Comments on: What We Believe- Article XV, The Christian and the Social Order http://toddongod.com/2009/05/09/what-we-believe-article-xv-the-christian-and-the-social-order/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:24:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Keith Walters http://toddongod.com/2009/05/09/what-we-believe-article-xv-the-christian-and-the-social-order/#comment-989 Keith Walters Wed, 13 May 2009 14:24:12 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1500#comment-989 Yeah I am dumb and totally missed that! Yeah I am dumb and totally missed that!

]]> By: Todd Burus http://toddongod.com/2009/05/09/what-we-believe-article-xv-the-christian-and-the-social-order/#comment-988 Todd Burus Wed, 13 May 2009 06:16:04 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1500#comment-988 Keith, I am pretty much in total agreement with what you've just said. It was the writers, not the readers, that I was wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to, hoping that they were saying these things with the appropriate moderation, expecting such moderation from their congregations. Keith,
I am pretty much in total agreement with what you’ve just said. It was the writers, not the readers, that I was wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to, hoping that they were saying these things with the appropriate moderation, expecting such moderation from their congregations.

]]> By: Keith Walters http://toddongod.com/2009/05/09/what-we-believe-article-xv-the-christian-and-the-social-order/#comment-986 Keith Walters Tue, 12 May 2009 20:19:43 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1500#comment-986 So having read your comments I think we agree at the heart of the issue. However, if, as you say, “the way most Southern Baptists practice this comes off more as advocating a Christian theocracy than it does simply advancing a Christian worldview” and “this is something that I don’t think we really do in practice and actually tend towards legalism here.” Then I do not think you can afford to give your readers “the benefit of the doubt.” If these are the ways in which this section is applied in most of Baptist life then it deserves a more critical reading. I know you can think of a pastor in your past who vehemently lambasted expanded gambling, Sunday alcohol sales, gay marriage, etcetera with far more intensity and passion than he did the sins besetting his congregation. I think we can take that as indicative of the prevailing attitude in most SBC churches. It is far easier to castigate proponents of gay marriage than it is to sharply rebuke your congregation for their failure to befriend homosexuals and share the gospel with them. It is far easier to call your congregation to vote against expanded gambling than it is to address the greed and materialism which captivates the hearts of your congregants. Paul did use his Roman citizenship as a means for evangelism but I do not hear that from our pulpits. I hear pastors calling upon their congregations to use their American citizenship as a means towards political dominion. If pastors were to use their pulpits to commend Paul’s use of his citizenship then more pastors would be encouraging their congregations to use their freedom of speech to freely proclaim the gospel; instead we hear them encouraging their congregations to use their freedom of speech to protest gay marriage or some other issue. I think that listening to Russell Moore’s series on the temptation of Christ, particularly the last one, will be much help on this issue. Here is a link: http://keithwalters.org/2009/04/15/the-temptations-of-christ/ So having read your comments I think we agree at the heart of the issue. However, if, as you say, “the way most Southern Baptists practice this comes off more as advocating a Christian theocracy than it does simply advancing a Christian worldview” and “this is something that I don’t think we really do in practice and actually tend towards legalism here.” Then I do not think you can afford to give your readers “the benefit of the doubt.” If these are the ways in which this section is applied in most of Baptist life then it deserves a more critical reading. I know you can think of a pastor in your past who vehemently lambasted expanded gambling, Sunday alcohol sales, gay marriage, etcetera with far more intensity and passion than he did the sins besetting his congregation. I think we can take that as indicative of the prevailing attitude in most SBC churches. It is far easier to castigate proponents of gay marriage than it is to sharply rebuke your congregation for their failure to befriend homosexuals and share the gospel with them. It is far easier to call your congregation to vote against expanded gambling than it is to address the greed and materialism which captivates the hearts of your congregants.

Paul did use his Roman citizenship as a means for evangelism but I do not hear that from our pulpits. I hear pastors calling upon their congregations to use their American citizenship as a means towards political dominion. If pastors were to use their pulpits to commend Paul’s use of his citizenship then more pastors would be encouraging their congregations to use their freedom of speech to freely proclaim the gospel; instead we hear them encouraging their congregations to use their freedom of speech to protest gay marriage or some other issue.

I think that listening to Russell Moore’s series on the temptation of Christ, particularly the last one, will be much help on this issue. Here is a link: http://keithwalters.org/2009/04/15/the-temptations-of-christ/

]]> By: Todd Burus http://toddongod.com/2009/05/09/what-we-believe-article-xv-the-christian-and-the-social-order/#comment-984 Todd Burus Tue, 12 May 2009 05:37:00 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1500#comment-984 Keith, I feel your sentiments. In the popular application of these things I agree completely with what you are saying. The way most Southern Baptists practice this comes off more as advocating a Christian theocracy than it does simply advancing a Christian worldview. But in theory I wanted to give the writers the benefit of the doubt. No, I don't think we must see the world look like the ideal Christian society, but I do think that we are called to, within our means, reflect the values of God in our culture and work to see those upheld. I think of the various ways in which Paul used his Roman citizenship to his advantage in evangelism and his command to slaves in 1 Corinthians 7.21 about obtaining their freedom. The thought of using Christian thought in the culture to effect change as a means of evangelism seems biblical enough for me. I particularly appreciated the statement about regeneration. Again, this is something that I don't think we really do in practice and actually tend towards legalism here, but in theory this seems to be inline with Scripture. This is just another example of how little "holding to the BF&M" really means. I also appreciated that they laid out some specific sins that we oppose. Of course they can't enumerate every one of them and so run the risk of singling some people out while leaving loopholes for others, but these are pressing issues which we needed to have clear articulation of the Southern Baptist stance on, so it seems acceptable to me. Keith,
I feel your sentiments. In the popular application of these things I agree completely with what you are saying. The way most Southern Baptists practice this comes off more as advocating a Christian theocracy than it does simply advancing a Christian worldview. But in theory I wanted to give the writers the benefit of the doubt. No, I don’t think we must see the world look like the ideal Christian society, but I do think that we are called to, within our means, reflect the values of God in our culture and work to see those upheld. I think of the various ways in which Paul used his Roman citizenship to his advantage in evangelism and his command to slaves in 1 Corinthians 7.21 about obtaining their freedom. The thought of using Christian thought in the culture to effect change as a means of evangelism seems biblical enough for me.

I particularly appreciated the statement about regeneration. Again, this is something that I don’t think we really do in practice and actually tend towards legalism here, but in theory this seems to be inline with Scripture. This is just another example of how little “holding to the BF&M” really means.

I also appreciated that they laid out some specific sins that we oppose. Of course they can’t enumerate every one of them and so run the risk of singling some people out while leaving loopholes for others, but these are pressing issues which we needed to have clear articulation of the Southern Baptist stance on, so it seems acceptable to me.

]]> By: Keith Walters http://toddongod.com/2009/05/09/what-we-believe-article-xv-the-christian-and-the-social-order/#comment-983 Keith Walters Tue, 12 May 2009 02:00:49 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1500#comment-983 Todd, In all honesty I think section XV is a total farce. In summary it reads, “As those redeemed by the sovereign Christ we are obligated to bring all under His rule by proclaiming the gospel. However, in spite of this great truth we should pour countless man-hours and billions of dollars into legislating a finite ‘Christian Theocracy.’ Good luck finding a way to maintain your love of Christ and love of Caesar and remember to play nice with others.” This is SBC parochialism at its finest. I would be in complete agreement if this section stated that such a society should exist within the church as it serves as an already witness to the not yet Kingdom of God. However, I find it nauseatingly pharisaical to require those outside of this covenant community to behave as though they were within of it. Furthermore this section completely ignores the reality of worldviews; it requires an individual to act according to a biblical worldview while holding fundamentally contradictory presuppositions. I could continue this discussion, or discuss this in terms of the bondage of the will, or even in terms of total depravity; at any rate their argument it fundamentally flawed and this mindset is proving to be the undoing of evangelicalism. Todd,
In all honesty I think section XV is a total farce. In summary it reads, “As those redeemed by the sovereign Christ we are obligated to bring all under His rule by proclaiming the gospel. However, in spite of this great truth we should pour countless man-hours and billions of dollars into legislating a finite ‘Christian Theocracy.’ Good luck finding a way to maintain your love of Christ and love of Caesar and remember to play nice with others.”

This is SBC parochialism at its finest. I would be in complete agreement if this section stated that such a society should exist within the church as it serves as an already witness to the not yet Kingdom of God. However, I find it nauseatingly pharisaical to require those outside of this covenant community to behave as though they were within of it. Furthermore this section completely ignores the reality of worldviews; it requires an individual to act according to a biblical worldview while holding fundamentally contradictory presuppositions. I could continue this discussion, or discuss this in terms of the bondage of the will, or even in terms of total depravity; at any rate their argument it fundamentally flawed and this mindset is proving to be the undoing of evangelicalism.

]]>