SBC Heresy Trials

As many of you may know, I have been chronicling the on-going Evangelical Crisis and the demise of the idea of the Conservative Resurgence as a historical opportunity of effective evangelism. My criticism of the Conservative Resurgence has been manifold, but primarily focused on the methods by which the Resurgent leaders purged the convention of those with whom they disagreed. But another criticism has been the assumption made by the Resurgent leaders and Southern Baptists in general that God would bless correct theology. The argument raised by the Resurgent leaders was that if the SBC continued its “liberal” drift then our body’s effectiveness at evangelism would slide and giving to the Cooperative Program would falter. As recent statements from the SBC suggest, despite the Conservative Resurgence and its “conservative” shift, we are now in an Evangelical Crisis and our Cooperative Program proceeds are at an old time low. These are two developments that did not occur during the SBC’s “moderate” years.

My focus on these two developments has not been to point fingers at the Resurgent Leaders and say that these outcomes are their fault. No, I honestly do not believe they are really responsible for these problems. Rather my focus has been on the Resurgent claim that their beliefs about the faith would prevent such negative outcomes.

However, while I have been criticizing the SBC for its pre/assumptions, I have not yet produced my answer to solve the problem of the Evangelical Crisis. For many months now I have been considering the problem and I think that I have an answer.

I originally came up with several practical solutions that the SBC could adopt without necessarily drifting to the “moderate” side of Christendom.

Let me be clear: I do not think that the SBC has to become more “liberal”, “moderate” or “conservative” in order to be more effective at evangelizing. While I consider myself “conservative” and well within the orthodox tradition of the faith, many individuals of a rather more “ignorant” nature when it comes to particular “technical” aspects of our faith, would see me as a “moderate” at best and a “liberal” at worst. Such terms are so influx from time to time, from place to place, and from person to person, they are largely losing their meaning to me. However, while I have significant differences with the SBC about what constitutes “proper” theology and an even greater difference of opinion on the methods that we as believers use to insure “proper” doctrine is maintained, I do not really care whether or not the SBC generally believes what I believe. Their theological beliefs are not necessarily the problem and the current situation would probably not change if they theologically drifted to another place on the Christian theological spectrum.

Since we have a “conservative” convention, let’s play with the cards dealt to us. Therefore, what are some practical solutions that the SBC can implement?

1) We have more women in the church than men but the dominant theological position within the SBC somewhat limits the variety of ministry roles a woman can pursue. Therefore, we are limiting the ministerial role of over half our body. Now I do not expect that the SBC will start recognizing women as senior pastor, but I would like to see the SBC publicly push to have more women in the ministry. Make a grand commitment to invite, educate, and promote women into Southern Baptist ministries.

2) This will probably be the most difficult task. Reconcile with other evangelical groups (such as the CBF and BWA) for joint ventures of Kingdom building. We do not have to agree 100% with every person in order to evangelize. Heck, we join with Roman Catholics to promote moral issues in this country but we refuse to join other Baptists to promote evangelism. Let’s rethink this.

3) Let’s start and promote evangelistic groups and missions (without Cooperative Program funds) that can be ministered by “moderates” in the SBC. Without using CP money, the SBC can allow “moderates” in the convention to seek funds and support outside the CP. This way we can have ministry positions for “moderates” but still not be accused of financially supporting their beliefs.

4) This is a good one. For many decades until the late eighties and mid-nineties, SBC missionaries would help build hospitals and medical centers for the poor. There is a Baptist hospital in Asunción, Paraguay. The thinking up until the Resurgence was that by building hospitals in heavily populated areas, the missionaries could witness to those individuals who came to the hospital for cheap treatment and these people could be introduced to the local Baptist churches. This was the thinking for much of the modern era. However, many moderate and liberal theologians and missionaries began to rediscover the local church as the New Testament focus of missions. They soon began to alter the way in which they did missions. In time, this paradigm shift in thinking came to the Resurgent SBC and its mission boards. They soon arrived at the same conclusion as the liberals and moderates and proceeded to focus solely on the local church. And now you know one of the main causes of the SBC church planting movement. A very successful movement, I might add, that needs to be encouraged and continued. However, with this renewed focus on the local church, the SBC, which was continually losing and continues to lose funds in the Cooperative Program, the decision was made by the International Mission Board to cut many of the medical ministries regardless of how effective they were in evangelism. Therefore, the Baptist Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay had to find support outside of the SBC .., which they did. And they continue to lead people to Christ today … without SBC help. Now in the United States, we are rapidly facing a healthcare crisis; a fact admitted by politicos on the right and left. God, through Christ, is the savior of both the spirit and the body. As His servants on earth in this age, we are both capable and duty-bound to minister to the spiritual and physical needs on man. Therefore, I suggest that the SBC begin to start cheap medical ministries for the poor in order to bring their spirits and bodies to Christ. We have had success in the past with these methods and there is a current need for healthcare in this world that Christian ministers should fill. I would never suggest either abandoning or even limiting our church planting plans, but I do think that there are untapped seekers in this country that can reached through ministering to the body.

These are a few of the broader solutions I am suggesting in order to solve the current the Evangelical Crisis (there are others but I am saving them for later). These solutions are largely aimed at the SBC and are offered as something the SBC can do as a body. However, I do believe that there is an overall larger solution to the Evangelical Crisis; a solution that cannot be reached by the SBC as a body but by the believer as a member of the body of Christ. My solution will have to wait for another time when I have finished my research and contemplation of the various aspects of this issue.

Part of my research has involved an analysis of how various parts of Christendom have understood the faith. This area of exploration has brought me in contact with George Shriver’s “Dictionary of American Heresy Trials”; a very extensive treatment on cases of heresy in America. A large proportion of which have to do with struggles for control of what will be taught in seminary; perhaps there is inevitably a conflict between the conclusions of learned individuals, and the demand that a seminary which is the primary training ground for a group’s future ministers should teach in accord with the beliefs of the group, however ignorant that group is.

I thought the Southern Baptist entries were quite interesting, though I myself might have explained the positions of the individuals on trial with greater clarity.

Anyway, this is the point of this post. What I found most interesting is that three of these professors (Stagg, Moody and Elliott) are intellectual heroes of mind. Small wonder, eh?

Southern Baptists

George B Foster (1858-1910). Ordained as a Baptist minister, taught systematic theology and later philosophy of religion at the Divinity School of the U of Chicago. By 1895 he had abandoned orthodox Christian theology; by the early 1900’s he believed that Christianity was no longer a live option; God became ‘the ideal-achieving aspects of the cosmic evolutionary process.” The Baptists Ministers’ Conference condemned his 1906 book The Finality of the Christian Religion, voting 48 to 22 that its views were ‘contrary to scripture and …subversive of the vital and essential truths of the Christian faith.’ The 1909 book ‘The function of religion in man’s struggle for existence’ aroused even more controversy; Foster declared publicly that he was still a true historic Baptist because “Baptists hold to the right of private interpretation of Scripture, freedom of thought and speech, and the privilege of every man to hold communion with God without the mediation of a priest.” The Minister’s Conference voted on 26 June to expel him; however, he never surrendered his papers of ordination and he continued to teach at U of C. The case served to clarify and widen the split between conservatives and liberals, particularly among the Baptists.

Mercer University (1939). 13 University students filed charges against 4 professors, again primarily around issues of modern biblical criticism (Mercer is Baptist) and around the issue of evolution. Resignations (under pressure) due to doctrinal irregularity had occurred in 1894, 1905, 1906 and 1924. A 10-hour trial was held on 20 March. The faculty were accused of denying the existence of demons, the blood Atonement of Christ, conversion from sin, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, hell, the Genesis account of creation, and the molding of Eve from the rib of Adam; and of saying that the Bible contained contradictions. The trustee investigative committee however refused to condemn them and simply issued a caution; the majority of students also supported the professors.

Frank Stagg (1911- ). Professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; investigated in 1956, apparently due to his writings on racial justice. Letters were solicited commenting on his views, which reveal six issues:

- undue emphasis on the New Testament, particularly on the human elements as opposed to the divine elements
- his view that the Trinity was unbiblical
- his view of the atonement as ‘transactional’
- his view that God’s wrath was the consequence of sin rather than a response to sin
- his ‘too psychological’ explanation of demons
- views on particular biblical passages

Stagg was called before the Trustees to respond, and then acquitted. He stayed at NOBTS until 1964, went to Southern Baptist and remained there until his retirement in 1982.

Robert Briggs (1915 - ). Briggs taught at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In 1960 an investigation was begun into the teaching of Briggs, William Strickland and Harold Oliver for “the application of radical Existentialism and so-called Bultmanianism.” Over the next three years an extended struggle took place to resolve the questions of the academic freedom of the faculty versus adherence to the Abstract of Principles which all faculty members had signed on appointment; no formal charge of heretical teaching was ever made. In 1964 Briggs resigned; shortly thereafter he took a post at Vanderbilt University, and then moved on to the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta. Oliver resigned and went to Boston University; Strickland resigned in 1966 to go to Appalachian State University. Briggs’ opinion of the situation was that his colleagues accepted the claims of historical-critical research but were unwilling to deal with its implications for understanding religious authority and truth. He later wrote Interpreting the Gospels, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1969.

Louisville 13 (1958): Forced resignation of 13 faculty members from Southern Seminary for unorthodoxy.

Theodore R Clark (1912 - ). Clark taught at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; he was dismissed in 1960 primarily as a result of the publication of his book Saved by His Life (Macmillan, 1959). The trustees did not make clear the nature of their complaint but said that “His recently published book is one of several instances in which the board had been confronted with questions as to limitations in the area of communication with students and hearers as well as content of lecture materials.” Clark himself seemed genuinely surprised, puzzled and grieved over the controversy.

The book was a meditation on salvation, including a long prayer and several hymns written by Clark. The book aimed to put more emphasis on Christ’s life as a vehicle of salvation, rather than his death; and objected to the theology of some popular hymns about Christ’s death. Clark also emphasized the personal, existential self-giving of God over God’s transmission of propositional truth, and made other comments about the dangers of “Jesusolatry”.

The process appears to have been obscure; it is not clear that the Board ever met with Clark or that the faculty were aware that an investigation was underway. The Dean, J Hardee Kennedy, had written an approving review of Clark’s book and does not appear to have participated in the dismissal. Clark took an appointment at Pan American College in Edinburg, Texas.

Ralph Elliott (1925 -- ); dismissed from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1962 over conflict about contemporary biblical criticism. In the 1950’s Southern Seminary had 13 simultaneous forced resignations over the issue (the ‘Louisville 13’); Elliott had been at Southern but moved to Midwestern shortly before the ‘massacre’. He was described at the time as ‘quite conservative in the larger world of biblical scholarship, a moderate in SBC religious ranks, and quite liberal in comparison to … most SBC pulpits'. He was tried twice: in 1960 after publishing The Message of Genesis: A theological interpretation, he was examined by the board of trustees who supported him, 14 to 7. The conservatives were unhappy with this result and passed a motion at the 1962 Southern Baptist Convention rejecting theological views which “undermine faith in the historical accuracy and doctrinal integrity of the Bible” and requesting trustees of all SBC institutions to address situations where such views were being taught; simultaneously, elections at the convention changed the balance of trustees at Midwestern. The new board met for a second trial; they agreed with Elliott on 9 out of 10 points, but they failed to agree on republication of the book – the trustees didn’t want to take responsibility for banning it, and Elliott refused to ‘volunteer’ not to seek its republication. The board then dismissed him by a vote of 22 to 7. Elliott moved to the American Baptist church and continued his career. Shriver notes that the second trial did not involve a disagreement over content, but a disagreement about whether the board could control publication of views in order to protect the position of the seminary; one explicitly said that “as long as it is a matter between a professor and his student what he says, that is one thing. But when he puts his beliefs in writing where everybody can read them – as in The Message of Genesis – that’s another thing.”

Dale Moody (1915-1992). Taught at Southern Baptist Seminary. Aroused controversy as to whether he supported the Baptist principle of ‘perseverance of the saints’ (drawn from Hebrews 6:4-6). He was accused in 1961 of teaching that it was possible for a person ‘once saved to be lost’ but was acquitted. In 1979, Moody proposed revision of the Abstract of Principles on this point; the University then said it did not wish to inhibit faculty freedom but would not extend his teaching contract past normal retirement age unless his teaching on this point was more traditional. Moody argued that his reading of the principle was in line with the original Biblical texts and the argument continued for roughly 3 years. On 17 November 1983, Moody gave a talk on the topic “Can a saved person ever be lost?”; whereupon the Arkansas Baptist State Convention asked the university to terminate him (he was already at retirement age). The University employed him until 1984 but refused to give him a further contract.

Paul Simmons (1936 -- ). Professor of Christian ethics at Southern Baptist Seminary, 1970 – 1992. He was attacked not for theological beliefs but for ethical positions, particularly in the areas of abortion, elective death and homosexuality, even though these were "solidly grounded in thorough research and careful biblical exegesis." This occurred in a general atmosphere of “fear, indoctrination and intimidation” led by the rising fundamentalist wing. In 1987 the Trustees reviewed Simmons’ positions, said there were no grounds for dismissing him but asked that he ‘moderate his public involvement’ in the debate on abortion. In 1989 he was accused of saying that Jesus was sexually active but this was proved false. Pressure to remove Simmons for his position on abortion continued and in 1992 the President attempted to offer him a financial package to leave, which Simmons refused. Following a further controversy about a film used by Simmons in a lecture, the Trustees proposed sanctions which Simmons was unwilling to accept, and he resigned.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 1985-94. Investigated for allowing teaching contrary to Biblical inerrancy. In 1987 the Trustees announced a hiring policy that would include only orthodox inerrantists; whereupon the President resigned. The school has declined; the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools has declared it deficient, AAUP has censured it, multiple resignations were submitted in 1991 and the school has been placed on probation (i.e. just short of loss of accreditation). Between 1985 and 1994, 27 of the 34 faculty and 13 of the 16 administrators resigned.

Molly Marshall (1949 -- ). Resigned from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1994; now at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (American Baptist, not Southern). A heresy trial was in the offing at the time of her resignation with the outcome largely predetermined; Shriver describes it as tied in with the ‘takeover’ of the SBC by the fundamentalists in the 1979-1990 period. The Seminary statement at the time of her resignation says that the president had determined that her views were ‘significantly outside the parameters of the Abstract of Principles’ although it did not specify; sources involved in the affair supposed it related to (a) the atonement (b) salvation only in Christ (c) ‘whether those once saved will persevere to the end’ (d) whether feminine language and concepts can be applied to God (e) the authority of Scripture. It is also possible that her status as a woman pastor and other gender issues played a role.

Holes

BY ROGER EBERT / April 18, 2003

You take a bad boy, make him dig holes all day long in the hot sun, it makes him a good boy. That's our philosophy here at Camp Green Lake. So says Mr. Sir, the overseer of a bizarre juvenile correction center that sits in the middle of the desert, surrounded by countless holes, each one 5 feet deep and 5 feet wide. It is the fate of the boys sentenced there to dig one hole a day, day after day; like Sisyphus, who was condemned to forever roll a rock to the top of a hill so that it could roll back down again, they are caught in a tragic loop.

"Holes," which tells their story, is a movie so strange that it escapes entirely from the family genre and moves into fantasy. Like "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," it has fearsome depths and secrets. Based on the much-honored young adult's novel by Louis Sachar, it has been given the top-shelf treatment: The director is Andrew Davis ("The Fugitive") and the cast includes not only talented young stars but also weirdness from adults such as Jon Voight, Sigourney Weaver, Tim Blake Nelson and Patricia Arquette.

In a time when mainstream action is rigidly contained within formulas, maybe there's more freedom to be found in a young people's adventure. "Holes" jumps the rails, leaves all expectations behind, and tells a story that's not funny ha-ha but funny peculiar. I found it original and intriguing. It'll be a change after dumbed-down, one-level family stories, but a lot of kids in the upper grades will have read the book, and no doubt their younger brothers and sisters have had it explained to them. (If you doubt the novel's Harry Potter-like penetration into the youth culture, ask a seventh-grader who Armpit is.) The story involves Stanley Yelnats IV (Shia LaBeouf) as a good kid who gets charged with a crime through no fault of his own, and is shipped off to Camp Green Lake, which is little more than a desert bunkhouse surrounded by holes. There he meets his fellow prisoners and the ominous supervisory staff: Mr. Sir (Jon Voight) and Mr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) report to The Warden (Sigourney Weaver), and both men are thoroughly intimidated by her. All three adult actors take their work seriously; they don't relax because this is a family movie, but create characters of dark comic menace. Voight's work is especially detailed; watch him spit in his hand to slick back his hair.

"Holes" involves no less than two flashback stories. We learn that young Stanley comes from a long line of Yelnatses (all named Stanley, because it is the last name spelled backward). From his father (Henry Winkler) and grandfather (Nathan Davis), he learns of an ancient family curse, traced back many generations to an angry fortune teller (Eartha Kitt; yes, Eartha Kitt). The other flashback explains the real reason that the Warden wants the boys to dig holes; it involves the buried treasure of a legendary bandit queen named Kissin' Kate Barlow (Arquette).

There is a link between these two back-stories, supplied by Zero (Khleo Thomas), who becomes Stanley's best friend and shares a harrowing adventure with him. Zero runs away, despite Mr. Sir's warning that there is no water for miles around, and when Stanley joins him, they stumble upon ancient clues and modern astonishments.

LaBeouf and Khleo Thomas are both new to me, although LaBoeuf is the star of a cable series, "Even Stevens." They carry the movie with an unforced conviction, and successfully avoid playing cute. As they wander in the desert and discover the keys to their past and present destinies, they develop a partnership, which, despite the fantastical material, seems like the real thing.

The whole movie generates a surprising conviction. No wonder young readers have embraced it so eagerly: It doesn't condescend, and it founds its story on recognizable human nature. There are all sorts of undercurrents, such as the edgy tension between the Warden and Mr. Sir, that add depth and intrigue; Voight and Weaver don't simply play caricatures.

Davis has always been a director with a strong visual sense, and the look of "Holes" has a noble, dusty loneliness. We feel we are actually in a limitless desert. The cinematographer, Stephen St. John, thinks big, and frames his shots for an epic feel that adds weight to the story. I walked in expecting a movie for thirteensomethings, and walked out feeling challenged and satisfied. Curious, how much more grown up and sophisticated "Holes" is than "Anger Management."

David Jacobus Bosch

I often refer to David Bosch and his magnum opus, Transforming Mission. Here is a short biography on his life and work.

Bosch, David Jacobus
1929 to 1992
Dutch Reformed Church
South Africa

David Jacobus Bosch was born into an Afrikaner home on December 13, 1929, near the town of Kuruman in the Cape Province of South Africa.[1] His parents were poor but proud farmers, "simple rural folk," and loyal members of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC). From his earliest childhood, he received a "Christian Nationalist" education. Bosch stated how

at a very early stage already our minds were influenced by teachers and other cultural and political leaders to see the English as perpetrators of all kinds of evil and as oppressors of the Afrikaner. We read poems of Totius and Jan Celliers, we read Een eeuw van onrecht--a century of injustice--and we were convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that no people were a patch on the English when it comes to arrogance, self-righteousness and brutal oppression of others. After all, my own mother could tell stories about the concentration camp to which she was taken at the age of eight.[2]
If the English were the enemy to the young Bosch, blacks were essentially nonpersons. Blacks were hewers of wood and drawers of water, "a part of the scenery but hardly a part of the human community.... They belonged to the category of 'farm implements' rather than to the category 'fellow-human beings.'"[3]

In 1948, the same year that Bosch entered the University of Pretoria's Teacher's College, the pro-apartheid National Party was swept into power. For Afrikaners like Bosch, "it was to us like a dream come true when the Nationalist Party won that victory. We had no reservations whatsoever." At the university, Bosch became involved with the Student Christian Association (SCA]. While participating in an SCA-sponsored evangelistic outreach at a lakeside camp, he became convinced that God was calling him into the Christian ministry.

Upon returning to his parents' farm that summer, Bosch organized a Sunday service for the black laborers. A large crowd of black workers gathered. What happened there can only be described as a conversion of sorts.
As I arrived, trembling, at the place of meeting, everybody came forward to shake hands with me! It was one of the most difficult moments in my life. When they saw my hesitation, they assured me that it was quite alright, that, in fact, it was normal for Christians to shake hands with one another! Only then did I discover that many of them were Christians: Methodists, Anglicans, members of the African Independent Churches, and so on. Previously I only thought of them as pagans and, at best, semisavages.

Looking back now to that day, thirty years ago, I guess I can say that that was the beginning of a turning point in my life. Not that, from then on, I accepted Blacks fully as human beings. Far from it. But something began to stir in me that day, and all I can say is that, by the grace of God, it has been growing ever since. Gradually, year by year, my horizons widened and I began to see people who were different from me with new eyes, always more and more clearly. I began to discover the simple, self-evident fact, that the things we have in common are more than the things which divide us.[4]
Returning to the university, Bosch changed to the predivinity course and received two degrees: the M.A. in languages (Afrikaans, Dutch, German) and the B.D. in theological studies. During that time Bosch sensed a further calling to be a missionary and began to have doubts about the adequacy of the apartheid system. "In the early fifties, there were already signs that upset some of us, particularly, the removal of the Coloureds from the common voters roll. It was one of the first shocks; the honeymoon was over with the new National Party government." By his final year in the B.D. program, when Bosch was chair of the SCA branch at Pretoria, he was asked to go to the University of Witwatersrand to discuss the moral legitimacy of apartheid. When pressed, Bosch realized he could no longer defend apartheid.

At Pretoria, Bosch was particularly affected by E. P. Groenewald, the professor of New Testament.[5] Groenewald introduced Bosch to the writings of Oscar Cullmann, whose work would have profound influence on Bosch's theological perspective. Upon graduation, Bosch undertook doctoral studies at the University of Basel under Cullmann. His thesis, "Die Heidenmission in der Zukunftsschau Jesu," probed the link between mission and eschatology in the ministry of Jesus. Bosch also came under the influence of Karl Barth, whose impact would emerge only later, in Bosch's systematic attempts at a theological foundation for mission.

While at Basel, Bosch distanced himself further from apartheid, although as yet he had no alternative paradigm to substitute in its place. He began to feel isolated from the Afrikaner mainstream.
By the time I arrived [in Switzerland], I had little doubt about the fact that apartheid was immoral and unacceptable. If I say I had by that time broken with the paradigm, one must take that with a grain of salt, because I had not replaced it with another paradigm. It was still very haltingly true of myself. In my early days as a student, my viewpoint was inarticulate, but it was a shift out of the laager.
In 1957 Bosch returned to South Africa to begin work as a DRC missionary among the Xhosa people in the Transkei. For nine years Bosch labored as a missionary pastor in Madwaleni. His work consisted of village evangelism and church planting in a large, remote area. The country was rugged and accessible only by horse. Although those years had their disappointments, Bosch recalled that "these were our best years, absolutely wonderful."

Bosch's cross-cultural ministry experience was deeply significant in two ways. First, while acknowledging that he continued to hold deeply paternalistic attitudes toward black people, he believed that his missionary years taught him to trust people, particularly his African Christian coworkers. The appraisal by Frans Verstraelen is helpful here. He comments that
the missionary experience of David Bosch among and with the Xhosa in Transkei gave him precious insight into mission as service and partnership, as well as attitudes of empathy, humility, and modesty vis-a-vis people of cultural and religious backgrounds different from his own.... [W]hat is convincingly shown is his integrity as a human being and as a Christian, as a missionary, and as a missiologist.[6]
Second, Bosch's missionary service helped him integrate theory and practice. By day he would be out among the people, visiting with them. By night he studied, trying to integrate his experience in the Transkei with the scholarly insights of various anthropologists, theologians, and missiologists. Through that study, his early theological convictions began to change considerably. Bosch identified this period of missionary activity as the decisive decade in his theological development. "I started with a very conservative theological framework and only moved to a wider approach towards the end of the 1960s."[7]

Although Bosch did not feel his missionary work at Madwaleni was finished, a back injury rendered him incapable of continuing with the rugged lifestyle that the job required. In 1967 he was asked to serve as senior lecturer in church history and missiology at the DRC's Theological School in Decoligny, Transkei, training black pastors and evangelists. Bosch enjoyed teaching, but the limited scope of the work (four teachers, twenty students) impelled Bosch to seek other avenues of ministry beyond the little theological college.

First, he helped form the Transkei Council of Churches, serving as its first president. This council provided contact with a variety of church traditions, particularly Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Bosch's growing ecumenical openness stood in sharp contrast to the ethos of the DRC, which was marked by a strict separation from other Christian bodies. As Bosch himself noted: "In the sixties, the Transkei was the only place in the Dutch Reformed Church setup where there were practical, structural, working relationships with people from other denominations. There was no other place where you had any practical expression of ecumenical contact."

A second avenue for self-expression that Bosch developed during his Decoligny years was writing. During that period Bosch published his doctoral thesis and wrote three short books and numerous articles. He also edited five books for the fledgling South African Missiological Society. Bosch's written work from the period, nearly all in Afrikaans, reflects two dominant themes: the missionary practice of the DRC and the biblical theology of mission.

Of special note was his Jesus, Die lydende Messias, en ons sendingmotief (Jesus, the suffering Messiah, and our missionary motive), in which Bosch applied his doctoral studies to the South African situation, arguing that the mission of Jesus can be understood only in terms of the suffering servant of the Lord, who, like a grain of wheat, must die in order to bear fruit. Jesus' encounters with the Gentiles exemplified this ethos of servanthood, as did the experiences of the early church. It is with the same mind-set of costly servanthood that the modern church must understand its motive for mission as well.[8]

The significance of his argument becomes apparent only when we consider the historical context in which it was written. The booklet appeared at a crossroads in DRC missions policy. The 1955 Tomlinson Commission report had uncovered statistical evidence of a large number of unevangelized blacks within South Africa. That news prompted DRC mission enthusiasts to promote an expanded evangelistic outreach among them. Bosch, however, discerned non-theological factors at work among some of the proponents. Numerous DRC missiologists and politicians linked the evangelization of blacks to the unfolding government policies of separate development and Afrikaner solidarity. Missionary work was therefore coupled to the defense of the volk and the preservation of a white-dominated South Africa. Bosch warned against such mixed motives in strong terms.
What is the end goal of mission with such a motivation? Is it to maintain the white people in South Africa--or is it the foundation of the church of Christ...? Is it to serve South Africa--or to serve God? Is it to hear together the sentimental voice of our own blood--or to hear together the last command of Christ? Have we, by this missionary motive, created a sheep in wolf's clothes--or is it perhaps a wolf in sheep's clothes?[9]
Any missionary enthusiasm must be tempered with the realization that mission in Christ's way is the way of the cross, the way of costly servanthood toward others. Anything less was simply religious propaganda and prone to ideological manipulation.

With writings like these, Bosch gave evidence of a departure from traditional Afrikaner sociopolitical perspectives and the DRC's support of apartheid. Inevitably, these departures from Afrikaner "orthodoxy" began to isolate Bosch from the mainstream of the DRC.[10] No longer a ware Afrikaner (true Afrikaner), Bosch was denied a position on the DRC theological faculty in Pretoria. Instead, in 1972 Bosch accepted the invitation to become professor of missiology at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in Pretoria. Bosch and his wife, Annemie, did so, however, with some trepidation. As he described it, "We moved back to Pretoria, very afraid of Afrikaners. Very afraid of white people. We were returning home, in a sense, but returning very different from what we were when we had left in the early 1950s."

UNISA was unique among academic institutions in apartheid South Africa. It was an interracial university with staff and students from all ethnic groups within southern Africa. This was made possible because coursework at UNISA is done primarily by extension. UNISA was also unique because of its theology faculty, described as a "faculty-in-exile for anti-apartheid, anti-Broederbond DRC theologians."[11] Bosch's move to UNISA placed him, officially at least, on the periphery of the DRC. Bosch served there as professor of mission and chair of the Department of Missiology from 1972 until his untimely death in an automobile accident in 1992. He supervised students at all academic levels from South Africa and beyond.

Bosch the Scholar of Mission

One dimension of Bosch's legacy is his contribution to the academic study of Christian mission. Bosch was a theologian trained in the classic, European tradition. His facility in languages (he was conversant in Afrikaans, English, German, Dutch, French, and Xhosa) enabled him to act as a bridge builder between various theological and cultural constituencies.

As a "systematic missiologist," Bosch was a prodigious writer. Over the course of thirty-two years, Bosch wrote six books, four book-length UNISA study guides, seven major pamphlets, and over 160 journal articles and contributions to books covering almost every aspect of mission theory and practice. He also edited seven books in English and Afrikaans.[12]

His most significant contribution was his massive 1992 work Transforming Mission. Bosch adopted the use of "paradigm theory" (as developed in science by Thomas Kuhn and in theology by Hans Kung) in an attempt "to demonstrate the extent to which the understanding and practice of mission have changed during almost twenty centuries of Christian missionary history."[13] Transforming Mission is a storehouse of historical and theological knowledge, described by Lesslie Newbigin as "a kind of Summa Missiologica" that "will surely be the indispensable foundation for the teaching of missiology for many years to come."[14] Notwithstanding the valid criticisms that Bosch failed to give adequate attention to the emerging theologians and perspectives of the church in the Two-Thirds World,[15] Transforming Mission will surely remain his chief theological legacy.

Bosch was also active as an administrator and editor. He helped found the Southern African Missiological Society (SAMS), a multiracial and ecumenical fraternity of mission scholars, and he served as its general secretary from its formation in 1968 until his death. A major aspect of the work of the SAMS is the production of Missionalia, the society's journal. From its inception in 1973 until 1992, Bosch served as its editor and contributed scores of editorials and book reviews. During his service as dean of the Faculty of Theology at UNISA, Bosch served as editor of its journal Theologia Evangelica.

Three other theological contributions deserve special mention. First, Bosch labored extensively for a deeper biblical foundation for mission.[16] He lamented that the missionary movement had yet to develop a common understanding of how the Bible functions as the authority, basis, and frame of reference for the church's missionary thought and practice. Bosch was critical of traditional approaches that sought to justify certain preconceived understandings of mission by "mining" for textual "nuggets," proof texts, in the raw data of Scripture. Instead, Bosch advocated a rediscovery of the intrinsically missionary nature of the church, based on the witness of the Bible. The issue is not so much whether an adequate justification for mission can be found in the Bible but how the Bible can assist the church in living out its essentially missionary calling in the world.[17] The Bible functions as a foundational source and standard by which the church understands its identity in Christ, as well as a source of paradigms and models for current missionary engagement with the world.

Second, Bosch sought to bring greater theological clarity to the meaning and relationship of mission and evangelism. Throughout the 1980s, Bosch's involvement with conciliar and evangelical missionary conferences and consultations pushed him to deeper reflection.[18] Any genuinely Christian understanding of mission must reflect the wholeness of the Gospel of Christ and the breadth of the biblical witness. "Mission," Bosch wrote, is "more than and different from recruitment to our brand of religion; it is alerting people to the universal reign of God."[19]
Mission takes place where the church, in its total involvement with the world, bears its testimony in the form of a servant, with reference to unbelief, exploitation, discrimination and violence, but also with reference to salvation, healing, liberation, reconciliation and righteousness.[20]
Evangelism, Bosch held, is one essential dimension of that broad mission. Evangelism is the narrower concern to cross the frontier of unbelief with the announcement of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

How, then, do the two concepts relate? Although evangelism and mission are distinct entities, they are inseparably linked in creative tension; together they embody the church's life in relation to the world. What is needed, Bosch urged, are "pan-Christians" who can
embrace both the depth and breadth of the Church's mission and mandate, people who know that there is, by definition, no clash between our calling people to personal faith and commitment to Christ in the fellowship of the Church (evangelism) and our calling those thus committed to cross all kinds of frontiers in communicating salvation to the world (mission).[21]
Finally (and less well-known), Bosch sought to reflect on the meaning and communication of the Gospel in Africa.[22] As early as 1972 Bosch showed an awareness and critical appreciation of the black theology movement, interacting with such leaders as Steve Biko, Manas Buthelezi, and James Cone. Through such publications as Het Evangelie in Afrikaans gewaad (The Gospel in African robes),[23] "Missionary Theology in Africa,"[24] and "The Problem of Evil in Africa: A Survey of African Views of Witchcraft and the Response of the Christian Church,"[25] Bosch revealed a surprisingly comprehensive familiarity with African theologians and movements.

Yet his contextual orientation remained firmly Western, and northern European in particular. Frans Verstraelen has noted that Bosch had difficulty in giving "context" a central place in his theologizing because he remained in the category of "idealist" theologians who theologize from above rather than from below.[26]

Bosch the Ecumenical Personality

It would be inadequate, however, to understand Bosch only in terms of his academic accomplishments.[27] He was a person of the church. The church was central to his thought. A genuine concern for its unity and witness, as well as a frank acknowledgment of its vulnerability and failures, was never far from Bosch's mind.

At the international level, this churchly concern led Bosch to devote considerable energy to overcoming the so-called evangelical-ecumenical debate in mission. His 1980 book Witness to the World was, in large part, an attempt to describe this debilitating fracture in modern Protestantism and its missionary outreach and to propose a way forward.[28]

Bosch was an active participant in both the ecumenical and evangelical communities and attended most of their international gatherings--from evangelical conferences in Lausanne and Pattaya to WCC-related gatherings in Melbourne and San Antonio (where he served as a section leader). Bosch was a main speaker at the 1982 Grand Rapids Consultation on the Relationship Between Evangelism and Social Responsibility, cosponsored by the Lausanne Committee and the World Evangelical Fellowship.[29] He helped draft the influential "Transformation" statement at the WEF-sponsored Wheaton conference in 1983 on the nature and mission of the church.[30] He participated in the WCC's 1987 Consultation on Evangelism in Stuttgart, where he substantially wrote the consultation's statement on evangelism.[31]

Both in print and in practice, Bosch labored to clarify the fundamental issues of theological conflict between the evangelical and the ecumenical streams of the world missionary movement. He deeply believed that both sides had been impoverished by ignoring the concerns of the other. As a result, both had failed to develop a genuinely integral theology of mission for our era. Although the evangelical-ecumenical tension is not the only lens by which to analyze the dynamics of mission today, and although Bosch was increasingly conscious of the missiological contribution of non-Western theologians, it remains true that the evangelical-ecumenical tension insidiously hinders the life and health of the church--in both the First and the Two-Thirds Worlds!--and he sought to address this conflict.

Bosch the South African

Bosch's concern for the reign of God and the credibility of the church was lived out most fully, however, in his own homeland of South Africa. He agonized over the South African situation and the challenge the apartheid system represented to the integrity of the Gospel and the mission of the church. Telling evidence of Bosch's concern was his refusal to leave. Bosch was twice offered the prestigious chair of mission and ecumenics at Princeton Theological Seminary, and twice he made the difficult decision to refuse the offer, believing that he could not leave South Africa during such a dangerous and historic time in its history.[32] He also remained a faithful member of the DRC, despite his own marginalization within that community for many years.

Over the years Bosch's criticism of apartheid and his own church's justification of it became more strident. His critique tried to expose the ideological nature of apartheid and the Afrikaner civil religion in which it was embedded.[33] The heart of the matter, according to Bosch, was that the Afrikaner people were prisoners of their own history, afraid of the future. The ideological nature of apartheid seemingly blinded most Afrikaners to any future besides the one held out by the National Party. Yet in this desperate situation, Christians must remain hopeful, for it is not fate that controls the destiny of South Africa but the Lord of history.[34]

In his critique of apartheid, Bosch also emphasized the cruciality of ecclesiology. Drawing from Reformed and Anabaptist sources, he urged the church in South Africa to become an "alternative community."[35] The church is set apart from the world and called to be a church without privileges, a servant community that must embody the radical lifestyle of Christ's new community. Yet the Christian community's called-out existence is for the sake of the world. As Bosch put it: "The church has tremendous significance for society precisely because it [exists] as a uniquely separate community.... We have to work consistently for the renewal of the church--the alternative community--and precisely in that way at the renewal of society."[36] Only when they worked for the renewal and unity of the church, and lived out the implications of their faith in the world, Bosch maintained, could South African Christians effectively challenge the values and standards of the apartheid society around them. The church must furnish an alternative vision of reality, of life in the kingdom of God.

The concept of the church as alternative community (AC) is grounded in the reconciling work of Christ. On the cross, Jesus reconciled the world to God, breaking down all barriers that divide humankind. Thus all differences among persons (racial, economic, linguistic, cultural, religious), while still real, have been relativized in Christ. It is thus wrong, even heretical, to divide the one church of Jesus Christ by ascribing "an unduly high value to racial and cultural distinctiveness,"[37] for this would raise the value of one's national identity above one's identity in Christ. Yet this is exactly what the white Reformed churches of South Africa had done and, as such, were perpetrating "nothing but a heresy."[38] Instead of polarizing society by highlighting its racial, ethnic, social, or economic distinctions, the mission of the church is to be an agent of reconciliation and a witness to the unity won for the world in Christ.

Bosch helped create numerous forums to live out this vision. The 1979 South African Christian Leadership Assembly (SACLA), gathering together over 5,000 Christians from every ecclesiastical and political perspective, provided a concrete embodiment of the AC concept. Bosch was a major impetus behind the event, serving as chair of the executive committee and delivering four plenary addresses.[39] He was a leading proponent of the 1982 Ope brief (Open letter) to the Dutch Reformed Church, signed by 123 DRC pastors and theologians, which publicly condemned apartheid and urged the DRC to pursue visible unity across the racial divide with its black sister churches.[40] In 1985, following the declaration of the state of emergency by the South African government, Bosch became involved in the National Initiative for Reconciliation, a movement begun by Michael Cassidy of Africa Enterprise to continue the SACLA spirit in the midst of rising tension and bloodshed. For a time Bosch served as its national chairman.

For Bosch the AC concept served as a distinctly Christian socioethical response to the struggle for social justice in South Africa. The concrete political implications of the church as alternative community remained vague, however--a point on which Bosch has been criticized most notably by Anthony Balcomb and Christopher Sugden.[41] Likewise, Bosch was criticized for remaining a part of the DRC and for emphasizing reconciliation instead of liberation in the struggle for justice in South Africa. Although not aimed at Bosch in particular, the famous Kairos Document of 1985 criticized "Church Theology" because of its superficial talk about reconciliation and nonviolence. In the interests of social liberation, Kairos rejected the call for the church to be a reconciling "alternative community."[42]

With the privilege of hindsight, however, one could argue that the relatively nonviolent transformation we have witnessed in South Africa during the last decade has come precisely because of people like David Bosch. He remained within the DRC out of a prophetic desire to speak the truth of the Gospel to the Afrikaner people from a position of solidarity with them even in their sin!

Fellow South African theologian John de Gruchy has affirmed that in the service of social transformation, the symbols of "reconciliation" and "liberation" did not necessarily have to collide. They had the power to be complementary helpmates in the quest for justice in South Africa. After comparing and contrasting the Kairos Declaration and the National Initiative for Reconciliation Statement, de Gruchy summarized his conclusions as follows:
1. In the struggle for a just society, the church cannot be neutral, but there are different, complementary strategies.
2. The church must be the church, but this does not mean that it has its own political program alongside that of the struggle for liberation. It must participate in critical solidarity.
3. The gospel of reconciliation and liberation, as well as the political strategies of negotiation and confrontation, are not antithetical but two sides of the same coin.
4. The suffering witness of the cross, and therefore non-violent redemptive action, remains the paradigm for the Christian, even though there is an honored Christian tradition which supports the idea of a just revolution.[43]
From this perspective, Bosch's approach--focusing as he did on the church as the alternative community, costly reconciliation, and the role of suffering witness in Christian discipleship--can be affirmed as an essential contribution to South Africa as it struggles to be a society of justice and peace. In life and in death, David Bosch provided an authentic martyria--a witness to the world that was profoundly evangelistic.

J. Kevin Livingston

Rolling Stone to Publish Hunter S. Thompson Suicide Note

"No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always b*****y. No Fun _ for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax _ This won't hurt."

Facing Terror: The true Story of How an American Couple paid the ultimate price because of their love of Muslim people

While we were shopping for a gift at the Barnes and Noble bookstore on South University, my wife discovered a book written by Carrie McDonnall. Carrie, of course, is the Southern Baptist humanitarian aid worker critically injured in Iraq. Her husband and three other workers under the auspices of the International Mission Board were killed in a March 2004 attack. She was the lone survivor.

I knew that the International Mission Board had recently published a book about the eight Southern Baptist workers who have given their lives over the last three years. David McConnall is one of them. The book is called Lives Given, Not Taken. Here is a Baptist Press article. However, I had not known that Carrie had written a book.

It's quite odd to walk into a Barnes and Noble and see someone you know on the cover of a book ... especially if their not a SBC leader or professor.

What is even more odd is opening the book and seeing a picture of Chris McKinney (see his blog here). I often see seminary students at Barnes and Noble, usually in the Starbucks, but rarely in the books.

This book ought to be a good read.

Super Tuesdays

I have been reading Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View, by Hans Kung. Hans Kung is, of course, the well-known liberal Roman Catholic scholar who has frequently caught the ire of the Roman Catholic leadership, particularly the Pope Benedictus XVI.

He was stripped of is RCC teaching duties in 1979 but was not excommunicated. He remains a priest has never advanced through the Roman Catholic Church. "Long time, no See," it appears.

His books are quite good and has been suggested reading material in various Systematic Theology classes at SBC seminaries. Which ones I won't say. It was through these classes that I was introduced to Hans Kung and the other great Roman Catholic scholar, Hans Urs von Balthasar. I guess you could say that my theology professor did not have a Hans-off approach to teaching.

While he is a prolific writer and professor, Kung's speciality is ecumenicalism. I know that David Bosch cites him in his magnum opus, Transforming Mission.

Now ecumenicalism basically began in the early 1900s with the goal of removing denominational boundaries and bringing about structural and (in some cases) doctrinal unity among the various Christian churches through dialogue and cooperation. Various Christian groups have various opinions of ecumenicalism from whole-hearted support to great disdane. I find myself somewhat in the middle (no surprise). While I would never disregard ecumenicalism (I would like to think that there should be some love and ministerial cooperation among Christ's body) I also would never want a structurally and doctrinally unified. I could spend all day telling you what would be wrong with that. However, I'll give you just one: there appears to be no common feature among all the denominations of American Christianity.

Now I have had some experience working with the various Christian groups across the country. I have worked with Roman Catholic Churches to Pentecostal Churches to United Congregationalists. Yes, across the spectrum of American Christianity there is really nothing in common among the various church bodies. There are many structural and doctrinal differences in all the church groups. Some of them do not even believe in the existence of God! There really appears to be no common thread that could unite the various denominations and subcultures of Christianity for whatever purpose.

However, I think I may have come upon a common factor that is universal among all Christian churches.

It appears that the only common denominator among Christian groups is that all the churches (regardless of theological structure, doctrine, or tradition) have their staff meetings on Tuesday.

Yes, every church and every denomination from Catholic to Protestant, from liberal to conservative, from traditional to contemporary have their staff meetings on Tuesday.

Why is this?

I'm bored and so I will not give the obvious practical reason but instead give some of my theories:

1) It could be that this is the church staff's way of honoring Shrove Tuesday each week. A lot of staff penitence goes on ... Uh, doubtful.

2) It could be that the church staff is actually celebrating Fat Tuesday each week at their staff meetings ... Check and see if the secretaries are wearing beads.

3) Perhaps this is the time of the week when the church staff counts Sunday's offering, i.e., Black Tuesday.

4) Perhaps it is because Tuesday is the usual day for elections in the United States ... The staff probably gets together to vote on which staff member gets the blame for that week's church problems ... probably always the youth director.

5) In the Greek world, Tuesday (the day of the week of the Fall of Constantinople) is considered an unlucky day. Perhaps all the denominations (Catholic and Protestant) are praying against the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is praying against us.

6) The word "Tuesday" is derived from Tyr or Tiw, the Norse God of War. When the Germanic Angles and Saxon's invaded England in the 500's they suplanted a culture that had been heavily influenced by Rome for several hundred years. The day, Tuesday, had already been named for the Roman God of War, Martius (notice in French, Italian, and Spanish - the word for Tuesday is still derivative of the Roman God - Mardi, Martedi and Martes - respectively). When the Germanic tribes conquered England, they laid their own lexicon over that of the Roman's so that the Norse God of War now supplanted the Roman God of War (after all the Norse God was obviously more potent). Thus they called the day of the God of War tiwesdaeg. ... Perhaps this then is the day when the church staff members calculate how to ask for raises.

7) No, I think it is because of the the popular rhyme, "Tuesday's child is full of grace".

Yes, Tuesday's staff is full of grace and so is their meeting. So if there is ever one Christian tradition that will unite the various denominations together under one united force, I believe, Dr. Kung, that it will be Tuesday staff meetings.

The Song of Bernadette and Visions of Mary

Last night the missus and I watched the 1943 film, The Song of Bernadette. It is a film about the life of a French peasant girl who in the mid-nineteenth century, begins to see visions of the Virgin Mary in a grotto in the village of Lourdes.

Much of the story concerns the conflicts that arise in the community after Jones is told the grotto contains healing waters. The local politicians are aghast at what they see as religious fanaticism and try to subdue the situation. The Catholic Church is theologically divided about the issue and seeks to investigate Bernadette’s claims.

This was a wonderful film that beautifully dealt with the issue of faith and unbelief. The most remarkable aspect of the film is that we get to see various views from various walks of life portrayed:

There are some peasants who believe Bernadette and some who don’t.

There are some medical doctors who believe Bernadette and some who don’t.

There are some psychiatrists who disbelieve and some businessmen who believe.

There are some politicians who disbelieve Bernadette and seek to silence her.
There are some politicians who may or may not believe Bernadette but publicly try to exploit her.

There are church leaders who believe and some who don’t.

There are some people who disbelieve but nevertheless do not want any harm to come to Bernadette.

There are some people who do believe but nevertheless wish to exploit Bernadette.

And each person has their various reasons for believing and disbelieving Bernadette. Some people believe for honest reasons and some for selfish. Some people disbelieve for honest reasons and some for selfish.

It really is a panoply of various aspects of faith.

The film actually opens with the following phrase (which is repeated by a character toward the end):

For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed. For those who disbelieve in God, no explanation will suffice.

This is really, really a good film and should be seen by all of those who want an understanding of the needs of people whom we wish to evangelize.


But another thought has come to me today.

From a Protestant perspective, I have a bit of a problem with the idea of people seeing the Virgin Mary, especially when she calls herself the Immaculate Conception (one of the priests in the film has the same problem). This film does border on Mariolatry but never makes that final leap.

It’s interesting that most “real” sightings of Mary are seen by Catholics and not Protestants.

So what are the possible explanations for these phenomena?

1) The people who see Mary are lying.
2) The people who see Mary are suffering from a mental episode, i.e., a hallucination.
3) The people who see Mary are being fooled by some trickster or, perhaps, even a demon.
4) The people who see Mary are confusing her with some other person or, perhaps, and angel.
5) And – and this is a possibility – the people who see Mary are REALLY seeing Mary.

This last option is virtually unthinkable to for non-Catholics, but allow me to offer some Scriptural evidence that could support such an event.

First, often times in the Old Testament, a person is confronted by the Angel of the Lord. This angel is a created being but the Lord is speaking through Him to the point where the person being spoken to treats him as the Lord, worships him, and is told that the ground of which the angel stands is Holy (Gen 16, 22, Joshua 5, Judges 2).

Second, there are times in the Scriptures where a person who has died appears to those still living (1 Samuel 28, Matthew 17, Mark 9, Luke 9).

With these verses as evidence, that Mary might appear to Catholics is not out of the realm of possibility.

I suggest that we treat each episode of the appearance of Mary in a case by case basis, comparing the truths of the episode by how it conforms to Scripture.

Any thoughts?

Every Term Is Sacred: A Response to Dr. Al Mohler's Article "Deliberate childlessness & moral rebellion" Redux.

Given that I have recently posted a response by Dr. Mohler to his original article on "Deliberate childlessness & moral rebellion", I thought that I would repost my original reponse with corrections.

When my good friend Patrick O'Riley originally asked me to respond to Dr. Mohler's article, I did so. However, I had originally decided against doing so because I believed the absurdity of this argument did not need response. But I assented to my friends request. In doing so, I found myself edging toward the silly side of my nature and, at times, mocking the absurdity of this subject. Having done so, my friend, who found this subject more serious than myself, admitted that the humourous bits of my article detracted from my argument. This thought played on me for a while.

Today I learned that several Christian news sites have been referencing my article. This fact was enough evidence to impel me to edit my article of its humour and treat the subject with much more severity. Obviously I was mistaken: this is a serious subject to many people.

I would suggest that all those who read my article first become familiar with Dr. Mohler's article. While I will be commenting on significant parts of his piece, it is always best to read an argument in toto before one accepts or rejects criticism of that argument.

Dr. Mohler begins his piece by citing an example from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

“Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren't worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn't ever intend to have children and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper's report, “he Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation.’”

He continues by pointing to data that to Dr. Mohler is evidence to support his argument.

“The paper also pointed to the fact that the nation's birthrate fell in 2002 to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43 percent since just 1960.”

While I have no doubt that this data is correct I would question its relevance. In 1970, the population of the United States was 200 million. In 2005, the population now stands at 290,000,000. The population of the nation is expected to continue to grow over the next century. The total world population is currently 6.5 billion. More people are living today than have ever lived at any one time in the history of creation. The nation of China has been enforcing its controversial limited child family policy for twenty years to combat overpopulation. It is estimated that the Chinese have prevented the births of over 200 million people in this last quarter century but the population of China still stands at over 1.5 billion people.

Again, I am sure that Dr. Mohler's figures are correct. I imagine that at a time of increased standard of living, better healthcare, and lack of birth control in the first half of this century, the population of the United States did swell to an all time high. I am not at all surprised that with the steady increase of our standard of living, healthcare, and ever-increasing methods of available birth control that our nations birthrate has not reached its zenith in the middle half of the 20th century. But, and I mean this, I would guess that are current birthrate is much higher today than it was 100 years ago. And I would have guessed right.

“Another woman in the Atlanta group explained, "You focus those motherly feelings elsewhere. For us, our dogs get all that love." That worldview is sick, but more and more common.”

To state that such a worldview is "sick" requires explanation.

“Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate" (Psalm 127:3-5).”

This is the only Scripture that Dr. Mohler cites in his proclamation that a couple choosing to not have a child is rebelling against God, though my friend O' Riley offers that Dr. Mohler may be alluding to another verse. Regardless, his Scriptural evidence is scant. He forgets to cite Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." This is God's first commandment to mankind. It is such an important command that God repeats it after the flood has subsided in Genesis 9:1.

Instead, Dr. Mohler makes the argument that having children is commanded by God to all married couples who can have children by citing Psalm 127:3-5 that "children are a gift." Now doubtless this is true. But does God always give the same gift to all people? Spiritual gifts are gifts but we do not all have the same. Marriage is a gift but we do not all get married. Singleness is a gift of God, as well (1 Corinthians 7:7). Marriage is a part of God's great design but it is not required of everyone. Why then should we say that willful barrenness is not a gift from God, especially if we lack any Scriptural evidence to back up the contrary?

Let us apply Dr. Mohler's hermeneutic elsewhere:

We could state that land is a gift from God. Land is given to man to cultivate. God gives the people of Israel the promise land. The Bible is full of promises of great land to those who obey him. The Bible is full of promises to remove from land those who disobey him. Remember the banishment from the Garden? Remember the Exile? Remember the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD? Again, what is the first commandment that God gives mankind? "Fill the earth and subdue it." In fact, there is more Scriptural evidence for owning land than owning children! Yet, how often do you hear any preacher (other than the Word of Faith crowd) proclaim that if we do not have land we're not right with God? Will Dr. Mohler argue that those who choose not to own land are revolting against the grand design of God?

The problem with Dr. Mohler's hermeneutics is a problem with all those who take the Scriptures and its terms too literally. Yes, one of the difficulties that conservative Christians face is differentiating between universal divine commands and divine commands given to people in Ancient Near Eastern [ANE] cultures. There are a number of customs that were common to ANE cultures that are no longer common today (slavery, bigamy, etc.). There are a lot of moral customs that the ANE culture demanded of its people that God saw fit to allow and even commanded believers to adhere to BUT which he does not allow us participate in (slavery, bigamy, etc.). Levirate marriage is a prime example. According to ANE custom, a childless widow is the responsibility of her late husband's closest male relative. It is that relative's moral duty to marry and have sex with that woman and produce an heir for her and her late husband. This custom was the case no matter if the relative was married or not. It was considered immoral to refuse to do so. This is an ANE custom that God commanded believers during the patriarchal thru the Judges period to honor. In fact, God actually struck down a guy for not honoring this custom (Genesis 38:9-10). But not even the strictest fundamentalists believe that God commands contemporary believers to follow such a command. In fact, all contemporary believers would consider such an action to be an immoral sin. Yet God commanded many people to do this very act.

This is an example of how relative much of our morality is. Not all but much. Breaking the speed limit is breaking the government law and would be considered a sin. But what if your speeding away from a collapsing building that has been bombed by a terrorist. Is speeding still a sin? How about this: the most conservative bathing suit that any current Christian wears would have been considered immoral and indecent a hundred years ago. God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. This is what Soren Kierkegaard calls the “suspension of the ethical”. Here is another example: "Thou shalt not lie," (Exodus 20:16), right? But according to Exodus 1:15-20, it's okay to lie if you’re saving a person's life.

But all of this is just to provide examples of the differences between our culture and the Ancient Near East. Childlessness was considered a curse. But so was singleness. Children were considered a gift. And they still are. But land and having lots of goats, camels, and slaves was also considered a gift from God. In fact, until 150 years ago, owning lots of slaves was considered a gift from God. We have to be very careful to distinguish between customs and values that were honored in the ANE and what is required by God to be honored and valued among contemporary believers 3000 years and one ocean removed from the Old Testament. Furthermore, we have to be especially careful to differentiate between universal, general and particular commands by God. Marriage is not universal and is nowhere in Scripture regarded as such. Marriage is general and can be particular but not particularly universal. Some commands are particular but neither general nor universal. And some commands are definitely universal.

But unlike the issue of levirate marriage, there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that willful childlessness in marriage is an act of rebellion against God. And Dr. Mohler, despite his views on sufficiency of the Scriptures, does not provide such evidence.

“The motto of this new movement of chosen childlessness could be encapsulated by the bumper sticker put out by the Zero Population Growth group in the 1970s: "MAKE LOVE, NOT BABIES." This is the precise worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex, and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God's intention in creation -- and His mandate revealed in the Bible.”

Again, no Scriptural evidence is given.

“The sexual revolution has had many manifestations, but we can now see that modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex from marriage (and even from gender), but also from procreation.”

The interesting aspect of this argument is that it is the same argument that the Roman Catholic Church has been making for centuries and the Protestant churches have rejected. The only difference is that Dr. Mohler has not yet gone as far as the Roman Catholics and stated that all sex within marriage that uses birth control is sinful. But all the logic is there: "Sex is a part of God's grand design for mankind to multiply and fill the earth. All sex that does not fit this grand design is a revolt against God."

“The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order.”

Scripture doesn’t envision many things. It doesn't envision space flight. It doesn't envision cloning. It doesn't envision computers, democracy, capitalism, evolution, television, teenagers, Ben Affleck films or Cold Play. In terms of the sufficiency of Scripture, the Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary to tell us how to use I-pods. You say that the Scriptures do not envision married couples who choose not to have children; but show me where it prohibits such a choice. If so, then is birth control wrong?

The most troubling aspect of Dr. Mohler's articel is that he says willful childlessness in marriage is "a form of rebellion against God's design and order." If one is going to make such a statement one should be prepared to provide Scriptural evidence.

“This epidemic of chosen childlessness will not be corrected by secular rethinking. In an effort to separate the pleasure of sex from the power of procreation, modern Americans think that sex totally free from constraint or conception is their right. Children, of course, do represent a serious constraint on the life of parents. Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life.”

This is one of the most interesting statements of Dr. Mohler’s argument. The general thrust of this point in the argument is that believers having children is an opportunity to evangelize. The implication of this argument is that the choice of believers to not have children amounts to not choosing to evangelize.

In one sense I can understand why this is somewhat of a concern to Dr. Mohler. As recent news stories have indicated, the conservative resurgence has not yielded the evangelical harvest that so many of the resurgent leaders anticipated. In fact, the fruits of the conservative resurgence have been an increasing decline in the number of baptisms. But, as research has shown, nearly ¾ of the baptisms that have been recorded have been performed upon children. It would appear that our convention’s current methods of evangelism generally work on children but not so much on adults. This being the case, it is no wonder that some would want many more children to be born into believing families: it’s the only demographic with which we are currently having any success.

“The culture is clearly buying into this concept. Legal fights over apartment complexes and other accommodations come down to the claim that adults ought to be able to live in a child-free environment. Others claim that too much tax money and public attention is given to children, and that this is an unfair imposition upon those who choose not to "breed." Of course, the very use of this terminology betrays the rebellion in this argument. Animals breed. Human beings procreate and raise children to the glory of God.”

He makes the statement that "only animals breed." But this is not necessarily so; Webster's dictionary disagrees. But what about the first commandment to be fruitful and multiply given in Genesis 1:28 and 9:1? According to the Scriptures that command was given to both humans and animals.

And animals don't bring glory to God? As the good Calvinist that he is I thought Dr. Mohler would believe with the Westminster Confession (though found nowhere in the Scriptrues) that the purpose of all creation is to glorify God.

“The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.”

Think about this argument: The church should insist that adulthood means marriage and marriage means children So if you're an adult and expect to be married and are not then you are disobeying God. If you are married but are choosing not to have children then you are disobeying God. Furthermore, if you are single and childless then your local church can insist upon you getting married and having kids. Then should singleness and willful barrenness be a cause for church discipline?

Now I agree that if God is telling you to either get married or have children then you should obey God. If you do not, then that's between you and God. However, Dr. Mohler is telling every believer in Christendom what God's will is for their lives without a single bit of Scriptural evidence to back up his universal claim.

But why is Dr. Mohler making this argument? I have already hypothesized that he may be concerned about the lack of evangelism in our particular body of believers. However, I think there might be a more logical hypothesis.

The primary cultural concern of modern evangelicals is the family. Issues such as divorce, spousal authority, gay marriage, and birth control are all subjects that come under the rubric of family and the evangelical goal to protect this institution.

In terms of the issue of gay marriage, there are generally five types of people who are for gay marriage. 1) There are average heterosexual Americans who are for gay marriage because they want to appear to be culturally sensitive. 2) There are the average homosexual Americans who want cultural approval and the removal of their guilt, and they believe that gay marriage will bring such an outcome. 3) There are also those homosexuals who are of a more moderate bent and who see the constant carousing of other homosexuals and its diseased outcome as horrendous and want to use the institution of marriage as the means to bring stability to the homosexual community. 4) There are the politicians who are supporting this issue because they believe they can get votes out of it. 5) Lastly, there are those who support gay marriage because they believe that it will destroy the institution of marriage. Yes, there are many individuals (mostly in academia) who study marriage, sex, and relationships and come to various conclusions about the state of human relationships in various cultures. Some of these conclusions are that marriage is legalized rape for women, marriage is a patriarchal institution that thousands of years of cultural bigotry has forced upon our contemporary culture, stifling our sexual freedom, and that marriage as a cultural institution needs to be abandoned if humanity is to progress. Now, of course, this latter view is in the extreme minority but it is a view among a certain section of radical-liberal academia.

So when conservatives and evangelicals warn that gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage, this latter view of some of radical-liberal academia is where this warning is sourced.

And it is because of this radical view that many evangelicals are responding in their own extreme way. To them, marriage and family are not just one of the important institutions honored by God or an important institution created by God for preserving human development, to them marriage and family are the MOST important institutions created by God for humanity. To disrupt or destroy such an institution is to disrupt and destroy the grand design of God and His most important relational creation.

And how do we as contemporary believers stand in relation to such an important creation? In this view, all individuals (except those chosen few like Paul et al) who reach adulthood are to be married as a part of God’s grand design. In this view, all married couples are to have children (except those who cannot have children) as a part of God’s grand design. Anything or anyone that deviates from this conception (so to speak) of God’s grand design is revolting, rebelling, and must be disciplined back into God’s will.

It is unfortunate aspect of humanity whether they be believers or unbelievers that we allow the extreme views of others to cause us to take opposite extreme views. It is even more unfortunate that such extreme views within the body of Christ causes many unbelievers to shake their head in disbelief about the “beliefs” of Christians.

In conclusion, I still maintain my original view that most believers will see Dr. Mohler’s view of marriage as both ludicrous and legalistic. I would hope that the good doctor would step back, take a deep breath, and temper is argument with common sense and Scriptural evidence. Such extremism can be detrimental to the evangelical witness and to the glory of God. No kidding.

Deliberate Childlessness Revisited

For those interested, here is Dr. Mohler's reply to critics about his views on "Deliberate Childlessness". The one criticism he doesn't address or even mention is that his view has no basis in Scripture. And once again, he doesn't provide any Scriptural basis for his view.

Guess the Identity of the Seminary Student

Here is a little treat for you Fort Worth Seminary students. Before finding the answer on the selected link, I want you to guess the identity of the seminary student by the following quote:

"After graduating from Christian Heritage College, I knew that I had to buy a car and to pay off debt so I decided to go back to work for Super Target. I worked there for a whole year. I got to share the joy of the Lord God has given me in daily activities. I would get on the intercom after closing hours and do my laugh to make others enjoy work as well. I was able to buy a car which God blessed me with and got my debt paid off. Go God!!! I am currently attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and my major is Masters of Divinity with Languages. I am looking to be a pastor hopefully in Utah. Christian Heritage College was a major blessing for me as I got to see the body of Christ love on me and to see how many different gifts the student body has. Go God and remember that you are all trophies of God’s beautiful grace!!!"

To the Incoming Seminary Freshman

To the Incoming Seminary Freshman,

As I am finishing my last semester at seminary and you are beginning your first, allow me to impart a few suggestions from my own experience which might be of benefit.

Preliminaries:

There are many truths that you aren’t ready to learn and which God is not yet willing to teach you. Just be patient and humble and keep your studying and prayer life going.

The Beginning of Wisdom is the Fear of the Lord. Know that you don’t know anything. Remember the teachings of Socrates and Nicholas of Cusa: when you know that you know nothing you will be able to learn much. Never assume that you have it all figured out (whatever the subject may be) because you don’t. God is infinite and His Word is deep; you’ll never reach the bottom of Him or Hs Word in this life or the next. Which means: give the other guy some slack when you disagree with him; he’s on the same journey you're on.

Never accept what your professor says as “gospel”. Seminary professors are there to teach you how to think and to introduce you to new ways of thinking. You yourself have to arrive at your own conclusions through study and prayer. Professors are there to stimulate your minds and facilitate your learning. The best professors will teach you how to teach yourself so you will be able to continually learn even after your seminary career is complete. Go and research each subject for yourself from a variety of sources, both liberal and conservative. Most of what you will learn (hopefully) will be from the books that you are not required to read.

When Studying the Scriptures … Context! Context! Context!

When doing a research paper, choose a subject of which you know nothing about. Why research something you already know? And remember to use the various magazines and periodicals available; the librarians will show you how.

Know that just because someone is liberal doesn’t mean they aren’t genuine believers. Liberals have much to teach us and we have much to teach them. Don’t belittle them or any other denomination. They are a part of the body of Christ and deserve as much respect as you do. Learn what you can from them and be tolerant.

Every NT manuscript has textual errors in it. Get over it.

Attend chapel … but bring a book.

Always be reading. You’re in seminary and have one of the greatest libraries in the world at your disposal. Duh!

Always be reading a gospel. This is some advice Dr. Crutchley gave me. Wherever your papers or your personal study time take you, always be reading and rereading a gospel.

Never forget your quiet time.

Serve in a local church. Great and necessary experience.

Find a small group in which to participate. For Bible study, accountability, and prayer, always attend a weekly small group. Reading about Spener will give you insight into this practice.

Avoid Secular Politics like the plague!!! You have the greatest weapon ever given mortal man to combat the powers and authorities of this world: it's called the gospel. Why would you abandon that for the weapons of this world?

Regularly peruse the Baptist news websites. Just don’t believe everything you read.

The Seminary Trustees and Administration, as well as the SBC leaders, will make mistakes … and often. However, remember that God is in control of all things.

Avoid the following arguments of discussion: Calvinism, Expository Preaching, Nouthetic Counseling, contemporary worship, and Moral Activism.

Never get in a discussion about God’s Glory with a follower of John Piper. ‘Nuff said.

Make yourself aware of what other Christian groups are doing in this country and in other nations. You can learn a lot from other Christian groups. God does not just work with Southern Baptists.

Always discuss the following arguments: inerrancy, women in ministry, pastoral authority, and evolution.

Never Forget the Social Gospel: Read the Gospel of Luke if you are unfamiliar with what I mean.

Realize that the knowledge you learn at seminary will not make you more spiritual: You could be technically correct in all your theology and still be spiritually destitute. The reverse is also true: you could be wrong in almost all of your theology but be the most faithful believer of your particular Christian body. So don’t judge another’s faith by their knowledge or theological accuracy.

Don’t purchase your text books at Lifeway: Text books at Lifeway are too costly. Purchase used text books either at Half Price books or order them on the web at Amazon.com, Half.com, or Pricegrabbers.com. You save 50-75%.



During your First Year at Seminary:

Classes to take:

Hermeneutics: This will teach you how to interpret the Bible and will prepare you for all that follows.

Hebrew: Get this done early. Make vocab and parsing cards to carry around with you at all times.

New Testament: Take both introduction courses now. It will prepare you for what follows.

Old Testament: Take both introduction courses now. It will prepare you for what follows. If it all possible, take it with Professor Pierce; you won’t regret it.

Books to read:

Kierkegaard: Begin by reading an assorted collection of his best stuff: I would recommend Provocations. Also, read many books about him. After all that info has sunk in then you will be able to read his larger, denser works: Fear and Trembling, Either/Or, Philosophical Fragments, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, The Sickness Unto Death, et al.

New Testament: Read Frank Stagg's New Testament Theology. Other good scholars are Moody, Dodd, and Morris.

Areas of study:

The Greatest and Second Greatest Commandments. Start with Genesis 1:26-28.

Be sure to study Eschatology and related subjects. Be sure to consider the various "End-Time" theories such as preterism, dispensationalism, pre-millennialism et al. Be sure to learn the histories of each of the theories as well.

Start Researching the Neo-Orthodox scholars and that movement. Barth, Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr, Bultmann, Brunner et al.


During your Second Year at Seminary:

Second Year Preliminaries:

Start considering doctoral programs. Find a favourite professor and ask him what he recommends. Find a favourite living scholar and see where he teaches.

Start making plans to go on the Oxford Study Tour.

Classes to take:

History: Here is a dangerous class to take, but necessary for giving you perspective.

Baptist History: This can be a dangerous class, but less so now.

Theology: Taking history and theology at the same time is beneficial for putting your Christian tradition’s understanding of the gospel into its proper context.

Greek: Take this class. Summer Greek might be preferable but since it doesn’t count for anything, why bother? Make vocab and parsing cards to carry around with you at all times.

Electives: About this time it would be wise to start taking classes on specific OT or NT books, depending on what ministry you intend on pursing. This goes for worship, education, pastoring, counseling, and missions. Take these electives now.

Books to read:

Biblical Studies: Ralph Elliott’s Message of Genesis and The Genesis Controversy. Both great books. (See below in the Areas of Study)

Theology: You will be asked to read Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Do so. However, always read it accompanied by Erickson’s Christian Theology (it’s better). While your at it, also read Dale Moody’s Word of Truth and E.Y. Mullins’ The Christian Religion in It’s Doctrinal Expression and his The Axioms of Religion.

Areas of study:

Begin to read and research the subject of the Conservative Resurgence and the events leading up to it. Be sure to read material from BOTH sides. Pressler’s A Hill On Which To Die, and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's Anatomy of a Reformation, Elliott’s The Genesis Controversy, Dilday’s Columns and Servant Songs, McBeth’s The Baptist Heritage, Ammerman’s Baptist Battles, and many others. A word of advice: this is a ticklish subject matter even to this day. It will make you furious and active. Just remember: chasing after white rabbits is a dangerous past time.

The Anabaptists. Read and research this movement. Start with The Anabaptist Story by Estep.


During your Third Year at Seminary:

Classes to take:

New Testament Greek: This will finish your languages up. Word to the wise: STUDY PARTICIPLES. If you study Greek participles then you’ll master New Testament Greek.

Electives: Try to take one or two classes with Dr. Ellis. He is the best scholar at the seminary and is a voluminous writer. You will learn many things from him.


Books to read:

Anchor Bible Commentary on The Book of Daniel: This is the one by Hartman and Lella. This is a great book but not for the reasons one is expecting. This will give you a whole lot of examples of why the inerrancy issue is somewhat of a silly issue without ever mentioning the subject of inerrancy.

David Bosch’s Transforming Mission: By your third year you should be ready to read this book. This will give you the ultimate sweep of Christian theology and history from the first disciples through to the future. Be forewarned: many seminary students of a more (ultra)conservative bent have been known to throw this book in anger. It’s that good!

Areas of study:

The Corporate Nature of Christ. Dr. Ellis will help you with this one.

Biblical Moral and Ethical Relativism: By your third year you should be ready to tackle this issue. Just be sure that there is not a major moral sin in your life while you’re studying this subject.


I hope this has been of some benefit to you.

A Not So Quick Thought ... But Worth The Read

The issue of evolution and the topic of science versus religion have once again reared their tired heads. Ever since Nicolaus Copernicus looked up into the heavens and stated, “Hey, the sun is the center of the solar system – not the earth; maybe the theologians are misinterpreting the Scriptures” church theologians and scientists have been battling each other over who better understands the natural world. This has been a five hundred year battle and the last hundred years has been almost exclusively fought in the realm of anthropological development, namely, the question of how God created humans. Did he poetically blow his own breath into a sculptured pile of mud one day or did he poetically form us over millions of years from lower life into a conscious being able to relate to God? I have my theory.

The early attempts of some fundamentalist Christians in their battle to discredit evolution were to legally ban its teaching. This particular strategy did not work.

The last thirty years has seen a different approach. Having failed in their attempts to outlaw the teaching of evolution in schools, Fundamentalist Christians chose to champion the teaching of “creationism” as a science in schools. Unfortunately for them, this course of action has fared no better than the campaigns to outlaw “creationism’s” competition. If anything, they had more success in keeping evolution a one-day-a-school-year subject than elevating “creationism” to the realm of the sciences.

Having failed to introduce “creationism” as a viable scientific theory in opposition to evolution, Fundamentalist Christians in recent years have sought to introduce “Intelligent Design” as viable counterweight to evolution. While “creationism” offers to explain the current state of the universe in terms of 3000 yr old Ancient Near Eastern cosmology, “Intelligent Design” offers to explain that the shear design of our wonderful universe logically points towards a Creator as its source.

This is quite an interesting turn of events.

Fundamentalist Christians who used to want to outlaw the teaching of evolution, then wanted schools to teach “creationism” as well as evolution, now want schools to teach evolution as well as all the other natural sciences as logically pointing towards a Creator.

Now let me get this straight:

The same Fundamentalist Christians who currently refuse to allow adult seminary students to be taught by other Christians if those Christian teachers have a differing view about the role of women in the ministry are now demanding that atheists and other non-believers teach their children about God.

Makes sense to me.

FULLER

Last night the wife and I hosted our small group’s weekly Bible study, prayer, and fellowship time. I must say that, since I have been a part of a small group, my appreciation for a consistent meaningful prayer life has grown tremendously. It is also quite beneficial to worship and study with fellow ministers. We are fortunate to have in our group former missionaries, soon-to-be missionaries, future preachers, speakers, and church planters, as well as future professors, scholars and writers. Quite a nice slice of the next generation of Southern Baptist leaders.

So during our fellowship time, one of the future missionaries to Asia asked me about my trip to Fuller Theological Seminary. He made note of the fact that I had not yet posted my experiences of that trip. And he’s right; I have not publicly commented yet. Most of my recent free time has been filled with study and my recent post on deliberate childlessness and moral rebellion.

So allow me to touch on my California experience.

We arrived at LAX on Tuesday morning at around 8:00am. Flying into Los Angeles, I was surprised at how large the city actually was. Though we were flying on a jet airplane, we spent several minutes flying over hundreds of thousands of houses dotting the outer suburbs of the city. We quickly exited the airport and experienced the cool climate of 60 degrees. In no time at all we picked up our rental car and headed northwest. Fuller seminary is located in Pasadena in north LA. Since neither my wife nor myself had ever visited California, we were somewhat anxious to survey the city and the sites. As I said, we drove northwest and arrived at Venice Beach. Here we exited our car, putting about ten minutes of time on the meter, and walked onto the Venice pier. Again, neither my wife nor myself had visited California and we had never seen the Pacific Ocean. We stood there for five or six minutes watching the enormous waves and the dozens of people surfing. As we walked back to our rental we noticed a LAPD car and a police officer standing next to our car. We wondered what the problem was because the meter was not scheduled to expire for another minute … actually another 15 seconds it appears, because as soon as we walked up, the meter expired and the officer immediately began to write us a parking ticket. Of course we began to protest this action, but the officer was busy talking to a friend on her cell phone and refused to acknowledge our existence let alone answer our questions. …. Yes, we now know where the LAPD gets its worldwide reputation from. “Why can’t we all just get along?!”

Following this unwilling donation into the California coffers, we headed north and visited Santa Monica beach and its famous pier …. Big whoop. The only interesting site we saw were the numerous … er … “people temporarily without domicile” who were gathered up and down the street and sleeping in the parks.

We next took Santa Monica Blvd northwest. We passed through Beverly Hills and headed toward Hollywood. Just before we entered Beverly Hills we began to get hungry, noticing that it was nearing 1:00 PM here and 3:00 PM in Texas. Unfortunately, there were few restaurants in Beverly Hills that we believed that we could afford so we continued on.

Eventually, we found a small artsy-alternative neighborhood between Beverly Hills and Hollywood with reasonable priced cafes. We entered one restaurant called The Basix. As we set down inside, I noticed a gentleman between the ages of 45-50 sitting in front of a girl between 15 and 16 who was neither his daughter nor granddaughter, if you know what I mean. This in itself was interesting, but what I found even more interesting were the two gentlemen sitting on the other side of us who were …. of a more flamboyant nature. These two men were apparently record executives. It was very informative to overhear their conversation. They were talking about (and you conservative Christians will love this) how they were using and wanted to use the music and movie industry of Hollywood to legitimize homosexuality in America. They even mentioned a number of recent PG movies that were family oriented and contained a number of pro-gay “propaganda”. I kid you not.

As the lunch wore on (and it was quite a good lunch), I began to notice how many men were in this café, usually eating across from other cleanly dressed men, and how few women there were. In fact, I noticed that the only other two women in the place (besides my wife and the waitress) were sitting with a group of rather “happy” men. Soon I began to notice how many men were entering this café … and they were all … flamboyant. So while the missus was finishing off her meal, I began to count the number of homosexuals were in the place. Finally, I leaned over to my wife and said, “I’m guessing about sixteen.” Well, the missus thought I was talking about the age of the girl eating with the 50 yr old man. She replied, “I think about 17.” So I began to look around at all the other patrons. “Who came in? Which one? That guy over there who looks like he’s related to Danny Glover? He looks pretty butch to me.” Needless to say the confusion was quickly rectified.

So anyway, now I can say that I visited a gay café on Santa Monica Blvd between Beverly Hills and Hollywood.

Which brings me to Hollywood. … Well, we did see the famous Hollywood sign. We also saw a city that looked like Lebanon in the 1980s. It looked like the worst part of New Jersey. It looked like Blacksburg, SC. It could easily be the place where they filmed all the Mad Max movies. Now I know why they make so many post-apocalyptic films in Hollywood … they don’t have to build sets. Yes, Hollywood proper was a gigantic cess pit of the ignorant dregs of society ... and sure enough most of their films appear to reflect this.

Quickly leaving Hollywood, we ventured north and came into Pasadena.

I must admit that while I was in California I was constantly humming all my favourite California songs: California Dreaming, The Little Old Lady From Pasadena, Going to California, and Another One Bites the Dust ... okay, that last one is not so much a song about California but I still like it.

We finally arrived in Pasadena and the Fuller Theological Seminary campus.

Now let me just begin by saying that they have a very nice campus there, Very nice. Let me continue by stating that they have one of the best seminary bookstores that I have ever seen. It makes Cokesbury on Camp Bowie look like Lifeway on James Avenue. Oh, yeah, it was nice. It had voluminous commentaries of every sort and complete libaries of numerous Christian subjects from missions to preaching to pastoring to Judaic influences on the New Testament.

Oh, and how kind and gracious were the staff! They were all extremely Christlike and more than willing to answer all our questions. In fact, they knew so much about the application process that they answered all of our questions before we even asked. As soon as I had told them that I was looking to apply to their doctoral program, they immediately set up doctoral advising meetings, a tour of campus, a financial advisement meeting, and a chance to sit in on a class.

Here's something else: all of the offices that a student has to visit in order to cut their way through administrative red tape is all in the same building with simple directions on how to reach appropriate offices and a front desk to direct you ... Catch your breath.

And as I talked to the faculty and staff, I was amazed at how Christ-like they were and how interested in they were in spreading the gospel message and reaching people for Christ. And how anxious they were to train others to on how to reach others for Christ.

Yes, here is a school of top academic standards that has lead the evangelical world in missions, New Testament and theological scholarships, church growth, and developing ministry practices to reach contemporary unbelievers. ... Why can't other evangelical schools do this? Why do other schools want to sacrifice scholarship for the sake of praxis? Beats me.

So I found the professors, staff, and school administrators to be quite wonderful people interested in proclaiming the good news of Christ.

So I am extremely excited about the possibility of attending Fuller. It is my first choice among schools and I am really praying for God's guidance in all this. Please pray for the missus and me as we discern God's will for this situation.

I must say that most if not all our fears were alleviated after visiting with them. And I know that the people at Fuller can prepare me for a great ministry.

Yes, my fellow Baptists, there are people out there in the world (in California) who are extremely intelligent and competent and are actually reaching people for Christ. Who knew?

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I saw Lemony Snicket this weekend. Allow me to give my opinion of Lemony Snicket: IT SUCKED LEMONS!!!

Although the art direction was good and there were a few funny moments and allusions, the film was a repetitive mix of gratuitous episodes that grated the nerves and never came together to form a cohesive whole. The whole film was filled with loose threads and red herrings and mysteries that never were resolved. I was quite dissapointed with the film. Again, the art direction was quite good, very good. Even the acting was quite good. But the story never went anywhere and each episode seemed to promise a clue to an ever deepening mystery that never really appeared. I have not read the book but I would guess that the script adaptation is too blame. I cannot imagine that such a story as portrayed in the film could ever capture a child's imagination the way these books have. No, don't watch this drivel; watch Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban instead.