Losing the Saved in the Name of Reaching the Lost, and Other Stuff from Around the Web
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 05:05PM 
USA Today ran a piece on how after a forty-year pattern of sustained growth, the Southern Baptists suddenly have seen church membership and the number of baptisms level off, and then decline. Much the same holds true for the LCMS, now that they've adopted the Ablaze program for church growth. The only thing the SBC and the LCMS have in common (besides declining membership) is an institutional commitment to church growth programs. Mike Horton nailed it. These church growth types are not reaching the lost (as the claim) but they are quite good at losing the saved (intentionally so). Click here: Southern Baptists fret over decline as annual meeting begins - USATODAY.com
Gene Veith has a hilarious comparison between young Goths and old Lutherans. This is something only a Lutheran could say about a Lutheran, but it is funny nonetheless. Click here: Of Goths and Lutherans — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Can't wait for the ESV Study Bible (coming in October). The first page from the Gospel of John has been posted. When the notes in a study bible for John 1:1 mention Arius and Colwell's rule, I'm excited. Click here: Home | ESV Study Bible | Crossway (check the features tab).
The nanny state is watching you . . . Be sure to take off your hat so they get a good look at you on camera. Click here: Hats banned from Yorkshire pubs over CCTV fears - Telegraph
Finally, for those of you who have purchased Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics--if you haven't, you should, this is great stuff--apparently, there's a quality control issue (all in good fun). Is that cloth, or is it paper? Hmmm . . . Baker is my publisher (and is wonderful to work with), so I'll leave it at that. Click here: Cloth or Paper...
Reader Comments (39)
It may be the judgment of God coming, finally.
My current political self-identification is "pessimist with libertarian sympathies."
Thanks,
"
Yes.
Walt, I have some extra red coats if you'd like one.
Seriously, this helps make my point I think. It just isn't obvious that disobedience is an easy category for believers. Given the choice, it sure seems like obedience trumps disobedience in NT ethics.
Keeping the "aversion" charge going though, I am also hesistant to say Christians shouldn't be found in the revolutionary ranks. This seems to be part of the conundrum of being an American-Christian: I loathe activism but not legitmate participation, which may include some pretty stark protest. Knowing the difference isn't always easy.
"
Yes."
I'm sorry, that was unclear. ESV uses propitiation.
I share some of Zrim's concerns. When the criticism of existing laws or our elected leaders is very strong or strident and it comes from a Christian I get uncomfortable. I often make myself uncomfortable in what I say to people about the gov't, leaders, laws, since I can be quite strong or strident.
Is it all right as a Christian to lambaste Bush in conversation with others for his ineptitude? Is that an appropriate response to perceived shortcomings? Am I disregarding Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2? Obviously as a citizen I can "vote the bums out", but how far can I go in stated criticisms? Should I draw personal autonomy boundaries beyond which I will not obey or am I limited to the boundaries set forth in Acts 4? It is all so very confusing! I feel like I am no closer to an answer than when I started wrestling with this issue.
Seriously, this helps make my point I think. It just isn't obvious that disobedience is an easy category for believers. Given the choice, it sure seems like obedience trumps disobedience in NT ethics.
Keeping the "aversion" charge going though, I am also hesistant to say Christians shouldn't be found in the revolutionary ranks. This seems to be part of the conundrum of being an American-Christian: I loathe activism but not legitmate participation, which may include some pretty stark protest. Knowing the difference isn't always easy."
I was actually fishing for KRs response to this point, as i have been for quite some time. It seems like if there were ever a time for a good old Boston Tea Party, it would be now.
The Europeans are being flooded with Muslims by the EUSSR, and that doesn't seem like it will be a recipe for peace and tranquility in the future. Quite the opposite. It seems like the Euros could use a Boston Tea Party of their own.
But I've yet to find an appropriate way to view this, or maybe I have and I don't want to believe the answer because I've watched "300" and "Braveheart" too many times.
I think it has less to do with what one may or may not say in a conversation and more to do with generally discerning the difference between dis/obedience. That is hard to do given our American context, which I think I have some experiential bona fides to suggest seeing as how I am born and raised American. And that has been my real point here. To think that "Americanism" poses little to no problem for a Christian disposition--indeed, to suggest that disobedience is incumbent upon believers—is not without its problems.
Kim suggested to “remember that same government which Paul calls a minister of God (unto whom we are to render and to submit), John describes as a satanically energized beast.” True enough, but no where do I see John saying explicitly or implicity that the believer is to rise up against said beast. At least, not the way Paul is explicit about submission, etc. To suggest that the point is to “smack down Caeser” sounds way more American than Christian to me.
For what it may be worth, I feel your pain in the wrestling, and I think that is also part of the point. There is much I disdain about America, but also as much as I love (and some I am apathetic about); I am as tempted to disparaging as I am to championing, to ex-patriotism as to nationalism. But I think the better, more Christian course is to see our place and time as granted and bestowed by the Most High. We are afforded a complicated regard for our given time and place because it ultimately is not our final country. I’ll always recall what my response was to a neo-Kuyperian Transformer who wanted to point to our time and place to make his case for all his sunny, post-mil transformationalism, wondering if I seriously meant to convey I wouldn’t prefer our time and place over Jesus’, suggesting the inherent and objective superiority of ours: Of course I prefer my time and place, but because it’s mine (given by God), not because it’s better. He was stumped.
Walt,
I don’t know much about Muslims in the EUSSR or European Tea Parties, but while I doubt it helps figure out how to view all this, Braveheart was just plain good cinema and a fantastic story told.
Sure. But the 300, along with Martel's Franks at Tours and Sobieski's Hussars at the gates of Vienna, have set a pattern for Westerners to follow. And those stories aren't fiction.
It is very simple. Of course, "smacking Caesar" sounds American! This is because this is a KLH issue! You know, the sphere where it is proper to speak as an American? Just to be clear--I am not advocating civil disobedience, but I am mocking Caesar and calling attention to it when he oversteps his constitutional bounds.
In the KLH, I have the right and the duty to oppose government intrusion into my private affairs, If I don't do that now, it may be too late to do it down the road. I have constitutional recourse (checks and balances), I can vote these people out of office, and I can publicly decry their behavior. Zrim, this is why we have editorials and satire??????
So, this matter is strictly a KLH matter. Zrim it sounds to me like you are thoroughly confusing the two kingdoms here. Just because Christians are commanded to be good citizens, does not mean we must keep silent when our government violates its own charter with us.
If you trust the KLH to limit itself, fine by me. I don't. In fact, I think you are being incredibly naive, if not ignoring what Scripture says about fallen human nature and how power corrupts.
And why is it that you complain when Uncle Sam (I'll switch from Caesar for clarity) misbehaves when it comes to foreign policy (i.e. Iraq), but you are so willing to trust him with your personal liberty?
I don't trust Uncle Sam with either. Only the providence of God, common grace, and believers acting as salt and light in our culture, keep our dear Uncle Sam from becoming yet another God-hating beast.
The weaker the better. The more constitutional the better!
That said--I'm done. I think you have missed the whole point.
This is good stuff. Very good stuff.
Pre-WWI Germany was silent while the Kaiser assumed power, took away citizens' rights, and implemented a military machine that invaded Western Europe. In the economic turmoil that followed WWI, the German people were happy, once again, to place their trust in the false promises of what was to become a monster that once again attempted to control Europe - and the World.
During Hitler's reign the "church" was largely silent with the exception of people like Bonhoeffer, who directly and publicly opposed "der Führer," and those who risked everything to help the Jewish, the Dutch in particular, to escape. Many Lutherans and Catholics were conscripted, volunteered, or simply turned a deaf ear to well-known atrocities that were taking place.
Control, in the KLH, can be subtle, creeping, and enticing in the short run and before you know it all of the "rights" you have according to the US Constitution have been either vanished (via amendment) or repealed, including, potentially, the freedom to assemble freely to worship according to one's own beliefs. Be careful what you are willing to go along with in the name of obedience to "Caesar." Good citizenship in the KLH means more than obeying traffic laws and paying taxes; as Kim has underscored, flexing one's muscle in the voting booth and working to ensure that the proper candidates are on the ballot are just as important.
PS: Come to think of it, I have KLH speakers on my hi-fi and I like them - the quality is great :-)
I am not sure how often I have to say it, but I am not trying to take away rights and responsibilities as we know them in our small slice of the LHK known as America. I am not saying you can't pipe up, take advantage of constitutional recourse, vote or anything else rightfully afforded by our Caesar. All I am saying is that they must be better considered and tempered with a Xian perspective, and not just one that props up American ideals.
KR: "And why is it that you complain when Uncle Sam (I'll switch from Caesar for clarity) misbehaves when it comes to foreign policy (i.e. Iraq), but you are so willing to trust him with your personal liberty?"
1) I have never said we mayn't complain; if you have been following my comments I have tried to be transparent about the fact that there is a difference, albeit difficult to define, between legitimate protestation and illegitimate disobedience 2) I am not sure where I have been arguing for implicit trust with regard to personal freedom; I said I live with bad law every day. Again, you are making it a matter of trust, where I am making it a matter of obedience. I see the latter in NT ethics and imperatives, and I don't see where non/trust is the category. I think one can be faulted for disobedience much sooner than for mistrust. But while you may be quick to charge me with mistrust, I am trying to be cautious against faulting you with favoring disobedience. 3) I may have a problem with my Caesar's foreign policy, but I like to think it is attended by a measured restraint and doesn't jump to conclusions about things. Whatever else may be in the back of your mind here, Kim, keep in it that I part company with Stellman when he invokes the dogmas of activism and a sympathy for the sort of disobedience I find equally problematic to both your postures. And for whatever it's worth, it gets him out of his seat when I say stuff like that as well(!). Where you charge a confusion of the kingdoms, he tells me I have an under-realized eschateology. I prefer to be called a Lutheran and just be done with it.
I hate to break it to you (no, that's not true, I take some relish in it), but Uncle Sam IS a God-hating beast. But give it enough time, and he'll hang us high. Rebellion against God and his people does not run along a sliding scale. Your latest post on the Canons and the Arminian error only serves to make that point. No individual, and no nation, enjoys more or less favor with God than another. Our being salt and light has to do with holding out the unfettered gospel, not keeping the Beast more tame, domesticated and manageable than others.
In terms of points not getting grasps, I feel your pain. I am not sure what else to say in these posts to get over my broader point. I am not sure what is to be gained by either disparaging or championing any Caesar that isn't more valuable than understanding our situatedness as creatures granted a particular time and place by the one true God, moreover, a time and place that is passing and on a limited timetable. Calvin prayed not to be too tied to this world, whether in happiness or persecution. Caesar may put me on a pedestal or hang me high, though I owe him obedience as the servant of God, either way I owe him no final allegiance.
George warned, "Be careful what you are willing to go along with in the name of obedience to "Caesar."
I realize you have the over-used template for modern evil called Third Reich in your holster, George. But while I am aware of being vulnerable to being painted as one who would give up the Jews in his attic and appreciate the one side of the tension to do what is righteous, and while it may be more of that naivete KR charged, obedience is what was learned and what brought the Cross. So don't sell obedience too short. It saved us.
This is good stuff. Very good stuff."
I'm not saying good citizens must keep silent; that's a wooden read of my point here, and a skosh caricature. But I do think what is being said is that silence is more impious than pious. What if I elect to stay silent even as my Caesar is violating his charter with me? Is being a bad American also being a bad Xian? It might seem that one man's loyal and patriotic red coat is another's scoundrel and vice versa. Good thing both can appeal to a better country even if their temporal one divides them.
Don't under-sell silence either. It attended that obedience which saved us. It's also explicitly commanded, you know, work diligently, mind your own business and all that.
Don't under-sell silence either. It attended that obedience which saved us. It's also explicitly commanded, you know, work diligently, mind your own business and all that."
I don't understand what you're saying here.
It reads in part:
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.