Monday, October 31, 2005

Polity Matters: Part XII: On Polity and Ecclesiastical Movments


G-Harmony is the star of the blog today. In an insightful comment yesterday, he wrote about one potential benefit of a theological movement:
"There are other issues to consider as well for my flock- for instance, if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, my church would have at least some idea where to begin looking for a new pastor- because of who I have encouraged and led us to fellowship with."
Here's my question, and it's strictly that: Has single-pastor polity fed ecclesiastical movements because in the sudden absence of a pastor, congregations have no pastoral leadership structure remaining other than deacons, who may not possess a shepherding mindset or burden? I can think of many reasons why my hypothesis may not be true. If it is true, chalk up one more pragmatic argument (in addition to the exegetical one) for multiple elder-led, congregational polity: its contribution to the obsolescence of the movement mentality.

P.S. G-H, is that a Glamourshot photo?

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Bad Reasons to Remain in a Movement

Because an alternative movement has greater problems. Whether or not an alternative movement is worse is largely irrelevant. There may be other alternative movements, one might start a new movement, or perhaps there may be no need to associate with any movement at all.

Because of the ancient landmarks. The reasoning goes something like this: “You are young, and you need to be cautious. You do not yet possess the wisdom that comes only with years. Other men have thought these same thoughts and faced these same frustrations. Be patient, be faithful, and you will understand better in time.” This reasoning is persuasive because there is wisdom in caution and in measured steps. Nevertheless, those who use it must practice it consistently. Would those who rely on this argument counsel a young Southern Baptist frustrated with the doctrinal diversity in his denomination to exercise caution and stay in his movement? I suspect they would not.

Because it is a movement.
There is something magnetic about something big. Everyone wants to be on the biggest, fastest bandwagon, but big is not equivalent to great or right or true.

Because of your career.
Abandoning a movement might make it harder to climb the ministry career ladder. You might lose all your contacts, and your résumé might become worthless. Big deal. This gutless selfishness is the same attitude that in decades past held back conservative pastors with fat pension funds from separating themselves from liberal denominations.

Because of the fear of man.
Have you chosen a milieu for ministry by default—because you are because you dread what people would think or say about you if you were to move to a different circle? Chances are, those people are already talking about you behind your back about one thing or another. You might as well live in the open and give them reason to say what they have to say to your face.

Because you crave affirmation.
Are you crafting your life’s ministry in order to get a speaking engagement or honorary degree from your alma mater? Please, don’t just leave your movement: leave vocational ministry, too. There is plenty of mutual admiration in the world of Christian ministry without you adding to it.

Because you like the trappings of a movement.
I do not perceive this to be a prevalent point in the conversation of the day, but I wonder how many people—pastors and laypeople alike—are where they are because they feel comfortable where they are. They like the environment—the accepted attire, music, and preaching style. They like the standards or the lack thereof. They like the transparency or the anonymity. They like the people and the culture. They like to be comfortable. They want to “be carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease.”

Because you might lead the movement someday if you play your cards right.
I hope the Machiavellian essence of this strategy is obvious. To attempt to fly under the radar in a movement in order to hijack later it is theological terrorism. (Sweet mixed metaphor, huh?)

So, why should you stay in a movement? The only remaining option in my mind is that you believe in what the movement is all about. One might see some ways in which the movement could better manifest what it is all about. One might see some glaring weaknesses in how the movement is pursuing what it is all about. Ultimately, however, in its very spirit the movement must be about what is most important—what is undeniably essential. I cannot comprehend how it can be ethical or wise to participate in a movement when one rejects its core ideas. Stand for something because it is true, not because people want you to believe it is true or because you want people to believe that you believe it is true. The Pastoral Epistles have continually challenged me and encouraged me in these matters. First Timothy 4 and Titus 2 are particularly helpful.

But then there is that slippery question about what you should do if you are in a movement that does not consistently define its very essence. (I suspect that most of them do not.) And that question just . . . won’t . . . go . . . away.

Friday, October 28, 2005

The Resolution That Didn't Make the Cut

From the "Resolution on Rick Warren" adopted by the American Council of Christian Churches at its annual conventon this week:
[Warren] repeatedly takes verses out of context as proof texts misapplying the Word of God to fit his own ideas and beliefs. There is very little if any exegetical study of the verses quoted.
I'll be looking forward to the resolution skewering fundamentalist preachers who mishandle the text next year.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Miers' Withdrawal: Krauthammer Got It Right

Maybe I need to let Charles Krauthammer handle future Paleoevangelical predictions. Here's what she said today, and below is the conclusion from Krauthammer's editorial from last Friday, "The Only Exit Strategy."
Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

A Quote Game with a Prize

I will send my spare copy of Future Grace by John Piper to anyone who can get the source of this quote without Google in the first five guesses. After that, you'll just have to guess for the love of the game.
The associations of music are very important, and everyone understands that . . . Christian music that is supposed to convey an authentic Christian message should be free from associations with that which is antithetical to Christianity.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Pat Robertson: The Rest of the Story

Remember how Robertson popped off about assassinating Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez? Here's the story on the fallout from his comments that you won't hear in the mainstream media:
In a nationally televised speech from a village in the southern state of Apure, Mr. Chavez announced he would expel missionaries from New Tribes Mission (NTM), a Florida-based organization that has provided Bible translation and humanitarian relief in remote regions of Venezuela for nearly 60 years.

Calling NTM a "true imperialist infiltration," Mr. Chavez accused its missionaries of "colonialism" and of spying for the United States: "We have intelligence reports that some of them are CIA." Mr. Chavez also accused NTM staff of living in "luxurious camps," and said the group's ouster was an "irreversible decision that I have made."

The president's announcement came less than two months after U.S. televangelist Pat Robertson suggested that Mr. Chavez should be a candidate for assassination. Mr. Robertson later apologized for his remarks, but within four days Venezuelan authorities had frozen all missionary visa applications and placed restrictions on some evangelical pastors.

Marsden on Big Tent Fundamentalism.

Unknowing cites a thought-provoking selection from Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Mind If I Vent?

In the three years since I enrolled at SEBTS, tuition has increased about 60%. SIXTY PERCENT! In-state tuition at public colleges and university increased 7% this year, 9% last year, and 13% two years ago.

Was this unavoidable? Maybe. Are there reasonable explanations? Probably. Is my comparison with public college tuition like apples to oranges? Certainly.

Does any of this make me happier? Not hardly.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Piper on the Battle for Culture

I posted this link as a comment to a previous post, but I thought Piper's recent thoughts deserved some more attention in light of our recent discussions of impacting/winning/redeeming "culture." I think this statment is the heart of it:
But Christian exiles are not passive. We do not smirk at the misery or the merrymaking of immoral culture. We weep. Or we should. This is my main point: being exiles does not mean being cynical. It does not mean being indifferent or uninvolved. The salt of the earth does not mock rotting meat. Where it can, it saves and seasons. And where it can’t, it weeps. And the light of the world does not withdraw, saying “good riddance” to godless darkness. It labors to illuminate. But not dominate.

Highlights from the SharperIron Interview of Mark Dever

SharperIron.org posted today an audio interview of Mark Dever. Below are what I believe to be just a few of the highlights, both the serious and the witty.

On the modern church, Mark Dever, and the gospel:
6:01—"I am concerned that the gospel would go forward better if most Southern Baptist churches in America were closed down. So I think most of the churches I am familiar with—many evangelical churches—are not good witnesses for the gospel.

6:58—The community of the church is to make visible the gospel that our sermons make audible.

7:05—Q: If I could to boil down Mark Dever to two or three hot-button passions, what are you passionate about?
Dever: God, the gospel, the church
On the pitfalls of incorporating visuals into preaching:
33:14—I think our eyes are hungrier than our stomachs. I think God made us that way. I think we're dissatisfied at not being able to see God. We want that immediacy and certainty that we get through visuals, and yet I think at the http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifFall that is precisely what God has denied to us. And I think the great climax of the Bible in Revelation 22:4 is that we get to see God again . . . Therefore, I want to be very careful about doing faux things to satisfy it.
On the gospel and professing Christians:
35:52—I think one of the hardest groups of unreached people on the planet have to be nominal Christians—people who have the gospel right maybe propositionally . . . People may have those propositions correct but yet may themselves have so communicated them to others that others have given mental assent but without really fully engaging their heart in any way that represents their true person . . .
On discipleship and church programs:
41:50—Q: Do you have a one-on-one discipleship program?
Dever: Well, we have not a program but a culture.
On associations and the gospel:
58:51—Q: Do you feel more at home with the Alliance than with Southern Baptist Convention?
Dever: Well, more at home? I mean, some of these [Alliance] guys are in sin because they haven't even been baptized.
I've barely scratched the surface. These quotes are merely designed to whet your appetite. Interestingly, I'm told that nearly 20% of the September Weekender attendees were alumni of independent fundamentalist institutions.