve on our trustee boards and post or comment on blogs have taken on the role of in Draper’s words “a sovereign Holy Spirit.” How unfortunate for the SBC.

It seems the thing to do these days, so SBCOutpost is pleased to publish the final post — a poem — by one of our contributor’s until the New Year comes.

Twas the night before Christmas, and at the Nut House
The Grinch was a-grumbling. The Hat, all a-grouse.
Ten thousand square feet of bourgeois, humble manor,
Was bustling and busy making ready for Santa.

The nativities were strewn ‘round the rooms on the tables.
The only reminder of our Lord’s birthing stable.
The black lab was snoring in canine elation,
While Big Daddy was struggling to write Revelation.

When out on the blogs there arose such a riot
That the master and missus nearly went on a diet.
Away to his laptop, like kudu he ran.
Flipped open the cover, and swallowed an Aspirin.

The shadow of Dottie cast over his shoulder
Like Wylie Coyote when crushed by a boulder.
Then, what did their wondering eyeballs behold?
But this little poem on SBCOutpost.

With a mean, nasty writer, so bitter and bold.
They knew in a moment, it must be Ben Cole.
More rapid than rabbits, he multiplied their pain.
And posted and posted and posted again.

“Now Klouda! Now Prescott!
Now Rankin and Chapman!
On Hempill! On Rainer.
On Tomlin and Schatzmann!”
To the publishers run.
To the editors flee.
And write them all. Write them all.
Each biography!

With no end in sight, he fumed and fomented
Causing many to think that he must be demented.
Undeterred, he blogged on about money and mansions
And firings, and failings and sundry dissensions.

And then, when no end was seen to his plight.
He laid down his sword, and whispered “Good Night.”
A new day is dawning, in our Baptist Zion
With Dock’ry and Akin and Rainer and Hammond.

A Resurgence of Mission, these men call us toward.
To leave behind rancor and all our discord.
Whether baking their cookies or parsing their verbs,
Baptist Blogger will leave them to tend to their herbs.
The Hat, with her self-loathing misogynation
Is free to promote it without satirization.
And Patmos will continue whether wrongly or right.
Or whether seminary trustees provide oversight.

Now some, how they’ll comment with gleeful responses
And assume that yours truly will rest on his haunches.
But détente is the word, not surrender or quit.
If needed, I’ll come back with more fire and spit.

For now, I’m contented to let Christmas truces.
Allow all combatants gather round fir, pine or spruces.
With families singing, glad tidings of joy.
About Bethlehem’s manger, and God’s baby boy.

Let’s focus, each of us, on orphans and Lottie.
Not trustees and censures and stuff in the potty.
So with Christmas blessing imparted, I go:

“Praise to the Savior. In excelsis Deo.”

Jolly Old St. Nicholas has leaned his ear Paige Patterson’s way this week. United States District Judge John McBryde has tentatively granted Patterson’s motion to move the trial date of Klouda v. SWBTS from the week of the 2008 SBC in Indianapolis to the preceding week.

Unless Klouda objects, Paige will get his day in the dock just in time to report on the trial to convention messengers during his seminary report.

Click here to download Patterson’s motion for continuance.

Click here to download Judge McBryde’s order.

Today, the Drudge Report headlines an Associated Press story about Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee’s answers to a 1992 questionnaire. According to the AP, Huckabee had this to say about quarantining AIDS patients:

“If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.

It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”

But Huckabee isn’t the only Southern Baptist who once called for the federally-mandated isolation of AIDS/HIV patients. In a November 10, 1985, article in the Dallas Morning News, SWBTS President Paige Patterson — then head of the Criswell College in Dallas — expressed a similar desire to see AIDS patients locked away from the general population and denied employment.

Read the article after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

(I post Wade Burleson’s recent post here without his permission. I have noted a desire for ethical reform as one of the motivating factors in participation in The Outpost. The pragmatic approach to ethics among SBC elite could be well documented by others. Here in this post it is clear, at least to me, how a number of idiomatic expressions illustrate the inconsistency of the leadership in the IMB Board of Trustees. You well note one I grew up with in the title of this post. You may have heard something like, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” Abuse of power is evident when the call to censure Wade is largely based on his criticism of IMB policies and now we find an IMB trustee who edits a journal, maybe allowing something akin to plausible deniability, allows criticismm of IMB policies. Maybe the next meeting of the IMB Board of Trustees the best action would be to rescind the censure, disavow power politics and move on in the work of the IMB.)

Bringing to Light Criticism that Seems Acceptable

I recently ran across a couple of articles that have been posted on-line and are very critical of the philosophy of the International Mission Board’s emphasis on missionaries facilitating ‘Church Planting Movements (CPM’s).’ Of course, facilitating Church Planting Movement’s has formed the basic strategy of President Jerry Rankin, Regional Leadership, and the administrative staff of the IMB for the past several years. These articles, which are in The Spring 2007 Mid-America Seminary Journal of Evangelism and Missions, are both well written. They raise some issues that are worth discussing among Southern Baptists, but they are unquestionably - and very publicly - critical of IMB administration and the emphasis that has been placed on CPM’s by IMB administrative leadership.

The first article, entitled “An Examination of Nine Key Issues Concerning CPM,” quotes at least three ‘anonymous’ IMB missionaries who are critical of CPM. The writer acknowledges the article’s criticism with these words:

Would discussing this issue (CPM) critically be frowned upon by many at the Board and the entities with which it works? Unquestionably.

The author then goes on to list several problems with the IMB Church Planting Movement including:

It’s not as if this topic has not been adequately debated.  Here on this site.  Cavemen appearances and all.

And it’s not like one more rousing round of smack-down style commenting will forever resolve the issue.  But it appears that there is still some desire to warm up the already-twice-eaten leftovers on the role of women in church life.

With that in mind, would you please move your conversation either here, or start your own blog and discuss till your heart’s content.  One book that has been recommended in the comments of the comic post is Rediscovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, edited by Piper and Grudem.  Believing that Biblical faithfulness is not learned in a vacuum we would also recommend Men And Women In The Church by Sarah Sumner.  We do not recommend Dorothy Patterson’s review of that book as it is a very poor review, though CBMW published it on their website.

Are there other resources you would recommend as many continue to grapple with this issue?  Feel free to list them in the comment section.

[PLEASE NOTE: As you comment, please be aware that you will <i>not</i> be providing the definitive argument to end all debate.  Also be aware that no matter how loudly you proclaim it, appeals to the definitive interpretation of Scripture will almost certainly not be considered all that definitive by many.  Before participating in the discussion you would do well to re-read the rules (particularly 3b, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 20; but don’t skip the others as well).]