SBC Voices

SBC Blog Madness 2010

Tony Kummer — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:20:05 +0000

Vote For Your Favorite SBC Bloggers

The SBC blog conversation has fallen on hard times, but a few of you guys are still out there. Here’s your chance to make a bit of a comeback. This is the 3rd annual blog madness for SBC Voices. This is round #1 and will end Sunday 21 March at an undisclosed time. The final winner will get to pick $200 in WTSbooks. Voting is restricted by IP, so there is only one vote per connection. If we’ve left off an important blog, leave a comment and we can get it added ASAP. My apologies for weird seeding, we’ll have a better idea of where people stand after the first round.

East Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Midwest Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

West Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

South Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Feel free to promote your blog or break down the competition on your blog, twitter, or Facebook. Shameless self-promotion makes it all the more fun.

Prep work for MARCH MADNESS

Matt Svoboda — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:13:08 +0000

Alright everyone, we are starting March Madness early next week! The prize will be $200 gift card to WTS Bookstore!!!

Here is where you come in- due to how we changed our aggregator from last year we are not able to look back at how many hits all the SBC got. So- we need some feedback from you. Are there any blogs that were not in the tournament last year that you all feel should be this year?

We already know of a few changes we are going to make to the bracket, but we need to hear from you all to try and make this as fair and “updated” as possible!

Give us your thoughts!

Thoughts on GCR Component #2 — NAMB Refocus

Todd Benkert — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:00:34 +0000

The GCR Task force has been prayerfully at work. As we have asked it to do, the task force has presented a preliminary report of recommendations it will bring to the Southern Baptist Convention when it gathers in Orlando a few short months from now. In this post, I will focus my intention on component #2 concerning the refocus and restructuring of the North American Mission Board. While I am in general agreement with the intent of the proposal, I have some questions and concerns about the net effect of voting for it.

I share these thoughts to inform our discussion as together we prepare to make a decision that will have lasting impact on the way Southern Baptists do missions. Of course, I am just one man, with a limited frame of reference and my own set of biases. My opinions and questions have been shaped by several factors: First, I come as one who has, from the beginning, supported the Great Commission Resurgence and actively campaigned and then voted for the task force. Second, I am a strong advocate for church planting. Third, I pastor in a “new work” state in a semi-urban area and working to encourage church planting both in my church and association. Fourth, I serve on the mission committee of our state’s executive board. Finally, I am a former NAMB appointed church planter and was funded through the cooperative agreements as they are today.

What I like about the GCR Task Force Proposal

When I first heard that the GCR Task force was addressing the current funding system, I was enthusiastic. For quite some time, I have been frustrated with the inability of the current system to plant churches where they are needed most. As I see it, there are two significant problems with the system as it currently exists:

First, not enough money is allocated for church planting missionaries. Our current funding partnerships seem to well support administrative and strategy roles while leaving little money for actual planters. At times, this has resulted in the funding of more personnel whose job it is to strategize for church planting than persons doing the church planting itself. Further, church planter salaries are in most cases inadequate. While missionaries in administrative and strategist roles are adequately compensated, church planters are asked to give a full-time effort at wage levels that are unreasonably low and often insufficient to meet basic needs. Quality, experienced persons are thus discouraged from church planting because there is not enough funding to pay planters a livable wage.

Second, too few funds are available for church planting in new work areas. Part of the problem is that current cooperative agreements require a level of matching funds in order to receive NAMB assistance. In state conventions that are few in number and have limited resources, church planting is hindered by a lack of funds because there is not enough money to provide the required matching funds through the current cooperative agreement structure. Admittedly, the ratio for matching funds is adjusted for smaller conventions. Still, for conventions with few churches and limited resources, even that smaller amount of matching funds may be difficult to procure. Thus, a metropolitan area in a new work state may have a need and strategy for thirty church plants, yet have the matching funds available for only three or four.

My first inclination has been to be in favor of the change in emphasis outlined in component #2 including the phasing out of current partnership agreements. I am encouraged that a new NAMB would emphasize church planting as a priority for funding. I am also encouraged that the proposal intends to release more funding for those areas which represent the largest mission fields in North America: the North, Canada, and Urban/Metropolitan population centers. I speculate that the task force proposal would result in more money and, more importantly, more evangelism and new church starts in these areas. Further, allowing NAMB to directly fund church planting in areas where matching funds are limited may well result in a great increase in church planting for those areas where churches are needed most. Consequently, based on the limited information provided thus far, my general inclination is to be in favor of GCR task force component #2. Several unanswered questions and concerns remain, however, and will need to be addressed before I will be comfortable casting my ballot in favor of the proposal when we gather in Orlando.

Questions and Concerns about Component #2

1. One of the primary rationales given for component #2 was a regional inequity of funding. The data which formed the basis for the proposal has now shown to have been inadvertently misreported by NAMB, thus the inequity in funding is not as great as was initially reported. While I don’t see this as a deal breaker, the task force would do well to explain why their rationale is still valid in light of the corrected data.

2. Given all the information I have, the proposal gives the appearance of a general distrust of state conventions and local associations. The end of partnership agreements affects not only where the money goes, but, significantly, who controls the money. I can certainly support a plan to adjust current partnership agreements with states so that church planting is emphasized and more money goes to new work areas and urban population centers. I am not yet convinced that eliminating those partnership agreements is the best plan. If we vote to eliminate partnership agreements, and thus give direct control to NAMB, I believe we send the message that local and state leaders cannot be trusted with mission funds. I am not inclined to send that message.

Additionally, the language in the report about lack of accountability for partnership funds is good rhetoric but, in my opinion, does not reflect what I have observed. On the contrary, accountability for NAMB funds is extremely high and the procedures for such accountability are often tedious. In my opinion, if there is a question about how NAMB monies are being spent, the fault is with funding priority guidelines not with any lack on the part of state leaders to account for funds.

Finally, current leadership in my state and association have proven themselves trustworthy and are moving in the right direction with both an increase in the number of church plants and a dramatic increase in the effectiveness of those plants. Ending partnership agreements with the states seems unnecessarily punitive. Thus, from my admittedly limited perspective, pulling the plug on state leadership in favor of national leadership would be unfair and would send the wrong message.

3. The report speaks of both working with churches to do ministry and plant churches and at the same time appointing church planting missionaries directly without the partnership of states and associations. The plan speaks of decentralization, yet at the same time calls for centralization of the mission force. For me, the wording of the proposal presents more questions than it answers. What will be the role of churches in shaping strategy and prioritizing for church planting? Will local churches and associations have input in determining strategy for their own areas? While I have expressed concern above about the inequity of funding between planters and strategists, I still see a need and role for strategists. Since the majority of strategists now serving in new work areas are funded through partnership agreements, what will happen to strategists currently on the field? Will local missionaries be picked up and directly supported by NAMB, or will experienced and effective strategists be replaced by new national missionaries? Will local field workers be by-passed altogether in favor six regional strategists? The task of saturating unreached areas with the gospel through new churches requires both planters and strategists; both local church involvement and denominational support.

One significant issue for me is lack of detail concerning what would replace the current model. If and when those details come, I will be in a better position to decide how to vote. For now, scrapping one system without clearly defining one that would replace it is problematic for me. I do favor a refocusing of priority and funding. I do not, however, favor centralizing the decision making to a national agency at the expense of local influence and involvement. Admittedly, I don’t know that such would be the result of adopting the proposal. On the other hand, without any details, I don’t know that it won’t either.

4. Finally, will the plan backfire and result in states keeping larger percentages of the CP pie to offset the loss in revenue from the current partnership agreements? State conventions have their own ministry and church planting priorities. If partnership agreements are ended and these priorities go unaddressed in the new system, state conventions may very well adjust their CP allotments to fund those priorities. The overall rationale for component #2 is more money for missions where it is needed most. If as a result of component #2, however, state conventions choose to forward less CP money to the Convention or even slow down the rate of progress toward reaching the 50/50 target, the net result would be less money for missions not more. Such a change would mean less money for not only North American missions but international missions as well. If the net result is a decrease in missions dollars, the primary goal for the GCR task force would be lost.

In summary, I appreciate the intent of component #2 and am generally inclined to support it. I support a refocusing of NAMB priorities toward church planting and new work areas. I agree that the current funding structure must change in order focus on these mission priorities. However, I have questions and concerns that prevent me from being ready to cast a “yes” vote. I am not yet convinced that scrapping the current partnership agreements is the best plan. Further, I need more details to assure that decision-making will not be centralized to the national agency to the exclusion of local churches and associations, that current effective leaders will not be unfairly penalized, and that the net result will not be less resources for missions.

This post represents where I stand now and is a reflection of my current thoughts based on available information. I am more than willing to be persuaded by reasonable arguments, new information, or ideas I may have overlooked. Ultimately, I want what is best for our Convention and will help us best fulfill the Great Commission. I look forward to the dialogue in the coming months as together we pursue His Kingdom mission.

Blessings,
Todd Benkert

What Should We Do While We’re Waiting?

Thom Hunter — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:00:16 +0000

Chaos: unpredictability; a state of confusion

Calm: period or condition of freedom from storms; a state of tranquility

I think I have not been good at waiting. But wait . . . let me think about that a bit. No, I can’t wait . . . I don’t really have time to think about it. Besides, I know. I’m not good at waiting. I like to plan and push and expect and get. If there’s an answer out there, I don’t want it held back from me. I do not like to anticipate or wonder. I’m a good wanderer, but a very poor waiter. I plunge headlong into chaos rather than cautiously wading into the calm. As much as I yearn to rise up with wings like an eagle, I have a greater tendency to scurry on in like a common sparrow. Thank God, literally, that His eye is upon me.

I’m waiting on some answers right now. I’m yearning for some peace within some plaguing issues. I’m cautiously wading into waiting, but I’m wanting to pick up speed . . . my own speed . . . my own way . . . my own timing . . . and . . . if I do so, achieve my own results. My, oh my, that’s a lot of “my.”

My other problem with waiting is that it so often seems that things truly are not worth the wait. I once sat up all night on Christmas Eve listening to a hamster wheel turning beneath the Christmas tree. I wanted that little hamster so so badly. Cute and funny to watch, but definitely not worth the wait. Hamsters are clearly over-rated. I became a slave to an 8-ounce furball. Clean my cage; fill my bottle; get me treats; find me under the refrigerator as flat as a fridge magnet; bury me in the backyard.

Some things are worth the wait; that is for sure. Broke as could be, barely able to pay the bills and put shoes on our five kids, Lisa and I used to drive to a rise on the edge of the city and park in the middle of a pasture and wait on the time that we would be able to buy the land on which we built a house in which we now live. We waited. It took years . . . and now we’ve lived here for years and been blessed. We waited.

But what about those things in our lives that are not so tangible? What about when we are waiting for sorrow to be vanquished? Or for addictions to release their grip? Or for loneliness to leave? Or for pain to subside? Or for forgiveness to be real? Or for unwanted desires to diminish? Or for painful memories to fade? Or for change? Or for comfort? Or for strength? These are not squeaky presents under a tree. These are not things that can be processed through a bank loan. These are things we pray for. And sometimes, we wait longer than we want.

In our haste to impress upon God that there is no need to wait, we may go through stages ranging from paralysis to rage, from almost refusing to live at all . . . to living large and free, daring Him to stop us from our self-destruction. Sometimes we declare our own answers, do our own searches, make our own plans and move on our own understanding and with our self-approval . . . just . . . tired of waiting. And when we suffer the consequences, we wait again, this time determined to let God work, even as we feel that fidgety need to fix it again.

Prone to wander, Lord I feel it.
Prone to leave the God I love.
Prone to hear you and not heed it.
Prone to scorn you in your love.

I am clearly “prone” to do quite a few things; waiting being the exception. But, if we would but wait . . . then what should we do while we’re waiting, to keep us from acting on what we are “willing?” Oh, that silly will. It works like a weed-eater on our waiting.

Those of us who struggle with various types of personal brokenness know it is a matter miles beyond the will. I hear daily of men and women who plunge headfirst into the free-fall of free will and their determination to find wholeness diminishes into despair and a tearful longing for forgiveness and restoration. The good news is, as we wait upon the Lord for the answer, we are replenished through grace and we receive that forgiveness and restoration. That’s what our will should seek.

What to do? What to do? First of all . . . we have to make sure we really are waiting on God . . . and not on someone else . . . or even on ourselves. I have to admit that for years I grappled with my sexual issues with the gnawing thought that there was no answer; that I had been given a perpetual ticket on a roller-coaster and all the attendants had gone home for the season. The park was closed. The die was cast. Get used to the butterflies in the stomach and the nauseating reality that you are going no-where.

Waiting is faith. Waiting believes that God has an answer and that God has no off-season.

I’m waiting for several worth-the-wait things right now. God knows. For one, I’m waiting for God to restore my family. And I’m rightly waiting, having run the gamut of the wrongful waits. I thought perhaps I could restore it myself. Nice long detour that was. I thought perhaps my church could do it. I thought I could out-wait my children. Out-waiting is one of the most wasteful waits of all. Mighty is the moment when we finally realize that some things can only be accomplished through waiting on God. In that knowledge, we can wield the power of waiting, and in wielding, discover the power of faith. Certainly, He can use me, my children, my church . . . or anything or anyone He wants to end the wait with an answer. I’ll wait and see. Clearly I can not out-wait the Creator of time.

The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. — Isaiah 40:28

God does not give up on us, though we often give up on Him, wearing ourselves out because we demonstrate waiting by entering a catatonic state of nothingness. Done properly, waiting strengthens us and we grow. Done poorly, we resemble mushrooms in a dark forest. We think waiting means doing nothing. So, back to the original question: What should you do while you’re waiting?

Have Hope – What strength do I have, that I should still hope? What prospects, that I should be patient? — Job 6:11.

Job raised a good question during his long and painful period of waiting. God restored not only his hope, but everything he had lost.

Practice Patience – We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised. — Hebrews 6:11-12.

God’s promises are real; He has plans for us. Good ones. We need to be patient and await the inheritance.

Trust – When I am afraid, I will trust in you. — Psalm 56:3.

Waiting is a scary journey, no matter what you’re hoping for. For those who are awaiting a light in a walk to freedom along the pockmarked path of failed beginnings and elusive endings trust is a must.

Obey – This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. — John 5:3-4.

Aren’t most of us longing to be loved? And can any love be greater than that exchanged between man and God? And well . . . overcoming is what we long for.

Which brings us back to waiting.

My path to today is littered with the longings of yesterday. So many of the things I once waited on are so far into the past now that I have forgotten even why I wanted them or what they were; some of them are no longer even valuable to me, their fate forever resigned to the “not-worth-the-wait” category.

Now I am waiting. Waiting for His voice, for His plan, for His direction. And I am hoping, and trusting and obeying. It will be worth it. He knows my needs; He knows my deeds. He loves me still. My God is faithful. And so is yours.

Just you wait and see.

God Bless,

Thom – http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/

All of us need Internet accountability software on our computers and other devices to battle the onslaught of pornography. If you click on this link, you can receive 30 days of Covenant Eyes for free. It’s the software I use.

http://www.covenanteyes.com/?promocode=SignsofaStruggle

Dr. Chapman, Dr. Rankin: Clash of the Titans

David Miller — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:21:26 +0000

On February 10, Dr. Morris Chapman addressed the state executive directors in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho and made some comments that were critical of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force interim report. On March 8, Dr. Jerry Rankin wrote a blog which was very critical of Dr. Chapman’s report.

Let me say a couple of things before I address this disagreement. First, both of these men have been favorites of mine for a long time. I am in agreement with Dr. Rankin’s passion for world missions and his desire to see the SBC participate in the bigger world of world evangelization. I got into blogging because I believe that there was a movement behind the scenes to try to push Dr. Rankin out of the IMB and I wanted to add my voice to those in opposition to that movement. And when the dissent movement began to grow in blogdom, Dr. Chapman was one of the few executives who did not treat bloggers like a disease. I did not think that his comments about Calvinism last year at the convention were wise, but I still think he has been a good man and an excellent Executive Board president.

And, perhaps perversely, I like it when our leaders feel the freedom to disagree and dissent with one another. I disagree with those Baptists who demand conformity on all issues related to the SBC, who refuse to allow dissent from leadership. I don’t want some sort of Baptist thought-police out there. So, I am glad these two men feel the freedom say what they think.

Dr. Chapman’s Comments

As I understand it, Dr. Chapman is not in favor of the restructuring proposals outlined in the GCRTF proposal. He focuses on the importance of our cooperation as a Baptist denomination. He emphasizes that every level of the denomination is important, from association to state convention to national convention to North American and International missions. He is against reallocation of CP receipts because it would create a competition between the entities and insinuate that we believe that some are more important than others. He advocates the conventions voluntarily moving toward a 50-50 allocation of funds, but is against any effort to enforce that. He is also against using Total Missions Giving as a measure for convention purposes, but continuing to focus on giving to the Cooperative Program.

His most powerful point, in my point, is his assertion that whatever problems exist in the SBC root in the heart. If Southern Baptists have heart problems, misplaced priorities or wrong attitudes, that will be reflected in churches and in state conventions and in the work of the national SBC.

I think there is great wisdom in his insight and analysis. I appreciate it, even if there are areas I do not agree with completely.

Dr. Rankin’s Post

Clearly, Dr. Rankin’s passion for the Great Commission governs all of his comments. He seems to believe that Dr. Chapman is placing too much emphasis on cooperation and not enough on our ultimate mission. Cooperation, he says, is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; obedience to the Great Commission. He asserts that there is a great big world out there that is lost without Christ, and he feels that we are more concerned with protecting our denominational structures and traditions than in reaching those people. The title of his post, “Convoluted Priorities” puts his view in perspective. He thinks we put too much time and effort into keeping the structure moving that we are not effective in fulfilling our ultimate purpose.

And I agree with him! He makes the point that about 2% of “Cooperative Program” money goes into World Missions, after the states and everyone else takes their cuts. If 2% of our missions dollars go to ministries outside our homeland, what does that tell us about our priorities? I understand and appreciate Dr. Rankin’s frustration.

So, here we have two good men, two of the best the SBC has, and they have strongly expressed different opinions on the GCRTF report. I would like to offer the following perspectives for your consideration.

Thoughts on the Disagreement

1) We do not need to demonize either man. Both operate from a deep desire to see people come to Christ. The fact that they see these issues differently does not call into question either man’s Baptist bona fides or integrity. I hope (without much genuine confidence) that the discussion can maintain respect for both. Again, I think it is healthy when our leaders feel free to disagree.

2) I think the problem these two men have is the same problem that we see so often in blogs. Instead of clearly understanding what the other side is saying, there is a tendency to read what you want to see, caricature the other side and demonize their opinions. Frankly, I believe Dr. Rankin has done some of that.

He said that Dr. Chapman’s comments were “passionately pointing out that the purpose of our denomination is not the Great Commission but cooperation.” I understand Dr. Rankin’s passion and I agree that we have become too focused on maintaining the structure instead of following our Savior’s orders. But does anyone really believe that Dr. Chapman believes that cooperation is more important than the Great Commission. I think those words came from Dr. Rankin’s heart and when he sees them, he might regret accusing Dr. Chapman of that.
He says that our convoluted priorities are making the following statement, “It is better to let the lost multitudes never hear the gospel and go to hell than change the way our denomination functions.” I think he has a point here – one we need to hear. I have engaged in conversations with Baptist pastors who seem more concerned about maintaining the status quo than in getting the job done. We must always let our priorities be judged and refined by the Spirit. But honestly, does anyone believe that Dr. Chapman would rather see people go to hell than to change the structure. Dr. Chapman’s point is that the structural changes will not help us in our task. I think the accusation does not fairly represent what Dr. Chapman is saying.

Neither Dr. Rankin nor Dr. Chapman is the enemy of the gospel or the SBC. They should not be treated as such.

3) I will echo what I just said in the previous comment. My heart beats in sync with Dr. Rankin’s, even if I do not agree with the way he worded things. I think we have an entrenched and powerful bureaucracy that probably needs to be streamlined. Any denomination has to have a bureaucracy. But the tendency of any human institution (look at the government) is to grow, become bloated and protect its power while it loses sight of its purpose. The SBC will have these same tendencies.

The SBC will be wise if it honestly takes a look at how this should be done. There is almost undoubtedly a conservatism that fights against restructuring. I think this has frustrated Dr. Rankin and is the primary focus of his ire. I think it was misplaced against Dr. Chapman. But I agree with his basic point.

4) Dr. Rankin’s seventh paragraph, which begins, “One of my exasperations…” should be read and heeded by all of us. He talks about how often we do denominational things as ends in themselves and not as means to gospel ends. Amen and Amen!

5) His warning in the ninth paragraph is also important to me. He says, “Cooperation is about us” while the Great Commission is about others. Of course, we have to cooperate to get the job done. But it is easy for us to focus on our cooperation and forget our reason to cooperate. Dr. Rankin believes that the SBC has become inwardly focused, an institution trying to perpetuate itself. Let us remember that this is a man on the inside, an agency head, who is saying this. We need to take it seriously.

6) Reading both Dr. Chapman’s comments and Dr. Rankin’s post, you get a sense of how easy it is to marshal facts to make a point. Dr. Rankin talks about total CP dollars while Dr Chapman talks about those funds sent from the states to the national SBC. With Dr. Rankin’s 2% number, it is easy to make the point that our priorities are askew. On the other hand, when you look at Dr. Chapman’s stats, you tend to see a different picture.

That tells me two things. First, both of these men have a point and need to be heard. Second, the problem exists primarily in how the states relate to the national SBC. The primary issue then becomes, do we need to restructure, or jut to continue to encourage the state conventions to send more to the national SBC?

7) Dr. Chapman has probably hit the nail on the head with his statement about “underlying heart disease.” He reminds us of Jesus’ words about our hearts being where our treasures are. Southern Baptists, like most American Christians, have bought into the material values of this world and their giving reflects those priorities. Selfish people form selfish churches and tend to produce selfish denominational structures. The ultimate change will come in the hearts of Southern Baptists, not in our structures. We need to build Kingdom hearts and priorities.

However, to argue what I believe might be Dr. Rankin’s side of this, the fact that the ultimate problem is in the hearts of Southern Baptists does not mean that there are not structural problems that need to be addressed. Churches need to focus on their members hearts. The denomination has to focus on our denominational structure – making it as effective as it can be.

My Hope

I recommend the following

1) Let’s stop the process that some bloggers have mastered of choosing sides, assigning white hats and black hats and demonizing those who disagree. It is both ungodly and unproductive (those two may be linked). The Calvinist issue has become an “us against them” issue on both pro and con blogs, and I think it is shameful. Many of the Baptist Identity issues have been approached in the same way – on both sides.

2) Let’s listen to what Dr. Chapman says. Lets listen to what Dr. Rankin says. They have earned the right, with faithful denominational service, to have their opinions heard. Let’s listen to Ronnie Floyd and the GCRTF.

3) Let’s keep talking about it until God leads us into unity. I would hope that our leaders will continue to tell us exactly what they think. However, I hope they can do it without straying into unfair caricatures of each other.

4) Let’s have fun in Orlando!! There won’t be many boring moments in the Sunshine state, will there?

A Baptist Voices Debate: The Culture Clash – Cultural Engagement and the Story of Lot and Sodom

David Miller — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:07:52 +0000

A Discussion between Rastis and Dave Miller

The Debate Topic

Is Lot an example of moral compromise and its ill effects, or is he a model of cultural engagement? That is what we will be debating today. In a post at sbcIMPACT, Rastis argued that traditional viewpoints regarding the interpretation of the Lot story miss some key biblical elements. He sees Lot in a more positive and exemplary light than the traditional viewpoint. Dave Miller will be arguing the traditional version of Lot’s story – that Lot made some serious mistakes that cost him his family and any chance he had at moral influence.

The real focus of this debate is cultural engagement. How do Christians in American and in nations around the world deal with the cultures in which they live? Do we confront cultures or do we try to adapt to them? The discussion of Lot is meant not so much as an exercise in historical theology, but as a template for a discussion of how we as Christians should live in this world.

Both Rastis and Dave are regular contributors at sbcIMPACT. Dave also contributes here at SBC Voices. Rastis writes under that pseudonym because he is in the process of entering a ministry where his identity must remain secure as he engages a culture hostile to the gospel.

Rastis’ Post: Lot Entered the City to Serve the Lord

I remember the first time I watched The Village. It was terrifying. Not so much because it was actually scary, but because it reminded me of a church I used to attend. The gist behind The Village is that there is a colony of people who have removed themselves from society in an attempt to keep themselves pure from the evil cities. What keeps people in line and in the confines of this small pseudo wilderness? They are afraid of the unnamable creatures which occasionally haunt the village. This was my church. We separated ourselves from the world (some would go as far as not driving on I-10 through Houston in order to avoid billboards—FYI, there is no way to drive through Houston without I-10) in hopes that we might retain personal holiness.

Enters Lot… He was the favorite whipping boy for evangelists, seminars, and youth camp speakers. After all, he typified everything that we were against. He left the “holiness” of the farm for the pleasures of the city, becoming a cosmopolitan man, the first metrosexual. He persisted in his sin in spite of angelic warnings. The city corrupted his ability to lead his family spiritually evidenced by his wife adopting his urban values, he offered his daughters to the angry mob, and, finally, committed incest. So went their bombastic crucifixion of Lot.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is unbiblical. Sure, the story goes something like that. But the traditional way of casting Lot in the story tells more about us and our view of the world than it does about Lot’s. Scripture explicitly states that Lot was a righteous man who was vexed by the urban sensuality (2 Pet 2:7). I studied twelve commentaries on the Genesis passage and few referenced the 2 Peter passage. The few who referenced it, did so in a dismissive way as though Peter was referencing something other than the account in Genesis. I am indebted to Ray Bakke’s Theology as Big as the City for pointing me in the right direction concerning Lot.

In addition to Peter’s declaration concerning Lot, I believe that the context of Genesis 18-19 provides insight into Lot’s true character. The accounts of Abraham in 18 and Lot in 19 are almost perfect parallels. While not contained in Gen 18-19, the most important link between Lot and Abraham is the fact that Lot left Ur, a center of Moon worship, with Abraham (Josh 24:2) to follow the true God.

Both men demonstrated great hospitality.

In 18, Abraham is visited by three men. He demonstrated great hospitality.
Likewise, Lot implored the two visitors to stay at his house rather than sleep in the square. They acted as if they would not heed his advice. Lot “pressed them strongly” and they complied. That is Middle-Eastern hospitality for you; you refuse three times, and then do it anyway. Implicit in this hospitality is food (19:3) and protection, which he provided in a misguided attempt to ward off the mob (19:7-8). While offering his daughters to a sexually perverted mob was wrong, his actions demonstrated his concern and dedication to uphold his hospitality.

Both men acted as intercessors.

When Abraham learned of the destruction to come upon the cities of the valley he acted as an intercessor.
When Lot learned of the destruction to come upon the cities of the valley he too acted as an intercessor. He begged for one of the cities in the valley to be given to him as a residence and not destroyed (19:20). The angels granted his request. In addition to this, he interceded on behalf of his guests (19:7-8) and was common fixture in the gates of the city (19:1).

Both men received sons.

The three visitors clarified the earlier promises of a “great nation” through the promise of a son.
At the end of 19, Lot receives two sons. While many blame Lot for the incest, it is not as bad as it sounds. First, Lot was drunk when it happened. Second, the law had not been given yet. It is important to note, that this was not pedophilia, as it was at the behest of the women and they were of marriageable, childbearing age. Finally, and most importantly, Lot’s daughters were acting in faith. It is hard to read Genesis through puritan eyes. There is just a lot of weird sexuality in Genesis: Lamech’s polygamy, the whole “sons of God” and “daughters of men” thing, Lot’s incest, and finally Tamar, who just “gets around.” That is not to mention the animosity between Sarah and Hagar, and Rachael and Leah. These examples can only be understood in light of the promise of a deliverer in Gen 3:15. All of these women acted in faith thinking that the deliverer would come in their lifetime. While that expectation went unrealized, many of these women are in the line of Christ.

Chapters 18-19 are parallel even in these details. The nations from both of Lots sons are in the lineage as well. One became the father of the Moabites (Ruth/Boaz-Obed-Jesse-David) and the other became the father of the Ammonites (Solomon sired a son with an Ammonite). If you are still bent on saying it was sin, then it only goes to show that moving to the suburbs and isolating ourselves (e.g. the cave) from those worldly city dwellers (e.g. the inhabitants of Sodom) does not really protect us from sin!

When one views the account of Lot in comparison to Abraham, it becomes clear that Lot is not a simpleton wandering about Vanity Fair. Nevertheless, Waltke points out a great irony between the two accounts: “Lot tries to be a blessing but instead appears as a buffoon. He fails as a host, as a citizen, as a husband and as a father. He wants to protect his guests but needs to be protected by them; he tries to save his family, and they think he is joking. His salvation depends on God’s mercy” (Genesis, 270).

What, then, was he doing in the city? The same thing we ought.

The more wicked a place is, the more it should consume our thoughts. Both Abraham and Lot wished to save the city. Abraham interceded on behalf of the whole city, not just for Lot and his family. Had it not been for the whole town rising up against the two visitors perhaps God would have spared the city. Jeremiah 5:1 says it only takes one person to save a city. This was also true in Lot’s case, albeit, not with Sodom itself. There were actually five cities slated for destruction (Gen 14:2). While neither Abraham nor Lot saved Sodom, Lot did save Zoar.

There is more to intercession than prayer. There is a need for presence and proclamation. As it relates to presence, we should run to the city rather than away from it. Lot did love the city, on this we agree. But he loved the city for the sake of justice rather than “worldliness”. Lot was found in the city gates (19:1). When he confronted the would be assailants, they were quick to remind him that he was an outsider—they were appalled that he was acting like a judge over them (19:9). We should be the salt and the light to the darkest places. There is always a relationship between the presence of the godly and the preservation of the community.

Lot had more impetus to go than we do—especially those of us who think our primary purpose is holiness. One who adopts the ways and philosophies of the world is certainly washed out, but no more washed out than the one who lives in the suburbs or in the country isolated in an enclave of safety and material comfort. Our desire to live where it is safe, small, and segregated puts us harrowingly close to being guilty of Sodom’s true sin. We always characterize Sodom over the homosexual issue. Since that isn’t really a struggle for most of us, we can feel relieved that we are not near God’s judgment. However, a quick glance at Ezekiel 16:49-50 reveals that we commit the same sin for which Sodom was judged (“pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy”) Those who lived in The Village learned the hard way that in spite of their separation from the evil cities, sin is ever present within the camp. The idea that one can avoid sin based on proximity is little more than Christianized humanism. The Bible says that sin comes from within.

What then are we to say about facing the danger of going to the city? The answer is found in Lot’s story. Peter used him as an example to demonstrate God’s faithfulness. 2 Peter 2:7-10 makes the point that God is able to separate between the righteous and unrighteous. While the whole earth should tremble before him, “if he rescued righteous Lot… then, the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials.”

Lot wasn’t afraid to go to the “evil cities.” He wasn’t afraid of what other good people would think of him for going there. He stood in the gates and interceded. I hope to be an urban missionary like Lot when I grow up!

Rastis blogs regularly at http://offtheshire.blogspot.com and www.sbcimpact.net

Dave Miller’s Post: Righteous Lot Lost Everything by Compromise

It’s not easy getting older these days. I grew up in a era when church was predictable and comfortable. You sang hymns from the hymnbook, stood for the offering, listened to the special music, then sat through the message, after which we sang several verses of “Just As I Am” and headed home. Men wore a suit, women wore dresses (and, in my early days, some simply horrific hats).

Now, everything has changed. Young whippersnappers think nothing about showing up at church in blue jeans, t-shirts and sandals – and those are the preachers! The piano and organ have morphed into guitars, drums and keyboards. In many churches you can take your coffee right in the sanctuary with you. Coffee, in “God’s House”? Grandpa Pratt is rolling over in his grave.

But I could adjust to all this if you young bucks didn’t keep on trying to change our comfortable and well-known interpretations of scripture. I have known all my life exactly what “lukewarm” meant in Revelation 3. But while visiting my son at Christmas (well, my grandson – but the son was there, too) he told me that they have come up with a whole new meaning for lukewarm. DON”T MESS WITH LAODICEA, you guys! Is it fair to try to teach new tricks to us old dogs?

When I read Rastis’ post at sbcIMPACT on Lot, I had one of those moments of shock. I have heard sermons on Lot all my life and preached them often. We all knew exactly what the story of Lot was about. He “pitched his tents” toward Sodom, then was found living in Sodom, then was in the city gate – he had become part of the life of Sodom. Lot forgot the lesson that any good Christian needs to hear. We are to be “in the world but not of the world.” Lot lost his family, his wife and his home because he did not stand strong for God and against the evils of the culture in which he lived.

And then Rastis showed up, with his new-fangled interpretations. As I understand his point of view, Lot is a model for cultural engagement. Of course, 2 Peter 2:7 describes Lot as a righteous man, which seems to nullify some of the traditional teachings on the life of Lot.

I was intrigued by Rastis’ views and suggested this debate so that we could explore them in more detail. But I am not ready to abandon the traditional viewpoint yet either. It is possible (probable?) that some of the traditional interpretations have held things that are not clearly taught in scripture, and perhaps presented a skewed view of the life of Lot. But I also believe there are some real problems in making Lot into a hero of cultural engagement.

I would make the following points about the life of Lot.

1) Lot was a righteous man, but that does not mean that all his actions were right.

2 Peter 2:6-10 says, “… if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.”

If it were not for this verse, I would have few qualms about condemning the worldliness of Lot. But a writer, under the Spirit’s inspiration, identifies him as righteous – a righteous man who was distressed at the sin, the sensuality, the vile wickedness of the culture in which he lived. His soul was tormented by the immorality he saw all around him.

No doubt that this gives some insight into the life of Lot. But the fact that he was a righteous man does not mean that everything he did was righteous. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul talks about believers and how we build on the foundation of Christ. Some use the right materials to build with. Others use flammable materials and their works are burned up in the judgment. They lose all reward even if they themselves are saved “as one escaping the fire.”

Perhaps Lot was just such a man. He was a righteous man who was genuinely concerned with the spiritual and moral climate of his city. But that does not mean that the actions he took in addressing those concerns were the proper ones.

2) Despair at the evil of the culture is not enough – we must engage effectively.

I know a lot of Christians who spend a lot of time complaining about the evil in our culture. Lot is a good example of the fact that complaining, being upset, even tormented by cultural evil is not enough.

We have to take the proper steps; do the right things in response. I am convinced (at this point) that Lot, while his heart might have been in the right place, did not respond properly to the culture. He made bad choices, even if his heart was right, and the consequences were disastrous.

3) There is an uncomfortable drift towards involvement in a wicked culture.

I know that the progression of Lot toward Sodom may preach better than is warranted by the text. However, there is something there that bothers me. Lot chose (Genesis 13:11) to head to the area of Sodom when he and Abraham made the split. Nothing wrong with that. It was a fertile area at that time (pre-sulphur and brimstone). Some time later, in Genesis 14:11, he is found living in Sodom. But then, in Genesis 19:1, we see the coup-de-grace. He is now “sitting in the gate.” That term indicates that he was deeply involved in the life of the city. He was part of the leadership. He was on the inside.

Was he able to get to that place of honor without compromise? It is hard to imagine. The story reveals the forceful and unrepentant perversion of the men of Sodom. They don’t seem like the kind of men who would take well to a “voice of conscience” in their midst.

I believe that Christians should be part of their communities. I pastored a small town church for four years. If I had it to do over again, I would attend sporting events and join the rescue squad; be more a part of the community. I think it is good (in spite of my words of introduction) that the church fit itself into the culture in which in exists. In our casual, contemporary society a church should not insist on ties and coats and organ-accompanied hymns. But we need to be careful about being so immersed in society that we lose our ability to confront it. We can be culturally relevant without being biblically compromised.

4) The consequences of Lot’s life seem to indicate a problem.

In both Leviticus 27 and Deuteronomy 28, Moses defines the evidence of God’s blessings and marks of God’s discipline on the disobedient. It seems clear to me (though obviously these laws were written later) that Lot’s life gives evidence of the life of disobedience and the discipline of God.

When Abraham bargained with God, he stopped at 10 righteous men. He must have assumed that Lot would have guided his wife, two daughters and their husbands onto the right paths. That meant all he had to have done was impacted 4 more people and Sodom was safe. But he did not impact a single person.

In fact, he lost even his own family. Most telling is verse 14. His sons-in-law thought he was jesting when he told them to leave. This hardly seems to be a reaction to someone who had moral authority.

His wife looked back at Sodom. She was so invested in the wicked city that she could not bear to leave.

And we all know the story of Lot’s daughters. They were not exactly women of virture and grace. They would make the women on reality TV in America blush!

Lot lived his life in Sodom and had an impact on absolutely no one! Not one person. Jesus told us that the kingdom is like a mustard seed. Our little faith brings a great harvest. Can this be the fruit of a life who engaged his wicked culture properly? I do not think so.

The Debate Commences

Well, let the debate begin. I am willing to learn and grow. Maybe this young whippersnapper named Rastis can shake my traditional ways and teach this old dog some new tricks.

I will remind all who read this that the whole point of these debates is to deal with difficult issues with open debate in a godly way. State your opinions clearly, but in a way that honors Christ.

SBC Voices

Top SBC Blog Posts

SBC Blog Madness 2010

Vote For Your Favorite SBC Bloggers

East Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

Midwest Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

West Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

South Division: SBC Blog Madness 2009

Prep work for MARCH MADNESS

Thoughts on GCR Component #2 — NAMB Refocus

What Should We Do While We’re Waiting?

Chaos: unpredictability; a state of confusion

Calm: period or condition of freedom from storms; a state of tranquility

Dr. Chapman, Dr. Rankin: Clash of the Titans

A Baptist Voices Debate: The Culture Clash – Cultural Engagement and the Story of Lot and Sodom