evangelical observer

Al and TIpper Gore

2010-06-02T18:38:00.002-06:00

I'm just going to say it. I feel bad that the Gores are splitting up, but if I have to watch one more news organization play the video of their kiss from the Democratic National Convention, I may be ill.

Woes

2010-04-01T20:10:00.001-06:00

Wow, Wade Burleson nails it.

Jesus Pronounces Eight Woes on the Southern Baptist Convention (Matthew 23)

It's easy to preach texts when we think Jesus is talking about others in the abstract. It's not near as easy to preach texts when we believe Jesus could be talking about us. This modern edition of Matthew 23 is adapted to cause me to look within myself.

Then Jesus spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention saying: (2) The pastors and self-proclaimed leaders of the SBC have seated themselves in positions of authority; (3) Do not imitate their actions; for they say things that they themselves will not do. (4) They create heavy burdens and lay them on the peoples' shoulders for them to carry, but they themselves are unwilling to even lift a finger. (5) What they do in terms of acts of service they do only to be noticed by the world; for they lie on their resumes and take great pains to dress as the epitome of success.

(6) They love the place of honor at national events and want to be seen next to the powerful politicians, (7) and they cherish being respected and powerful in the eyes of others, even demanding that they be called "Dr." by those who know them. (8) But you, do not allow yourself to be called "Dr." by others, for One is your Teacher and you are all equal in honor. (9) Do no call anyone on earth your "Father" for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (10) Do not consider yourself a leader; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. (11) But the greatest among you shall be your servant. (12) Whoever promotes himself will one day be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will one day be exalted.

(13) But woe to you, SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypoocrites, because you emphasize the building of your own kingdom and shut people out of the kingdom of heaven. (14) Woe to you SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders because your love for money causes you to devour the widows' income for your own gain and yet for pretense purposes you act as if your motivations are all spiritual; therefore, you will receive greater condemnation.

(15) Woe to you SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypocrites, because you travel internationally to share your global causes and urge others to partner with you; but when you convince someone to join the efforts of the SBC you make him twice as much a recepient of God's judgment as yourselves.

(16) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, "Whoever participates with evangelicals is doing nothing for the kingdom, but whoever does things purely Southern Baptist is truly godly." (17) You fools and blind men! Which is more important, your convention or my kingdom? Without Me, nothing you do is holy.

(18) And you say, ‘If anyone participates in ministry without giving financially to the church, the service is nothing, but if anyone gives generously to the church, then he is the one we desire to promote to leadership." (19) You blind men! For which is greater, the gift given or the the person? (20) So whoever puts the person first, then everything is in order. (21) And whoever understands that my kingdom is about people, understands kingdom principles. (22) And whoever has his eye on relationships has his eye on the very throne of God and Him who sits upon it.

(23) Woe to you, SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypocrites! For you emphasize giving, giving, and giving, but you neglect the weightier things: justice and mercy and faithfulness. Don't neglect these things while you seek the dollar! (24) In your blind greed you are straining gnats and swallowing camels.

(25) Woe to you, SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypocrites! For you clean up the outside of your churches, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (26) You blind pastors! First focus on the gracious spirit needed inside the church, then you can focus on the exterior beauty.

(27) Woe to you, SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of spiritually dead people and ungodliness. (28) So you try to appear outwardly righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness for you do not even love your own brothers.

(29) Woe to you, SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypocrites! For you exalt other pastors and you build monuments to their legacy, (30) saying, ‘If we had lived in the liberal days of our forefathers, we would have helped them them in turning around our convention.’ (31) Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered your brothers. (32) Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. (33) You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to judgment yourselves?

Creedal Baptists - An Oxymoron

2009-12-31T14:50:00.003-07:00

Wade Burleson says it well. Here is his article entitled "Perception is Reality - The Continued Slide toward Independent, Landmark, Fundamentalism." When I think of the SBC, it's just sad. The church I grew up in was a gospel centered, Bible loving, People loving place. People met there who disagreed on politics and other issues, but they loved the Church and the Church pointed toward Christ. People who loved the Word though they had a more moderate stance about various Biblical issues (not true Liberals) loved the Church as did Fundamentalists. Once upon a time, the SBC (and the Church I grew up in) was a unifying place. But no more.

I was a young person when this all started to change -- about 1979. I pick that date because I know the history, but it all really started to change when I was entering High School! - just in that time.

Was it really Adrian Rogers' nomination in 1979 that signified the change? No. But that signaled the time where we took a confrontational stand -- and the unintended consequences led us down a path that . . . . today we revere what men say about the Bible more than how they actually treat the authority of the Word. Wade's post says it all. The SBC is a shadow of it's former self and in the eyes of the general population, it appears to be slouching, mediocre, overweight, and and narcissistic.

Burleson vs. Denison on Muslims

2009-11-21T13:14:00.006-07:00

Dr. Jim Denison was the best professor I ever had at SWBTS (that's saying a lot! I had a great number of great professors).

His article, Opinion: The Fort Hood tragedy and radical Islam in the Baptist Standard clearly states the difference between Radical Islam and Moderate Islam. As only Denison can, he writes with concise and clear appeal for orthodox Biblical thinking that establishes freedom and opportunity to reach others for Christ.

On the other hand, Wade Burleson has written that "Moderate Muslims are the most dangerous Muslims of all." Burleson is quoting Mossab Hassan, the son of the only surviving member of the counsel of Hamas; he is now converted to Christ, speaking about Islam and urging all Muslims to love their enemies. Burleson/Hassan say, in essence, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. The implication, if taken at face value, seems to be that we should suspect all Muslims of potential terrorism.

Both Denison and Burleson are respectable, Bible-believing, orthodox reasonable Christians -- yet these two positions are mutually exclusive.

This is an example of how Christians can both present cogent, yet not agreeable positions. I respect both Burleson and Denison greatly. I agree with almost all of what each is saying. Yet, they emphasize different truths. Burleson emphasizes the danger of Moderate Muslims moving toward radicalism while in our midst as is clearly the case at Fort Hood. (If, indeed, Nidal Hasan was ever a moderate instead of a radical in hiding. We may never know which was true). Denison emphasizes the opportunity for sharing our faith if we diligently respect our nation's religious freedom and live out our faith in these dangerous times.

I agree with both truths. Where they differ, I agree with Denison. The First Century was a dangerous time for Christians, but the faith grew like it has never grown since. Do we value more our national security or the opportunity for Christ? Do we value more the freedoms our country provides or the safety we want? (Ironically, to protect "freedoms" we would have to surrender religious freedom if we go the the extremse of the Right Wing)? People seem to be criticizing Hasan for holding to his Islamic faith over and above his committment to the nation. While clearly his Islamic faith was Radical and exreme -- and so comparisons to Christian faith are not analagous, it seems wrong sighted. This is a difficult position for one in uniform to be sure, and I am not, nor have I ever worn a military uniform, but if I have to choose -- my Christian faith comes over and above my committment to our nation.

America is NOT a Christian nation. It is a nation of religious freedom, and that's much more important for the cause of Christ. It should be more important to the people of Christ. It's more important for the security (ultimately) of our nation.

Christians are STUPID

2009-11-14T08:22:00.001-07:00

Ok, I probably overstated that . . . call it Many Christians are STUPID.

This article from our local paper says more than 100 people crowded into the basement of Ted Haggard's home for a Prayer Meeting. Nothing wrong with prayer meetings, but from local media coverage, it's clear that Ted is hoping to use this as a new startup of his new church (note: he's saying the opposide -- that he doesn't know where this will go, where "God" will lead, etc., but to anyone with a brain for making inferences or observing evangelical behavior can tell that he is hopeful and optimistic about where this is going). And more than 100 people are crowding into his basement to be a part. This other article says the crowd is likely to continue. The personality cult continues . . .

I'm all about the Gospel of forgiveness. I'm all about picking up the pieces and moving on. I'm all about the Church embracing its fallen members and restoring them -- even to a place of leadership. But that is not what is happening with Ted. This is all about a man reinvigorating his personality cult and building up his own following.

Genius Atheists!

2009-06-14T06:41:00.005-06:00

A group of athiests have gotten together to form the POST RAPTURE PET CARE. Ever wonder what happened to the pets after the raptrue takes all of the Christians magically away (that detail wasn't quite covered in the Left Behind series or the movie we all brought people to church to watch in the 1970s - I can't remembe the title).

Well, your pet can be taken care of for you: "Just because we are atheists, doesn't mean we are not animal lovers." For a mere 70 pounds (they're British; don't know if there is an American version yet), you can have your pet taken care of after you are snatched away. Take me there.

I found this post from Riddleblog (one of the best Christian rapture debunkers on the net).

What I've Been Trying to Say about the Christian Right (has just been said by better writers than me)

2009-03-15T12:08:00.004-06:00

I've been growing uncomfortable for some time with the way the Evangelical church is now fully in the grasp of the Republican party. They are no more than another constituency to be satisfied. When you are just another group, you don't speak prophetically. You can be bought and sold with favors. Evangelicals have been begging to be treated this way for years. Like the Israelites begging for a king to be just like the other nations, Evangelicals have been begging for a "seat at the table" when Republican party bigwigs are making decisions -- and well, then now have that seat. I wonder when they are going to realize what they gave up by getting that seat.

Two posts, from good writers speak to this issue. The Internet Monk (or just iMonk aka Micahel Spencer) has written, "The Limbaughization of Evangelicals" in which he tells how he has moved from a '90s dittohead to a more thoughtful conservative (I have moved very similarly -- still calling myself a conservative, but VERY uncomfortable with the way the extreme right has replaced all possible ways of having the right influence, but work together with the moderates. Spencer also laments how the Gospel has been LOST by politically influcenced Evangelicals -- the Gospel has been replaced with Culture War rhetoric which further marginalizes the voice of Evangelical Christianity. Everything Spencer writes is worth reading, but this article in particular is excellent. (I may comment and link to his Fall of Evangelicalism articles as well).

The other post, is written by Rober Parham at Ethics Daily. Now there is much less that I can totally agree with at this site, and some of what is in this post should be taken with a grain of salt. Parham is a lefty, but when he speaks of separation of church/state, he should be listened to. Spencer has an easy to miss paragraph about lefties who should be warned of Obamification, and both ditches could be avoided by sticking to historic Baptist principles of Church and State separation (which doesn't mean the church abandons the public square -- I'll put a plug in here for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. Parham's article is entitled, "Is Rush Limbaugh the defacto Leader of Conservative Christians?" It speaks to the depths one will fall when an Evangelicals loses the Gospel (kind of an oxymoron isn't it for an Evangelical to lose the Gospel?

I remember my pastor saying from the pulpit (when I was about in 5th grade) how he wouldn't get actively involved in the fight against abortion because the Gospel was more important. A few years later, the rhetoric of politics took over (and the growth of the church also went anemic). Between SBC politics and Culture War, the Gospel has become are rare commodity.

Both Parham and iMonk have written about the shame brought on the name of Christ by Evangelicals sharing a stage (and radio show) with the likes of Ann Coulter as she MADE FUN OF THE WORDS OF THE VERY WORDS OF CHRIST (perhaps I'll look up and add links later).

Ichabod (the glory has departed).

Politics and Theology

2008-06-27T10:06:00.004-06:00

Kim Riddlebarger is perhaps a little harsh, but very percetive with the following quote:

Is it just me, or do both of these guys need to be smacked upside the head? Obama twists Scripture--giving us the critical, moralistic reading of the Old Testament and the Sermon on the Mount. Granted. But James Dobson is a flaming Arminian who hates Calvinism. I'm not sure Dobson can make better sense of the Bible than Obama. Once again, politicians should give up biblical interpretation, and experts in child development should stop trying to be theologians. Ugh . . . And to think we've got five more months of this.

A new Blog to Read

2008-04-04T15:59:00.003-06:00

It doesn't take long to tell if someone is going to be worth reading. There is a new member of the Evangelical-Observer blogroll today, and here is why.

I stumbled acoss a link from a blog I read -- Moderate Baptist. I don't think MB is in this blog's blogroll -- I read regulary and they are in my favorites, but their views are so different from mine on certain issues that I guess I just never added them. Well, in one reading, I can tell that -- though I likely differ from Dr. Platypus quite a bit, he deserves to be in the evangelical observer blogroll simply because of the good writing. One post got me curious, so I went to the ABOUT page, and found the post Theological Influences 1-10, and I was hooked.

Read this, from the section Going to Seminary:

I’ve been privileged at various times to be both the token “conservative” in “liberal” groups and the token “liberal” in “conservative” groups. I’ll take the former just about any day of the week. At least in the circles I run in, the “liberals” usually act like they know and love Jesus.

Oh, and this:

It was our own little ecumenical movement, and it taught me never to be too sure
that my own faith was all that different from the faith of anyone else who calls
on the name of the Lord.

I wish I'd had an experience young enough in my ministry to have allowed me to salvage such a open view of the whole body of Christ. Unfortunately, by my time at SWBTS, I was so steeped in fundamentalism, that if you did much different that that which I had grown up in, I was already classifying you as a "moderate" or "liberal" and you had no prayer of being salvaged. Try as they might, the wonderful professors of the time tried to open my mind (while staying very conservative - despite the lies no circulated about them), but I didn't listen (a little to afraid of being influenced. I wish the likes of Munn, Corley, MaGorman, Garrett, Denison, Heflin, etc. had had more influcence on me).

Also in that same section, Dr. Playtypus tells of being at Southern during the 80s when the so-called conservative resurgance was taking over:

I wasn’t exactly a fundamentalist at Southern Seminary, but I wasn’t entirely at
home with the predominant theological attitude at that time, either. Mostly,
however, I came to understand that I didn’t want anything to do with the folks
who were trying to take the place over.

Since I was at Southwestern just a little after that, I have a feeling I know only a little about how he felt. I'm convinced that's why I didn't stay in ministry. Coming from a guy who: (1) is proud to have Russell Dilday's signature on my SWBTS degree; (2) was uncomfortable with the transition at SWBTS to Kenneth Hemphill, but did have him as one of my hero's before Dilday was fired; and (3) and now can't believe that SWBTS is being run by this clown -- I'm glad to no longer call myself a Southern Baptist (though I remain a functional inerrantist, a conservative, and evangelical, a child of the King, a soujourner in this land . . . .).

Welcome Dr. Platypus -- my new blogging friend.

The "Religious Right"

2008-03-27T09:30:00.002-06:00

Joe Carter is pretty amazing. I have the feeling that he is the kind of person I could sit down with in a converstation and quickly identify several issues on which we disagree, but it wouldn't matter. We could discuss both the things we agree with and disagree with and both of us could listen and learn from the other. I desperately want more political/christian friends like that.

Joe's post AN OPEN LETTER TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT is rather amazing.

Dispensationalism

2008-02-24T21:37:00.005-07:00

Kim Riddlebarger is a blogger that I have just recently discovered and it looks like his writing is somethat I will follow. His blog is available here.

One of my difficulties with my fundagelical past is its close association with Dispensationalism. Mostly my difficulty is the implication that those who don't believe likewise really don't believe the Bible. For example I can recall a time when, in a discussion with a Dispensationalist who used to influence my thinking, I countered (talking about Pre-Trib Rapture) with an argument which went something like this: If the Bible teaches Pre-Trib, show me who in Church history believed in a two-staged return of Christ. Not Luther, not Calvin, not not Broadus or B.H. Carroll (I don't recall who exactly I did mention, but I tried to throw in some SBC names). The reply was what I now call the typical "if you weren't so liberal, you'd know just like I do. . . ." The person replied, "How about Paul?" As if to say that Paul's writings were so clear that anyone would have to interpret his writings as I do. I tried to follow up with chapter and verse, and why was he so misinterpreted through the ages, but the argument was not worth the time. This is about when I began to how I could ever fit into SBC circles.

Riddlebarger is interviewed in two parts on a site names Against Heresies. The two permalinks are here: Part 1 and Part 2. Riddlebarger has written many books on eschatology including A Case for Amillennialsim and The Man of Sin (also available from Baker and/or Amazon).

Currently, my own position is most likely Historic Premillennialism. I evolved to that while a student at SWBTS. It certainly doesn't settle all the questions but it resolves some of the conflicts of a student who wanted to stay as close to his upbringing as possible even when confronted with Biblical evidence that Dispensationalism was not truely an exegetical method of approaching scripture. Riddlebarger outlines his own growth from Dispensationalsim to Historic Premillinnialism and ultimately to Amillennialism. I don't agree with all of his points (he is a five-point Calvinist, for one example, and I am not. Also, I currently remain a Historic Premillennialist rather than an Amillennialist though my favorite Professor at SWBTS was an amillennialist [Dr. James Leo Garrett]). He gives an argument for Amillennialism regarding the presence of evil at the end of the millennial age which I need to closely examine. This is the kind of quality theological writing I learned to enjoy while I was a student at SWBTS (before the purge).

At the same time, here is a quote from Riddlebarger that I think I definitely disagree with: "It is important to remember that these differences of opinion exist between us because we are all sinners, not because God’s word is unclear." I do think that regarding eschatology, the details are unclear and that is why so many christians interpet it differently. Yet, the overall message (i.e. in the end, Christ wins!) is clear.

Christian Schools and Public Schools

2008-02-17T10:13:00.008-07:00

This post was prompted by the edgy and clever writing of Michael Spencer. Writing in the (link to here).

Since I am a former fundamentalist flirt, who now no longer works in the religion business and instead works in public schools I find this kind of writing provocative and entertaining. There is an underlying truth, however, which makes the writing hit home. That truth is this: we "christianize" what we do or the way we do things. We then seem to be anxious to be at war with the society at large. We seem to interpret being salt and light (Matt. 5:13-14) as being in conflict with our society - which does no justice to the original context of Jesus' words.

What makes this post even more intruguing is the author works at a Christian school (note however, the Spencer states in his opening, "this letter appears to be about schools" (my italics added) indicating he is using schools to talk about the larger evangelical tendency to invest our very identity into an institution. We then superimpose that instituion as the "christian" and superior model. The clear implication is that the "secular" (in some cases, the "other" denomination's; the other groups; the institution of "those emergers" or those liberals) model is inferior at best and "anit-christian" at worst. This tendency is most readily seen in the public school vs. private christian school (homeschool) mode of thinking, but it is not limited to that sphere.

Some thoughts:

Public schools are neither as evil as they are made out to be, and private schools (and homeschooling - i.e. the escape from public school) are not as redeeming as they are made out to be. To be sure, private schools and homeschooling can be an option for evangelicals. My contention is that evangelicals make this happen way more often that necessary. They expect public schools to teach religion (a big mistake!) or to allow equal time for creationism alongside the teaching of evolution. They expect a public school to give favor to christianity. This kind of thinking is a mistake. (I realize that if I were a young-earth creationist, I would likely feel very different). Allow the school to teach. Take an active role in your child's education by being involved in school activities. Don't be so involved in church activities that you don't have time to be involved in school activities. Teach your children what you believe, but realize that you don't have a corner on truth. Let the Bible speak for itself, and don't make orthodoxy out of ancillary doctrines (i.e. what you believe about creation et al is not a must believe for all christians - see Wade Burleson on this one!). I could link to Michael Spencer's essay "Why I am not on the bus" for this one, but I think I have already linked to him three times in this one post alone. (Oh, well, what the heck; look here for superior writing on this subject).

When evangelicals make public schools out as an evil of society, they add fuel to the culture war. The culture war is not the way to reach out to our neighbors; it's not the way to transform our society. It is a misguided attempt to feel like we're doing something for God; it's mistaken way of attempting to transform our society. The gospel I grew up hearing about was targeted toward every individual rather than at institutions such as public schools. The culture war as waged by chrisians is doing harm to the cause of Christ. I cannot say this any better than - you guessed it -- Michael Spencer. See his article entitled "Why the culture war makes sense to spiritually empty evangelicals."

Some day I may post something that is totally my own thinking and does not depend on the writing of Spencer (or others). Nevertheless, see Christianity Today's Leadership Blog Out of Ur for a report of Mohler's new book, Culture Shift.

Religious Bigotry

2008-02-07T19:14:00.001-07:00

I posted a couple days back (here) about when to be wary of religion and politics. It's not that they cannot mix -- they will. It's how they mix and in what ways they mix that should cause us to examine what that tells us about the candidate.

In the past few days I've been hearing a lot about so-called religious bigotry. In today's context that means that if Evangelicals choose to oppose Romney's election, they are religious bigots. And well, in some cases they may be. I may argue that despite the religious test clause, it is any individual's right to oppose a man simply because of his religion -- it may be religious bigotry, but it is an individual's right. The religious test clause is there to prevent the government from systematically de-selecting individuals from office solely on the basis of religion. It is strong support for the reality of separation of church and state from the earliest days of the republic. I have evolved into an individual who strongly supports separation despite many Evangelicals' evolution toward a weak support of separation. Nevertheless, I wish to revisit the Mormon issue in the context of religious bigotry.

It may be religious bigotry to oppose a man simply because of his Mormonism. In many cases I am sure that is the case. Yet, I think one can make the case for opposition to a president who believes a religion such as Mormonism that is intellectual, not bigoted. Please refer to my earlier post. It's not the religion itself -- it's the fact that believing in that or any religion that requires you turn off your brain (as I stated, certain kinds of christians also turn of their brain; I would equally oppose putting them in a postion of presidential power). Joseph Smith was a con man, yet a Mormon has to believe that con man's new religion with the golden tables and the invisible seer stone spectacles which were used to translate the "Reformed Egyption;" these tablets tell the story of an ancient civilization of Israelites sent to America by God (DNA evidence has disproved this).

I'm sorry, but this is grape koolaid thinking. I disqualifies someone from receiving my vote for POTUS.

Dobson's Statement About McCain

2008-02-06T21:33:00.000-07:00

Rarely can anyone -- certainly not me -- state anything as well (or with as much appropriate acrimony) as Ben Cole. (Note: Ben's blog is http://baptistblog.wordpress.com/, but in this case Ben was writing at the SBC Outpost; article permalink can be found here: http://sbcoutpost.com/2008/02/06/focus-on-the-folly/)

Since I can't say it any better, here is the text of Ben's "Focus on the Folly"

Dr. James Dobson is probably a good man. He loves his wife. He loves his
children. I’m pretty sure he loves Jesus. He also loves the spotlight that comes
with political influence. For this, of course, I do not fault him. Something
about glass houses comes to mind.
Yesterday James Dobson released a statement opposing John McCain’s candidacy, and thus he lined up with Limbaugh and Ingraham and Coulter. The reasons for Dobson’s opposition were clearly enumerated: McCain would not support a constitutional amendment to “protect” the institution of marriage; he supports embryonic stem cell research; he opposed ending the “marriage penalty tax”; and he “has little regard for the freedom of speech.” In his bill of particulars, Dobson might have revealed more about himself than he did John McCain.
James Dobson is an idealogue. You’re either for him, or you’re against him. More than ten years ago Dobson rattled his sabre at a meeting of the Council for National Policy meeting in Phoenix by threatening to bolt from the Republican Party. The party bosses got weak at the knees, and Dobson’s little tempter tantrum won him greater influence in the GOP. But Dobson’s tribe is diminished, and not a day too soon.
Pat Robertson went with Rudy Giuliani. Paul Pressler went with Fred Thompson. Jack Graham and Danny Akin went with Huckabee. Jerry Falwell, by some estimates, was poised to support McCain before meeting his Maker last May. The Religious Right has come of age and no longer looks to God’s gurus in Colorado Springs or Lynchburg for election day directives.
Unlike other prominent religious conservatives who possess deeply-held religious views, James Dobson has never tried his hand at public office. Huckabee left a Texarkana pulpit for the Arkansas governor’s mansion. Pat Robertson mounted a tremendous effort to gain the Republican nomination in 1988. These men knew that there are two options in life: you can either stay on the sidelines and whine, or you can get into the field and make a run for it. Huckabee has had more success than anyone imagined. Robertson learned his lesson another way.
But Dobson just sits on the sidelines — election year after election year — and threatens to pull his support or stay home. Ten years ago, most evangelical voters would have listened attentively. Many would have followed his lead. Today, we just watch with waning interest as James Dobson grows increasingly shrill and unimportant.
I wonder what might have happened if the child psychologist turned evangelical superstar had made a run for the United States Senate from Colorado a decade or so ago. He very well could have won. If he ran today, he would suffer resounding defeat in a state where twice as many Democratic voters went for Barack Obama as Republicans went for Mitt Romney. I’m sure that Dobson would tell us that “God didn’t call him to run for public office.” It’s funny how God seldom calls evangelicals to suffer political defeat.
Ronald Reagan was responsible for giving the GOP their eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” I’m not asking Dr. Dobson to observe laws from Simi Valley with the same commitment as he would observe those from Sinai. Neither am I asking Dr. Dobson to stop exercising his right of free speech.
All I’m asking is for evangelicals in the Republican Party to give James Dobson the same kind attention we would give to our senile and increasingly erratic grandfathers. Love them. Listen to them. Laugh with them. Then make sure they take their medicine.

The text of Dobson's statement:
(permalink from where I found it is here: http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2008/02/james-dobson-wont-vote-for-mccain-now.html)

Statement From Dr. James Dobson As Delivered By Laura Ingraham On “The Laura
Ingraham Show” (2/5/08):
“I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience. “But what a sad and
melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I’m affiliated. They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of
the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”

I have very little to add. My first thought was "this is why the world thinks most Christians are hyppocrites," and I'm trying really hard to count to ten and examine my thinking before I say my full thought out loud. My second thought: "this is why Christians who run prominent ministries should stay far away from politics." My final thought: "More proof that separation of church and state is a good thing (i.e. Dobson had so add the personal views disclaimer at the end so at least he is discrediting himself and not the whole of Focus).

Inerrancy - Why it doesn't matter so much

2008-02-03T15:08:00.001-07:00

I used to think I was a pretty good writer. When I was a seminary student, and for a short time thereafter, I thought I could be a pretty good theology writer. That may be one reason I want to try to write in this blog - just to tune up an area in which I I once thought I had some minor amount of talent. But the more I read others, the more I find I am quite an an amateur. Michael Spencer says much of what I think in ways I wish I could express it.

Here is Michael Spencer on scripture saying what I wish I had been able to express. The post is entitled, "The Bible I Don't Believe."

I have said inerrancy matters, but not so much. What I meant to say was, I at one time somewhat identified with inerrantists (in the SBC) because I saw there were many who were careless with scripture (not just within the SBC, but those were the ones I grew up seeing). Some of those were liberals (although there never were very many true liberals in the SBC). I have since discovered that most people who are careless with scripture are often "conservatives" who just want to use scripture to say what they want to say. Often times they are teaching concepts which are indeed truth, but they just don't use scripture well to express the truth. Sometimes they have a passage of scripture which is screaming "don't make me say that," but they are misusing scripture to make it say what it doesn't say. Most people that I have seen misuse scripture in such a way are indeed conservatives. They have no idea they are the spiritual descendants of Bultmann.

What I should been emphasizing rather than inerrancy of scripture was the authority of scripture. Again, Michael says it so well. Instead of emphsizing a foreign-to-the-New-Testament concept such as inerrancy, I would today emphasize the authority of scripture. When the book carries authority, its interpretation becomes all the more important; the interpreter must make it say what it says (what it said in its original context to its original audience -- and then we can extrapolate its meaning for today and its application to our lives). I can still relate to and respect such inerrantists as Millard Erickson, et al. At the same time, I can emphasize that I see inerrancy as a modern philisophic position which would have completely baffeled the New Testament authors themselves.

This is about what Russell Dilday emphasized back when I was taking basic hermeneutics. I wish I had been a better student.

Religion and Politics - When to be Wary

2008-01-31T20:23:00.000-07:00

Wow it's been a long time. Maybe I'll start posting again. In a political year there is much to try to sort through.

One problem to sort through is the candidate to support. I guess it's down to two Republicans and two Democrats. I've been a registered Republican all my life; voted for the Gipper first time I was eligible to vote. Not sure I would still be one, however, if registering as an Independent didn't deprive me of the opportunity of participating in primaries in my state. Still, I lean clearly toward the right (though not so far right as I was once headed). I now truely fear too much right wing power -- perhaps more than I once feared the lefties. Well, that's debatable; both sides are quite scary. Whatever happened to the reasonable middle? Actually the religious right is clearly trying to move in a direction that is healthy neither for the church nor the state. But, I really didn't begin this post to talk about church/state. Perhaps tomorrow.

Since I am a Republican (even if a reluctant one), I am caught between McCain and Romney -- assuming both Huckabee and Ron Paul are not viable (both can still, and still will influcence the outcome!). One another thought: what would happen if we had either McCain or Romney for the Republicans and either Obama or Clinton for the Democrats -- but in addition, what if we had Bloomberg running as an Independent, Paul running as a Libertarian, and Nader running for the Greens? I don't know how likely that is, but I don't see it beyond the realm of possiblities. Even without that extreme, we may well be beyond the days of the final winner ever getting a majority again (hasn't happened for the last 3 (or 4?) elections anyway). Perhaps we may have a real chance for a third party to rise up and save this country.

Back to McCain and Romney. The far right has been trashing McCain hard since the primaries have been getting close. The more likely McCain has become to win, the harder the right has worked to trash him. Clearly he has weaknesses. So it's down to which has greater flaws -- Romney or McCain?

I can't get past Romney's Mormonism. It's not that I disagree with the religion. I mean, I do. Clearly Mormonism is a religion built on lies and deceit; it is a perversion of true Christianity (i.e. historic Christianity -- I write as an Evangelical, and historic Christianity is what Evangelicalism is [or was meant to be before it began to morph into Fundagelicalsim]). But beyond the typical Evangelical objections to Mormonism, I think there is a really good reason to be concerned about a person who completely turns off his intellect when it comes to his religion. I believe -- strongly in Separation of Church and State; I don't vote just for the Christian candidate. But with Mormonism, you have the absolute lack of intellectual credibility. Can I vote for a man who actually believes the absurdities required to be a a Mormon? (I won't bother to list them here, I believe they are well known). I would have the same objections to an Evangelical (Fundamentalist) who insists that creation occurred only six thousand years ago, for example. The kind of Fundamentalist who thinks that the Creation Museum is the field trip to teach your children about science; The kind of Fundamentalist who believes that John Hagee or Benny Hinn actually does something other than cast shame on the name of Christ. Some people compartmentalize their faith, and otherwise completely logical, reasonable people believe absolute idiocy in the name of religion. But in these dangerous days, that kind of person may be very dangerous behind the largest armed forces in the world -- with their hand on the nuclear arsenal. I think I would rather have an atheist who uses his mind in control of such crazy power. The religious zealot is the one who scares me. You can argue Romney is no zealot, but you can't be a Mormon without believing the crazies (you can be a Christian without being an inerrantist or a young earther or a KJV/Received Text crazy).

On another note, I can't figure out why the hard core right won't hold Romney to the same standard that they use to trash McCain? (see, for example, the article here). There is still a long way to go, who knows what might happen between now and November. Interesting times.

Fundamentalism Breeds Phariseeism (part 1)

2007-01-09T20:06:00.000-07:00

Phariseeism is a symptom of hubris. As I define it here (I reserve the right to define my own terms and use them as I see fit. A necessary correlary of this practice is the clear definition of the terms before I use them), Phariseeism is the art and science of making fine distinctions which enable the initiated to work around "rules." These rules, though, apply to everyone else. The rules may be clearly and often quite elaborate. In fact, the elaborateness of the rules plays into the hands of those who define the rules and set the parameters of the application of the rules -- and those who manipulate the rules. It was pride that made the Pharisees so dangerous. It wasn't their exceptional understanding of the law that made them dangerous. It wasn't their superior education nor their memorization of the scripture. It wasn't their position of influence on the society that made them dangerous. It was their pride. Their pride made them dangerous to genuine spiritual relationship to the God-Man that walked among them and displayed to them the very essence of the Father (John 14:9-11) whom they claimed to represent.

OK. So any New Testament believer with a simple understanding ofthe the Pharisees and their practices knows all about this. The Pharisees were the master practitioners of legalism. That's Bible 101. Why am I writing about it? In answer to that question, I wish to point in two directions: the title of this article, "Fundamentalism Breeds Phariseeism" and my own personal background.

First, my personal background. I think the reason I am attempting to reason out much of the Fundagelical/Evangelical problem in this atmosphere is because I lived through it. I remember when evangelism really was the central mission of the SBC church of my youth. I remember when the politics of the times were left for each Christian and church member to interpet for him or herself. I remember hearing these words from my pastor in the mid to late 1970s (I can't tell date nor context, but I can say with all honestly that I know this is an exact quote), "I could be involved in the fight against abortion, but I'm too busy trying to reach people with the gospel. Evangelism is more important!" I can then remember -- and lived through the intervening years -- when that one issue had supplanted all others (it was a slow evolution) and one's Christianity was evaluated by how much disdain one had for a political candidate that proposed even a compromise on when an exception to abortion could be made (never minding that those exceptions made up only 4-6% of the general abortions cases so compromising on something easy to agree upon only fueled the controversy more). As this change came over the church in which I grew up, reports from annual meetings of the SBc were brought back to the church and the spiritual condition of the whole convention was dependent upon how strong the resolution against abortion was worded and by what percentage of the vote it passed. Evangelism was still mentioned and talked about and promoted as the "main thing." During this time or shortly after, the annual meeting began to have big crossover events to turn the big meeting into pretend evangelism events (Perhaps those actually happened earlier, but I was young and don't remember them. Actually my first memory of these was in the mid to late 80s -- well into the conservative resurgence). I also remember how church was changing. It became much more anti-societal. Illustrations of how bad society was becoming were punctuated by calls for prayer in school to be once again the law of the land. The "world" changed from being our mission field to being something from which we were to strictly separate. Today that extreme has moved to such an extreme that "real" Christians don't send their children to public schools (or at least have an exit strategy for the day its needed) according to resolutions on the convention floor.

I remember when the youth of the church spoke about peace and McGovern (I was much younger, but as a child watching the youth, I was an observer and a listener) and many of the loving adults pointed out the idealism of the time wouldn't win the election. While McGovern really never had a prayer of winning, what is different today is I don't think those youth would even be welcome in my childhood church today! If they dared come and if they dared speak of a candidate like McGovern, they would not return, and the adults who responded would not hear the students and would not respond with love. Of course this is pure speculation, but my impressions are nonetheless accurate as I see it.

I remember when Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist and his honesty and integrity wer some things that made many SBCers were proud -- those that voted for him and those who did not. Even when they grew to be weary of his inept presidency (whether it really was ineptitude, bad luck or just the "times," I will not try to conclude in this context), SBC people remained proud of his integrity. Some few years later, Reagan -- who brought an astrologer into the white house -- was evidence of positive spiritual movement within the country. Any day now, as long as Christians continued to vote for the candidate God wanted them to vote for, abortion would be illegal in these United States.

Today Carter is denegrated by the SBC prophets Rush and Hannity as practicallhy the brother of Satan (ok, I exagerate a little; Rush and Hannity have not quite yet achieved prophetic status). The point is that there was a time when a Christian could disagree on politics without having to demonize a man of faith. Even when Reagan's revolution swept Carter out of power, I remember when Judge Pressler came to speak in our church and the implication was that if the SBC could restore seminary professors to our schools who just believed the world of God, then God would heal our land and we would see prayer in schools, abortion made illegal, and the nation would begin to elect presidents who would appoint supreme court justices who would restore this land to it's God-ordained purpose. It was almost a postmillenialists dream of restoring the kingdom on earth through Christian zeal -- except that this church was premillenial and Dispensational (just what the Bible clearly says about the future once you have Hal Lindsey [and a little later on Tim LaHaye] to tell you how clearly the Bible says it).

One more, I remember when as a Southern Baptist Church, the church first took the risk of renting the film of a Nazarene psychogist to show on a series of Sunday nights because he actually spoke to family issues of the day. But, as the psychologist moved from family values to political control, the church that I grew up in began to shrink in influcence as it followed suit. Today that church is a mere shadow of the church that I knew as a child.

As I began, I indicated I would talk in two parts: my personal background and the title of this essay -- how fundamentalism breeds phariseeism. I will have to add the reason for that title in another post. I have written further about my growing up during the change in the character and spirit of the SBC (here). I make no separation of myself from this characterization. As a young and idealistic pastor I remember saying that I couldn't see how a Christian could vote for Bill Clinton (thank God I didn't say that from the pulpit or even in church). Later, I was scandalized when Tony Campolo was one of his spiritual advisors to restore him after the Monica-Gate scandal. I don't know what I really expected, doesn't the Bible teach forgiveness? (unless that sinner is a former SBC member and a democrate who is guilty of a sexual sin). I can feel the sarcasm oozing as I type, but I still feel this post characterizes the change in the denomination that once taught me how God loved every sinner.

Defining Evangelicalism et al

2007-01-06T19:44:00.000-07:00

Regarding my post about Fundamental vs. Fundamentalism, much more needs to be clarified. One of the beginning places would be to define the following terms: Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Orthodox Christianity, first/second/third tier doctrines (as well as what particular doctrines fall into each of these respective categories), along with other terms which are used by many with many differing nuances of meaning.

To define those at this time would be beyond the scope my current posting, yet I would like to connect to some scholarly writing which does define most of the above terms definitively as well as clearly differentiating clearly between them (link here). While I am at it, I would like to point out an instructive chapter in Randall Balmer's book Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament (Amazon link here). Balmer goes on in the course of the work to say many other things which I cannot fully endorse without qualification (perhaps postings on this instructive work will follow), but in the course of the preface he does a fairly good job of defining evangelicalism. Some context helps one see his point of view: he is working up to presenting his own credentials as an evangelical since he is a political liberal and modern evangelicalism is so apparently wed to conservative politics. Beginning on about page xii he begins a definition of American evangelicalism along with a brief review of the history of the movement.

Also of note, Balmer, as well as Gregory A. Boyd's The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church (Amazon link here) are two of my current reads which have me convinced that the current uncritical acceptance of conservative (should I say right-wing since I am convinced that conservatism has been co-opted by extremists, and I would in many regards like to hang on to my conservative ideology - but not what currently passes for conservatism) politics. Yet this is fodder for future postings.

Fundamental v. Fundamentalist

2006-12-29T16:40:00.000-07:00

As a beginning place, I will link to the following article from Ethics Today with the title I borrowed for this posting. Article found here.

The opening of the article, in turn credits James P. Boyce -- the president and founder of Southern Seminary -- with a quote from which title was taken. It's instructive. Baptists tend to fail to learn from history, but we should.

The pastor of my childhood church occasionally gave credit to the church in which he grew up for shaping his beliefs. He grew up in the First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas under the long term pastorate of J. Frank Norris ("the Texas Tornado.") In an often repeated testimony, my childhood pastor reminisced about his childhood in that church. The testimony did include information that as a young person he and his family switched churches to another Fort Worth Church due to the controversy and decline of First Baptist of Fort Worth.

What I didn't know, I learned later. J. Frank Norris was not really a man to be admired. When B.H. Carrol, of Southwestern Seminary came close to stepping aside, he took specific steps to ensure that Norris would not be considered his successor at Southwestern. Some reason that although Carrol and Norris were friends and colleagues, Carrol was quite wary of Norris' brand of Dispensationalism. Others surmise that Carrol knew that Norris' personality cult was a danger. In any case, thank God that Carrol had the foresight to ensure SWBTS would grow to prominence -- something almost guaranteed not to happen under the personality and fundamental leadership of Norris.

Further, Norris' personality cult was the reason for the decline of the church. Now while I greatly admire my childhood pastor, I can't imagine why -- after being trained at a great Southern Baptist institution, being exposed to the great leadership from the era in which he grew up -- my childhood pastor would harken back to his childhood days under such an inferior, manipulative and infamous leader as his ideal. Alas, however, we all have our myopias. This is what makes fundamentalism appealing despite its infamous history. Norris certainly did stand for Biblical inerrancy and a high view of scripture. Too bad so many like him say great things about scripture, but watch how they twist it to say anything but what the text is screaming.

Now consider the SBC. The greater SBC moved first toward ensuring inerrancy as mandatory for all. They didn't stop when inerrancy was adopted. Next they moved to ensure control over agencies, decisons, state conventions, and churches during the 1990s under fundamentalist leadership. Now, the SBC is moving to ban private prayer languages even among those who affirm inerrancy and signed the updated BF&M. The PPL witchhunt started first at the IMB and then at SWBTS due to Patterson, but it will surely not stop there. (Incidentally, I call it a witchhunt since there is absolutely no imperical evidence of a problem of leaders at the IMB, SWBTS or anywhere else leading Baptist people astray due to PPLs). When this issue is solved, some other key issue to fight about will follow. Fundamentalist leadership desperately needs something to fight against. The Calvinists among SBC leaders are safe only so long as there is something else convenient to fight against. SBC fundamentalists are pragmatic. Fighting against Calvinists right now will prove problematic as they have now become entrenched and have places of leadership. Calvinists, however, will eventually find themselves targeted as the fundamentalist SBC leaders really don't want them in the convention; they don't look enough like the independent Baptists after whom these fundamentalists model themselves. Their kind work well only with others just like themselves. When the time comes, the SBC may see the biggest fight of all over the issue of Calvinism.

All of this is precisely why I have learned seek to see what a man does with the Word of God rather than what he says about it. I have also evolved so that I can tolerate much more in terms of theological differences. I think I could work side-by-side with those from many different theological, political and idealistic positions. I did not learn that in my childhood church. There were Baptists and only a few others whom God listened to.

For those kind of fundamentalists inerrancy and further changes such as creedification of the BF&M provide a concrete ideal; they wish to leave no wiggle room for the closet liberal. The law of unintended consequnces, however, cannot be ignored. The fundamentalist ideal comes at the cost of uniformity in place of unity of purpose despite wide diversity. It ignores the differences between first tier and second/third tier doctrines on which Baptists can (and have always) differed. It virtually guarantees further split of the SBC. What I hope is that the broader evangelical community can avoid negative SBC influence. We need evangelicals, not fundagelicals.

Describing Where I Sit

2006-12-28T09:57:00.000-07:00

Around here there is a radio talk host who exhorts his callers to “tell me where you sit before you tell me where you stand.” This post is an effort to list my current presuppositions – not all of them, but presuppositions that affect my current posting attitude. A little git of historic descriptive narration makes this more relevant to me than a listing of all the logic and reasoning behind these presuppositions.

I have traveled a long way. When I was a seminary student, I was a flaming conservative. I don't think I quite qualified as a fundamentalist, but I was close. These were they days when the conflict in the SBC were at their height. It was an open question whether the conservatives would win each year during the annual meeting. As a neo-fundamentalist, I truly believed that anyone who denied inerrancy was wrong. When I first went to Southwestern, I held the belief that anyone who did not hold to inerrancy was a liberal. It did not take me long, however, to learn that was not true. I had many conservative, outstanding, Bible believing, God-fearing, scripture loving professors who could not use the term inerrancy. I invented a term for these kind of people: functional inerrantists.

(Whether I actually invented this term or adopted from another I cannot say. I use this term quite a lot without knowing where it comes from. Most of my SWBTS professors fell into this category. Most are today not there anymore. I'm going to borrow some description of SWBTS from MIDDLEKID: "I graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary before the fundamentalists kicked a lot of really good people out. I'm not bitter, but I'm also not naive. I'm proud to have Russell Dilday's signature on my diploma." While SWBTS professors during my time there were functional inerrantists, I believed that must not be true of the other five SBC seminaries. I continued to be "for" the SBC conservatives even as small doubts about them began to arise. As a graduate, I continued to call myself an inerrantist, but had friends and colleagues who were merely functional inerrantists. I saw no functional difference.)

As a pastor, I continued to be a conservative with fundamentalist leanings, though I dialogued with better men than me who held functional inerrancy views. I like to believe that I avoided the posture and attitude of a fundamentalist, but when Baylor changed its charter to protect itself from fundamentalist takeover, I sent a letter to Herb Reynolds saying that despite the education I receieved there I would not recommend sending students from my church there. (I wish I could get that letter back.)

Since leaving the pastorate, I have spent some time serving in churches, but more time as an observer. I confess liking megachurches for the anonymity they provide. They are, like all things evangelical, neither all bad nor all good.

Today, I begin blogging to chronicle my thoughts, to catalog my mixed feelings, and to express myself about some concerns. I have a lot of questions, but few answers. I know there are good people in the SBC, good people in the CBF, good people in the broad evangelical tradition, as well as good people who know and love Christ in mainline churches. Where I fit, I don't know, but I hope I can live out my life in relation to all of the above.

In summary, my presuppositions are:

Inerrancy does matter, but not so much. A man may have legitimate reservations about the term inerrancy and still treat scripture with high respect. At the same time, I have seen many who claim inerrancy, who speak the right words, and even seek to fight for the concept, but, I have also observed how they fail to exegete scripture with care. Today I pay closer attention to the way a preacher uses scripture than what he says about it.

There will be a much broader group of people in heaven than I once thought. I still have the duty to share Christ with all (though not the same confrontive way I learned as a young person in soul winning class). Acknowldging this does not move me closer to universalism; I'm just proclaiming my faith in Christ's effectual grace. I still believe all men need to hear the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ.

The SBC is my childhood church. I came to faith in Christ as a child in an SBC church. I attended Sunday School, Church Training, RAs, youth group and nearly all of my childhood friends were made in an SBC church. I learned to share my faith and live my faith as a member. I attended SBC schools. But today I fear the SBC is headed in the wrong direction, and further, I fear it may bring the wider evangelical community down with its brand of fundagelicalism. I still love the SBC, but I am now an outside observer of it. In many ways I am an observer of church in general. Where I used to take places of leadership, today I prefer anonymity. (I suspect further postings on this concept may follow.)

I never appreciated the concept of Separation of Church and State until I stepped outside of the SBC. As a student I heared James Dunn speak in an ethics class. His reasoning was much more sound than I had been lead to believe (I had been told he was a wacko leftie). I appreciated the Baptist contribution to religious liberty, but saw only small connection to that and the issues of the day. After all, isn't Separation an excuse to secularize society? Today, however, I am comfortable acknowldging and advocating for the historic Baptist position even though that puts me in the same camp with secularists. Possibly the event that confirmed my separation from the SBC was a permanent one was their total defunding of the Baptist Joint Committee (followed by similar action against the Baptist World Alliance).The best safeguard to religious liberty is the Separation of Church and State, and, contrary to evangelical propaganda, Separation is not a threat to evangelicals or a limitation to my personal expression of faith.

Berashith

2006-12-27T20:34:00.000-07:00

The title of this inital post is a rough transliteration of the Hebrew word which opens the canon of scripture: Genesis 1:1 -- "In (the) beginning."

This is actually my second beginning. I opened a blog some time ago, but was involved in so many other activities at the time I felt silly not posting to it and thus ended my first blog.

My reasons for beginning again. I read and follow several evangelical bloggers, most - but not all - of whom are SBC bloggers. My thoughts are often intrigued and my faith is challenged. I began reading these SBC blogs after reading in the Associated Baptist Press about the controversy surrounding Wade Burleson and the IMB. Frankly, I miss the involvement I used to have with other pastors. The news of new controversy in the SBC got my attention, and I began reading about SBC news and events. This began as a way of keeping in touch with my former life, but in the blogs I discovered a world of devotional, theological and intellectual thought which frankly I miss. Reading the blogs became a way to stay in touch with my past life. Frankly I miss many of the times of fellowship with fellow pastors that I had during my short tenure as a pastor in this once great denomination (The reason I call the SBC a "once great" denomination is not to criticize. It's still made up of many great people and it still does many great things. Perhaps clarification of my "once great" comment needs to come in another post.) This posting is about the beginning of this blog. Posting to my own blog is intended as a way to compose my own intellectual/spiritual/devotional journey.

A note about my blog's title. I am currently, for a number of reasons, an evangelical observer. I am caught in the middle (the blog title was already taken - click here). Evangelicalism has me baffled. I am no longer sure I am one. I have not left evangelicalism, but I am worried that evangelicalism may leave me as it flirts with fundamentalism. As I said, I have not left evangelicalsim. I still hold all the tenets of the faith. (I could be called a fundamentalist as I still hold to all the fundamentals of the faith, but I reject that label and would be rejected by any self-respecting fundamentalist). I hope and pray that evangelicals will return to what unites them -- a desire to spread the good news and the love of Christ to all.