In the meantime, we will leave all the archives online, and leave the comments open.

Several of our contributors will continue to post over at SBC Voices, as well as at personal blog sites. We look forward to maintaining the dialogue over there.

We appreciate all of you who have followed sbc IMPACT! over the last four years, and the great discussions we have had. We trust the Lord has been glorified, and His Body edified, as we have sought to provide a setting for “iron to sharpen iron” (Proverbs 27:17).

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. (Jude 24–25)

So why am I writing about macroeconomics and the Bible? Not to argue in favor of one theory of macroeconomics over another. My main beef is with those, from all sides of the spectrum, who talk and act as if the Bible had a lot more to say about macroeconomics than it really does. The ideologues, in this regard, are the advocates of dominion theology (on the right) and liberation theology (on the left), but there are a lot of folks in between these extremes who are swayed to one degree or another by their arguments.

The book of Proverbs has a lot to say about microeconomics. No argument from me here. It clearly teaches basic principles of financial integrity, frugality, sound investing, and strategic saving. In addition, the Bible, all through its pages, in both the Old and New Testaments, has a lot to say about honesty and generosity. Jesus himself talked a lot about personal finances, and the importance, as God’s children, of being good stewards of the resources He commends into our hands.

As far as I can tell, though, the closest thing to a particular theory of macroeconomics advocated in the Bible is found in the civil law given to the theocratic society of Old Testament Israel. With respect to the economic practices of kings and other civil magistrates, the main revelatory content has to do with general principles of justice in favor of the poor and underprivileged, and against corruption and vice on the part of the rich and powerful. All in all, though, in spite of the arguments of the dominionists and liberationists, there is extremely little that can be adduced to conclusively support contemporary theories of economics such as free-market capitalism, neo-liberalism, or socialism.

If anything, certain practices, such as the year of Jubilee, the third-year tithe for the poor, the law of gleaning, and the sharing of material resources in the Jerusalem church, appear to lend support to certain aspects of socialism. In both the OT and NT, however, there also seems to be an assumption of private ownership of property. But, as I understand it, reading support in the Bible for any one theory of macroeconomics as practiced in modern-day nation-states is anachronistic and intellectually inconsistent. Though it is true that in many modern contexts, socialism has been linked to atheism, and espoused by evil totalitarian regimes, as far as economic theory in and of itself is concerned, this is not inextricably so. From what I can tell, from a strictly biblical point of view, government-facilitated redistribution of wealth, in and of itself, is neither as inherently reprehensible as many dominionists and right-wing Christians make it out to be, nor as virtuous as many liberationists and left-wing Christians make it out to be.

In the New Testament, there are several obvious reasons why there is very little, if any, instruction given to Christians with regard to macroeconomics. Decisions made with regard to issues such as macroeconomics are normally made by those with the power to make them. And for the most part, New Testament Christians were not included among this group. For Christians, as well as for practically everyone else in the historical milieu of the New Testament, decisions on public policy regarding taxes, government spending, the coining and circulation of money, international trade, interest rates, ownership of property, hiring and firing of employees, etc. were totally out of their hands. In addition, it is unlikely that even those who did have the power to make such decisions thought through these issues in any way close to the manner that modern-day government officials do.

Fast-forward 2,000 years and a lot of things have changed. In modern democracies today, we as Christians (along with everyone else) have the opportunity to speak meaningfully into issues such as macroeconomics. We also have the possibility of speaking into questions of public ethics and morality. Even though we, as individual Christians, may not hold any public office, we have the opportunity—and many would argue, the responsibility—by way of our vote, to influence the establishment of public policy.

This is an eventuality that the Bible does not appear to take into account. A lot of times I find myself wishing the Lord had revealed more in his Word concerning these matters. In the end, however, I trust he knew perfectly well what he was doing. Nevertheless, there are some things that seem pretty clear to me. For instance, if I as a Christian can make a difference through my vote and participation in the political process to counteract the sacrifice of innocent human life through abortion, it seems pretty clear to me that I ought to do what I can. Exactly how I should go about it may not be so clear, but, at least, I think it is pretty clear I should do something. The principle of the sanctity of human life is sufficiently clear in the Bible. Many other matters debated in modern-day partisan politics, though, are not nearly so well defined in the Bible. Equally sincere and orthodox Christians may legitimately argue both sides of many issues.

Most today would agree that the questions of macroeconomics are among the most significant issues of contemporary politics. As that erstwhile and once-successful political candidate Bill Clinton poignantly summed it up, “It’s the economy, stupid.” My personal thinking on this is that, from a certain perspective, the economy is indeed really important. Politicians do well to major on these issues. It is good that we have people who spend time studying these issues and developing theories on how to best make the economy prosper on a macro level. In no way am I denigrating the important work of those who give their time and effort toward studying these subjects.

As Christians, though, I think it is very difficult to demonstrate a specifically biblical basis for the superiority (whether on moral or other grounds) of one economic theory over another. We can certainly make a sound case for good ethics and morality. We can generally argue from the Bible against greed and corruption, and in favor of justice and personal generosity. But what public policy decisions best serve to grease the wheels of the national economy and cause the nation (or the world) as a whole to prosper is a totally different matter. There may well be (and probably are) sound principles of economic theory that help to answer these questions, and those who study these matters scientifically (including Christians) can help us to find these answers, but I don’t believe the Bible itself purports to do so.

As such, I don’t have any problem with Christians espousing personal views of macroeconomics, nor participating in the political process that helps to set public policy influencing the national economy. What I do have a problem with is Christians insinuating that one particular economic theory is THE Christian view on macroeconomics, or claiming biblical support for their theories, when there is none.

Unfortunately, more and more, as of late, a lot of high-profile Christians in public media appear to have developed a special penchant for doing just this. As national elections draw closer, heated rhetoric on public media in general, but on many Christian media outlets as well, is escalating with regard to issues such as macroeconomics. In an effort to discredit one’s political opponents, certain views of macroeconomics are frequently held up as the Christian or biblical view, and opposing views as anti-Christian and immoral. This may happen from both the right as well as the left, though on the particular media outlets I happen to listen to, I hear it more often, as of late, from the right.

When I hear Christian media personalities launch into their tirades on these issues, my heart sinks. I believe this type of rhetoric, whether issued from the right or from the left, is divisive to the unity of the Body of Christ, counterproductive for our ultimate aim as Christians, and contrary to Jesus’ will for us as his disciples. Also, whenever we publicly mock and sarcastically denigrate the policies and economic theories, as well as impugn the motives, of politicians with whom we disagree (especially those currently in office), I believe we are violating the biblical injunction to “honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17). That is not to say we cannot ever voice our views on these topics, but we should watch our attitude and the language we use to do so.

Lest anyone misunderstand what I am saying: I am not personally opposed to right-wing views of macroeconomics. As far as I can remember, whenever I have voted in national elections, I have voted for Republican candidates. Certainly, my views on the sanctity of human life and other moral issues have a lot to do with this, and I am not ashamed or reticent of speaking out as a Christian on these issues. But I am careful to not put forward my personal views on macroeconomics as specifically religious convictions.

In the Church (and in our churches), we should be united by the gospel, not by our views on macroeconomics. It should not be perceived as in any way scandalous when a brother or sister in Christ espouses a theory of macroeconomics different than our own, or than that of the majority of the members of our church or denomination. And we should not use official church or denominational channels to advocate views of macroeconomics that do not have specific biblical support.

Also, though I am thankful for the freedom of press we have in the United States, and in no way would want to limit the right of broadcasters and publishers to advocate the political views they choose to advocate, it seems to me that, ideally, there should be a clear difference between the programming of Christian media outlets and that of secular politically-driven media outlets. If I want to hear someone give a defense for one theory of macroeconomics over another (unless they are citing clear biblical principles), I would prefer to hear them do so on a secular station, where the reputation and clear gospel witness of the Church is not at stake.

To paraphrase a well-known verse of Scripture, “The kingdom of God is not a matter of monetary policy, taxes, and government spending (or the lack thereof), but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

Together they face challenges, from the scarcity affecting colony life, a renegade group of colonists known as “Sixers” (they came on the sixth wave of pilgrims), and various elements of the environment from strange diseases to, my favorite, dinosaurs.

The show is pretty engaging, with plenty of excitement in each episode. Hannah and I have been watching it since the show started, partly because of the premise and partly to maintain a sense of “Mom and Dad” time now that we have a wonderful baby girl who can disrupt our plans (usually during meals or sleep time).

We like to guess what some of the major plot points are going to be. We’ve figured out that the oldest daughter of the aforementioned family of five is going to figure out some complex mathematical symbols written out on rocks by some waterfalls, presumably by the commander’s long-missing son, at some point in the series.

But we also like to think about this show from a biblical standpoint.

Though the story goes against the traditional Christian view of the Genesis creation account, there are plenty of themes present in the TV series that relate to Biblical realities. One of the most obvious is that of man-made redemption. After mankind has ruined the planet, he finds his own salvation, a chance at redemption, by going back in time to make a fresh start.

The Bible is pretty clear that we are incapable of saving ourselves. And that is quite apparent from the colony in Terra Nova. Shortly after the sixth wave of pilgrims came through, we are told, they plot to overthrow the current colony leadership. When the plot was discovered, they left, taking over a mine and establishing it as their new colony. Man cannot live at harmony with nature, as dinosaurs mercilessly kill and eat a few people most every episode. People work hard to till the land and make it produce food. There is deception and disloyalty. Apart from pollution, it seems quite apparent that humanity has changed little in its quest for a new start.

The show doesn’t touch on God. I understand and expect that from secular television. The focus is more on human relationships and survival. Yet the underlying theme of redemption is what holds the whole story concept together. And that redemption cannot be found in a new time or a new way of living. Though the story will undoubtedly try to hold out hope for humanity, the truth is, we are broken and fallen, and so is the world we live in. To divorce that truth from the knowledge of God will only result in disillusionment and delusion.

The show is definitely fun to watch, and I can’t wait for the next episode to air. But we have to remember what should be apparent from the many conflicts and challenges these characters face: the solution to our problems is not within ourselves. The solution is from without. Only Jesus Christ can offer—and promise—true redemption for humanity.

One day, during rehearsal, the director said some words that stung me deeply.  ”Dave, you sound like you are reading a phone book.”  Now, I am not sure all that is encompassed in that statement, but I am pretty sure of one thing, it is not a compliment.  The director was unhappy with me.

So, the assistant director and I went to work.  He helped me with characterization and the physical aspects of moving like an older man (its a lot easier now).  But he also taught me how to speak in a Scottish brogue.  (I should have kept it – no matter what you say, a preacher just sounds good with a brogue.)  One day, I tried out my new stuff at rehearsal.  Normally, the actors not currently in the scene mill around, chat and ignore the stage.  But I broke out the brogue and things got silent.  When I finished the scene and exited stage right, the entire cast broke out in applause.  That felt really good.

But the high point came after the two week run of the musical.  After closing night we had a cast party and everyone passed their playbills around and signed them – like high school yearbooks.  I can’t remember any of the comments, except one.  The director took my playbill and signed these words:

“Dave, you get the part every time.”

That meant more to me that the applause of the cast or the applause of the crowd.  The director was pleased with my work.  His “well done” was worth more than anything else.

Now, I perform on a different stage.  I am not following a script or trying to learn a character.  I am seeking to become more like Christ and proclaim his Word.  My stage is behind a pulpit or at the keyboard.  My goal is to communicate the Word of God and apply truth to people’s lives, to the life of our convention and to our culture.

The question still applies today, though.  Whose applause do I live for?

Do I seek the applause of the crowd? I have a lot of people shake my hand at the back of the church or leave comments on this blog that affirm me.  It is always nice to receive that.  But there is a danger in that.  It is so easy to begin to live for the audience’s applause, to gauge my success by backsides in seats or page hits on the stat counter.   Encouragement is wonderful but it can easily become an idol in my heart.   I like to be liked.

One of the biblical truths that is hardest for me to process is the reaction of people to God’s most faithful servants.  The prophets were beaten and beheaded, they were rejected, imprisoned and persecuted.  Jesus?  The only perfect person who ever lived, the person who always spoke the precise truth and never sinned against anyone was nailed to the cross. And Paul?  He had the most unique resume I’ve ever read.

But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? 30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.  2 Corinthians 11:21–30

He is the only man I know who has put his frequent imprisonments and persecutions on his curriculum vitae.

If they persecuted the prophets, crucified the Savior and imprisoned Paul, what does it say about me if everyone loves my sermons?  I cannot assume that just because the crowds applaud that Heaven is adding its approval.  The two do not necessarily coincide.

So, do I seek the applause of the cast? Having the cast pay attention and applaud me was wonderful that night.  But it would be a mistake for me to live for the cast’s applause.

I have never liked being disliked or criticized.  Years ago, I ventured into online writing with a devotional which I called “WORD Processing.”  After a couple of years, I was sending it to several hundred email addresses.  And some of my devotional thoughts got picked up by other online newsletters and distributed widely.  One post got picked up by several of them and distributed all over the world.  One of the posts was picked up by Pulpit Helps magazine and appeared on the front page of their magazine.

And then, I quit.  I just stopped writing the posts.  Why?  It is hard for me to admit it.  I got a few negative comments.  A couple of people told me they did not like what I wrote and it cratered me.  I was so dependent on the approval of others that getting criticized caused me to back off.

Then, I found blogging.  Several people wish I hadn’t, but I did.  But my five years of blogging has taught me something. You can’t accomplish anything if you want everyone to like you.  I have had my mental health analysed and questioned by one of blogging’s brightest stars.  I have been called just about every name in the book.  Just yesterday, I received an email telling me I was a liar; a spiritual fraud who is so filled with evil that the only way to deal with me is to completely shun me from here on out.  And I have to admit that I still don’t like hearing words like that.  But neither am I crushed or cratered, as I once would have been.

I have learned that the approval of the cast, the approval of other pastors or other bloggers does not equate to the approval of God.  More than that, I have found that the disapproval of other pastors, of denominational leaders. or of other bloggers does not necessarily mean God is upset with me.

I do not hear voices in my head very often (despite what some have suspected.)  But I was in church one time several years ago, trying to prepare my heart to preach.  It was a struggle, because I knew that a woman in the church was really angry at me.  I was devastated by what this person thought of me and I was having trouble through the song service with her disapproval.  How could I preach when someone hated me as much as she hated me?  That is when I heard these words in my head.  I know some of you do not believe God speaks like this.  I’m not really interested in debating that today.  I can only tell you that I heard these words.

You are not what she says you are.  You are what I say you are.

It is not the approval of the crowd or the cast that matters most.

No, I need to seek the approval of the director. In everything we do, we must seek to hear the amen of Heaven.  If all men speak well of you but God is displeased, it means nothing.  And if others criticize you, call you names, question your sanity or your honesty and spiritual integrity, but God approves, then all is well.

That is the most important lesson that I have begun to learn in my life.  I say “begun to learn” because it is a process that is far from finished.  But it is a victory that God is winning in my heart.  I am what God says I am.  If God says my heart is sinful, it doesn’t matter if everyone else applauds.  And if God knows my heart is pure then I need not be devastated by accusations of impurity by others.

The greatest moment of any believer’s life will be that moment when we hear the voice of the Master saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”  In the meantime, we should always respect others and attempt to treat them well.  But we must ignore both the applause and the shrill criticisms of others as we seek the one thing that matters most – the only thing that really matters.

The Amen that comes from Heaven.

Up to here, nothing new. From what I have read, those are basically the same points everyone else commenting on this issue is making. Overall, due to the complications involved, though I am generally sympathetic to the basic idea of name change, I am still undecided as to how I would vote on such a proposal until hearing the results and recommendations the study committee is being called on to put together. I want to remain open-minded.

In the meantime, I’d like to raise a few questions I have not yet seen discussed related to all this.

I think we* need to think a little more about the implications of the basic concept of geographically based identity for a group of cooperating Baptist churches. Of course, the social and cultural context of the New Testament was much different than our social and cultural context today. But, from a NT perspective, there is no specific precedent for grouping churches together on the basis of strictly defined geo-political borders. It seems that local “house churches” considered themselves to jointly comprise the church in whatever city they were located. There is, however, some question as to whether each NT “city church” actually gathered together on a regular basis in the same place, whether the elders of each separate “house church” considered themselves to exercise spiritual authority jointly together with all the other elders within the entire “city church,” and to what degree the links between various “house churches” were loose and informal, or tight and official.**

Early in church history, local churches began to officially group together under the pastoral supervision of a “metropolitan bishop.” Over the next few centuries, the tendency toward administrative centralization was gradually heightened culminating in the de facto blending of the concepts of church catholicity (i.e. the worldwide scope of the Body of Christ) and the administrative and pastoral submission of each local congregation to the authority of the metropolitan bishop of Rome.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation, most of the churches that came out from under their historic submission to Rome came under the protectorate of some local secular political authority (i.e. Luther and Frederick III, Calvin and the civil magistrates/Consistory of Geneva, the Anglican Church and Henry VIII, etc.), eventually morphing into the various Protestant state churches. The joining of ecclesiastical structures with geo-political ones was further defined as a result of the development of European sovereign nation-states as we know them today on the heels of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

As Baptists, of course, we do not subscribe to the state church system either in its Roman Catholic or Protestant iterations. The earliest form of Baptist inter-congregational cooperation was on the level of local associations of churches. The forming of region-wide or nation-wide associations or conventions of churches came about, as I understand it, with one specific aim in mind: strategic cooperation for the furtherance of the Great Commission. Beyond this, there is no specific reason for Baptists joining together in any one organization, whether on a regional, national, or worldwide basis.

Originally, a significant grouping of Baptist churches throughout the United States came together to cooperate in missions under the aegis of the Triennial Convention. As we are all aware, however, social and historical circumstances which happily no longer exist, and for which we have since officially repented, led a significant group of Baptist churches in the South to organize their cooperation on a regional instead of a national basis.

All that is water under the bridge. The reality today is we are a group of churches spread out among all of the United States, though still centered primarily in the South. At the same time, we share a sense of calling and stewardship to be more strategic and effective in putting the resources we jointly represent to good use in Great Commission work not only in the South, but also throughout North America, and the world.

In all of this, I think it is important to remember that we, in and of ourselves, are not, in any sense, the Body of Christ, either in the South, throughout the United States, or around the world. Neither do we officially represent all those who hold to Baptist distinctives within the confines of any of these geo-political boundaries. We are merely a group of like-minded local churches, who have come together to cooperate with each other in Great Commission ministry.

Some have suggested that, while shedding the name “Southern,” it might be a good idea to replace it with something like “Global” or “World,” or “International.” While, indeed, as a group of cooperating churches, I think we need to have our eyes on the entire world, and we need to be more catholic (little c, not big C) in our fellowship with other believers, I think the inherent implications of such a name change may well create more new problems than it might solve. On the part of many Baptists around the world that already have their own Baptist unions and conventions, a new group called, for instance, the Global Baptist Alliance, could easily be perceived as the Globalizing Baptist Alliance. Especially, given our recent history with the Baptist World Alliance, such a move could easily be viewed by many as an attempt on our part to officially internationalize the SBC in-house conservative resurgence, and set up a competing alternative organization.

At the same time, the reality in world missions is that more and more of the sending force, both among Baptists and evangelicals in general, is coming from places outside of the United States. Some of the most effective mission work across the world is being carried out today on an international basis, with international teams of missionaries, and international sending partnerships that allow churches and believers with a comparatively greater pool of personnel resources and lesser pool of financial resources to cooperate with churches and believers with a comparatively greater pool of financial resources in a way that makes the best strategic use of all the resources they collectively represent.

If we are serious in our commitment to the Great Commission, this is a factor we must take into serious consideration. The truth of the matter is that we as Southern Baptists, by whatever name we choose to call ourselves, are not going to win the world for Christ or fulfill the Great Commission all by ourselves. We must seek out new and creative ways of partnering together with the rest of the Body of Christ around the world in order to see the Great Commission fulfilled both in North America and around the world. But this is complicated on several levels. We must be careful to avoid unhealthy dependency and anything that might discourage or undermine indigenous self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation.

Additionally, as a group of cooperating churches, it has made sense up till now for each church to send a group of messengers to come together physically once a year in order to make joint decisions. This one factor, in turn, has made it more practical to limit ourselves to hold annual meetings at places where it is relatively easy for the majority of participating churches to send messengers. It has also led us to do business primarily in one common language—the English language. Unless we come up with some other model for making joint decisions, these are some pretty important practical reasons for keeping the geographic confines of our grouping of churches within North America. But, at the same time, we must continue to remember that we do not represent all the Baptists in North America. We are only one particular group of Baptist churches who have come together to make an impact for in the Lord’s work, both throughout North America, as well as around the world.

For all of the above reasons, if we do end up deciding to change names, I personally would lean toward some name that doesn’t have either “Southern,” “American,” “North American,” “Global,” or “International” (or their cognates) in it. I think something more generic that doesn’t tie us to any particular geo-political boundary would be best. I also think it best to choose some name that doesn’t have a connotation of us looking at ourselves as anything more than one group (among many) of like-minded churches cooperating for the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

———————————————-

*Though I think it is good that “we” as rank-and-file Southern Baptists think about these issues, right now, I recognize it is more specifically the responsibility of the committee named by SBC president Bryant Wright (in a sense, unofficially representing the rest of us) to think through them and bring some sort of a report and recommendation, before we are all called to vote on any proposal at an official convention meeting, if indeed that ends up taking place.

**If there was more than one house church in Ephesus at the time of the events recorded in Acts 20, it appears that the group of elders called together by Paul did view themselves as exercising a joint eldership over the entire “city church” in Ephesus. Also, on the basis of Acts 9:31, it is possible to assume a regional confraternity of churches (or “one church”) throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria. And, there are regional groups of churches that were joint recipients of the same apostolic correspondence (i.e. Colossae/Laodicea—Col 4:16; the churches of Galatia—Gal 1:2; and the “seven churches” in Asia Minor—Rev 4:4). Also, several of the churches connected to the apostolic ministry of Paul cooperated together on a trans-local basis in sending an offering for the relief of the believers in Jerusalem who were suffering as a result of a localized famine.

How about Valera?

Of course, I’m referring to Cipriano de Valera. I’ve looked in vain for a decent and thorough biography of the man. Valera was a Spanish Reformer, following on the heels of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Unfortunately, the Reformation never caught on in Spain like it did in Germany, Switzerland, England, and elsewhere. As such, much of the history of Spanish Reformers has been neglected in modern works. The most mentioned Spaniards in these textbooks are Miguel de Villanueva (better known as Michael Servetus) and Carlos I of Spain (better known as Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor).

Despite a lack of emphasis on Spanish Reformers, they played their part in history. The Reina-Valera translation of the Bible stands as the most popular Spanish Bible translation today and has thus far succeeded against modern translations where the King James Version has not. Cipriano de Valera served as the Spanish translation’s chief editor after his good friend Casiodoro de Reina passed away.

Though I know relatively little and am still in pursuit of a descent biography, I felt it worth sharing what little I could find through GoogleBooks. A snippet from a relatively short biography directed me to a work written by Valera in 1594, A Treatise to Confirm the Captives of Barbary.

As I sought to find a quote the biographer refers to (“And pray for Spain”), I became enraptured with the last section of the treatise.

Suffering for Christ
The Barbary captives had suffered much opposition from both the Roman Catholics in Spain and from their captors, Muslim pirates along the Barbary Coast. Cipriano de Valera sought to encourage them in their plight to live out their faith and be faithful to Christ.

It reminds me of the language of Paul’s letters and Peter’s letters. Valera’s pen drips with Scripture. His language is both beautiful and surprisingly easy to translate. I’ve not found an English translation, so I translated it myself:

Be firm in the faith and in the midst of your intolerable labors; in your prisons and dungeons meditate on what you have read or heard from the Holy Scripture. Remember what your Redeemer suffered for you, leaving you an example so that you also might suffer for Him.

Be resolved in this (which will make your labors very easy): that what you suffer in this time for Christ does not compare nor pertains to the coming glory, which, by Christ, has been manifested to you. What you now suffer is temporal; at the end, the end, it has to end; but the glory that you hope to enjoy, and will enjoy, will be eternal, it will never ever end.

Invoke, then, the Lord, that He assist you and give you strength so that you would not only believe in Him, but that you would continuously endure for His name. It might be that the Lord wants to serve as your means to convert some of them who now persecute you.

I will conclude, then, my long argument with what Saint Paul, in Ephesians 6:5, says speaking with slaves and captives like you. “Slaves,” he says (or captives), “obey your masters according to the flesh with trembling and fear, with simplicity of your heart, as to Christ. Not serving the eye like those who please men but as slaves of Christ eagerly doing the will of God, serving the Lord with good will and not men. Being certain that the good that each one does will receive from the Lord, whether slave or free.”

Accept, my brothers, dearly beloved in the Lord, my good will to do some good and service to you: what I have been able to do I did; His Majesty will supply the rest.

Pray to the Father of mercies for His holy, catholic, and apostolic church, that He would preserve and guard it from the decretals of the Pope, the Talmud of the Jews, and the Quran of Mohammed. Pray for our Spain and principally for the king and for all those who have [charge over] the government of the republic, that God give them the grace to read and meditate on the Holy Scripture, without knowledge of which it is impossible for them (as by the same Scripture and by the ancient doctors we have already sufficiently covered) to do their duty, nor for their subjects to be well-governed in the true fear of God: pray also for me.

I am certain that God hears the prayers of the captives and the groans and sighs of the afflicted, which you are when you invoke Him “with faith and not doubting anything because the one who doubts,” as it says in James 1:6, “is like a wave of the sea that is tossed by the wind and is thrown one way and another. Certainly don’t think that such a man will receive anything from the Lord, etc.”

I truly remember you in my prayers, asking the Father of mercies to add to your faith, give you patience in your afflictions and captivity, make you firm in the confession of His name, and enrich you with His spiritual gifts, so that when the Lord comes to judge the living and the dead He might find you as such, having made you as such, saying: Come, blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

To the one who, with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns eternally, be glory and honor forever. Amen.

[translation, paragraphing, and minor punctuation edits mine]

Had the Reformation caught on in Spain I have no doubt that we would be reading his writings just as much as those of Calvin, Luther, and others. It is my hope that as more Hispanics come to faith in Christ they will develop a holy curiosity about their faith heritage. As they study and learn, they will write and share. And who knows? Perhaps in our day we may see the English speaking peoples introduced to these forgotten Reformers who were willing to lose everything for the sake of gaining Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Sources:
Boehmer, Edward & Benjamin B. Wiffen. (1904). Bibliotheca Wiffeniana: Spanish Reformers of Two Centuries from 1520. Karl J. Trübner: Strassburg. Google Books. Digitized May 15, 2008.

Cipriano de Valera. (1854). Tratado para Confirmar en la Fe Cristiana a los Cautivos de Berbería. Reformistas Antiguos Españoles, Tomo VIII. I.R. Baroja. Google Books. Digitized Jul 3, 2008.

Everyone needs a coach! Jesus coached his disciples, Paul coached Timothy, and the Great Commission encourages us to pass on our coaching to others. Every pastor and minister should have at least two mentors/coaches. These coaches should have a proven track record, and the authority to speak truth into your life. I once coached a football player who believed he was above and beyond all coaching. He had natural talent, but his attitude and lack of leadership eventually doomed the entire team. Supreme talent without direction is wasted talent. So don’t just have a few guys that check in with you once in a while, listen to the wisdom around you and adjust your behavior. The best athletes in the world still hire coaches. We need to be coachable too.

Fundamentals are essential! Vince Lombardi said that football was just two things: “blocking and tackling.” He meant that if your team can’t do those, it doesn’t matter what you can do. When Jesus summarized the commandments in Mark 12:30-31, he was saying “If you don’t love God with everything and love people, it doesn’t matter what religious tasks you accomplish.” John 13:34-35 carries a guarantee: the world will know we are Christians by our love for one another. It’s a matter of fundamentals.

Teamwork is everything! Coaching from the sideline, one of the best things to see in your opponent is disorganization. If your opponent is quarreling amongst themselves, or not prepared for the game at hand, beating them is much easier. Churches that specialize in quarreling have dry baptisteries. Christians—especially blogging Christians—who live to point out the faults in others segregate themselves from Kingdom blessings and expansion. 1 Corinthians 12 has a lot to say on this matter, but pay special attention to verses 25-27. The body of Christ needs to act more like a team.

Can you imagine the chaos of a team that has wide receivers catching with only one hand, a defense that tried to tackle by merely pushing people, and a quarterback who relied only on himself to perform so he never threw or handed off the football? (Dedicated football fans, insert joke here about your rivals or the Oakland Raiders, your choice). It would be a disaster. Our team has been entrusted with the life-altering task of representing Christ in a fallen world. We can’t afford disasters.

Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert’s upcoming release, What is the Mission of the Church?, is a significant, and, in my opinion, helpful contribution to the ongoing discussion of a very relevant and critical issue facing evangelicals today. They present their topic in rather dramatic terms:

“From many conversations in print, online, and in person our sense is that this whole issue of mission (along with related issues like kingdom, social justice, shalom, cultural mandate, and caring for the poor) is the most confusing, most discussed, most energizing, and most potentially divisive issue in the evangelical church today” (25).

In the midst of such controversy, it is worth noting that DeYoung, senior pastor of the University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, coauthor of a number of bestselling books, including Why We Love the Church, and popular blogger, and Gilbert, senior pastor of Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, author of What is the Gospel?, and regular contributor at the 9Marks e-Journal and blog, are working “together for the gospel” in this important transdenominational evangelical effort.

They are careful to clarify their lack of polemical intentions, and, for the most part, follow through with that objective: “We want to be positive in tone. We want to build up rather than tear down” (20); “We really don’t want this to be an us-against-them kind of book” (25). Though they freely admit to having a specific agenda, they make a special point to be balanced in the approach they take: “In correcting certain aspects of some missional thinking, we realize that missional thinking itself is striving to correct abuses of traditional missiology… The truth is that both sides have some important things to say to one another, and we should be careful in our mutual correction to not overcompensate” (23).

DeYoung and Gilbert are especially adamant that, while what they write is meant to correct certain contemporary understandings of what it means to be missional, they are NOT suggesting that we, as Christians, should be indifferent to suffering around us, think evangelism is the only thing that really matters, downplay or disparage the work of those who sacrifice and place themselves at risk to help the poor and disadvantaged, retreat into holy huddles, or quit being creative and courageous in our efforts to love our neighbors and impact our cities.

A lot of the implications of what DeYoung and Gilbert write can be summed up in the choice of language we use to describe our mission as Christians. Instead of “social justice,” they suggest it is better to speak of “loving your neighbor”; instead of “transforming the world,” it is better to speak of “faithful presence”; and instead of “building the kingdom,” it is better to speak of “living as citizens of the kingdom.”

Though the list of authors DeYoung and Gilbert cite as having read in preparation for writing What is the Mission of the Church? reads like a Who’s Who of evangelical theology and missiology, they appear to be responding especially to Christopher J. H. Wright, who, as a key leader in the Lausanne Movement, and close collaborator of the recently deceased John Stott, is one of the most influential figures in evangelical missions today.*

Though Wright is far from alone, either in the defense of his views, or in the crosshairs of DeYoung and Gilbert’s corrective, in much of the structure of the book, as well as in several specific references, What is the Mission of the Church? comes across as the “anti-Wright.” Here are a few choice examples:

Wright: “Everything a Christian and a Christian church is, says, and does should be missional in its conscious participation in the mission of God in God’s world” (The Mission of God’s People, 26).

DeYoung and Gilbert: “Some of what we want to correct is an overexpansive definition that understands mission to be just about every good thing a Christian could do as a partner with God in his mission to redeem the whole world” (20).

Wright: When seeking to understand the mission of God, and consequently that of the church, we must start with the grand narrative of the entire Bible, especially the Old Testament, which sets the backdrop for everything else.

DeYoung and Gilbert: “It makes sense that we would look to the New Testament more than the Old for a theology of mission” (42); “The way to understand the Bible’s story from beginning to end is actually to start at the middle, with the death and resurrection of Jesus” (68).

Wright (in the words of DeYoung and Gilbert): “Our understanding of redemption, of the gospel, and of the mission of the church should be ‘exodus-shaped.’ In other words, because the exodus from Egypt had political, social, and economic components, we must understand the gospel, redemption, and our mission to have political, social, and economic components as well” (79).

DeYoung and Gilbert: “When the New Testament talks about the exodus as a type of salvation, what it focuses on is not at all its political and economic aspects, but rather the picture it provided of the spiritual salvation God was bringing about” (80).

Wright (and Stott): Evangelism and social action are full partners in Christian mission.

DeYoung and Gilbert: “We are concerned that in all our passion for renewing the city or tackling social problems, we run the risk of marginalizing the one thing that makes Christian mission Christian: namely, making disciples of Jesus Christ” (22); “We want to make sure the gospel … is of first importance in our churches” (22).

Wright: Creation care and the corresponding “cultural mandate” are an essential part of God’s task for all mankind, and particularly for us as Christians.

DeYoung and Gilbert: “When God exiles Adam from Eden, it is not with a commission to continue the work of building the world into a God-glorifying, cultivated paradise” (75); “The story is not about us working with God to make the world right again. It’s about God’s work to make us right so we can live with him again” (89); “Paul does not say individuals will be redeemed as the whole universe is redeemed. He says the opposite… We are not called to bring a broken planet back to its created glory. But we are to call broken people back to their Creator” (248).

The bulk of DeYoung and Gilbert’s text is comprised of careful exegesis of relevant biblical texts. For the most part, their argument is straightforward, well-reasoned, and convincing. They are balanced in their treatment of Scripture, honestly recognizing the tension between differing emphases in different passages.

The most helpful part of all, for me, was the treatment given to our understanding, as evangelicals, of the gospel. As DeYoung and Gilbert insightfully observe, “In many ways evangelicals seem to be talking past one another on this question of what the gospel is” (92). There is good reason for this mutual misunderstanding. A careful and honest examination of Scripture reveals two evident emphases: the wide-lens perspective of the gospel as “the good news that God is going to remake the world, and that Jesus Christ—through his death and resurrection—is the down payment on that transformation and renewal” (i.e. the “gospel of the kingdom”); and the zoom-lens perspective of the gospel as “the good news that God has acted to save sinners through the death of Jesus in their place and his subsequent resurrection” (i.e. the “gospel of the cross”).

The key insight of DeYoung and Gilbert is that it is not a question of “either/or” or “both/and.” Both perspectives are undeniably biblical and, therefore, true. But they are not “equal partners” as Stott, Wright, et al, would have us believe. They are rather two perspectives of the same gospel, with one at the very core, and the other extending further to include the broader implications: “The gospel of the kingdom necessarily includes the gospel of the cross” (107), and, if it doesn’t, it is not truly the gospel; “Perhaps … it would be more accurate … to speak of the gospel of the cross and the gospel of the kingdom through the cross” (108).

When thinking of the kingdom of God, DeYoung and Gilbert are also helpful in reminding us of the hermeneutical grid of an “already, but not yet” eschatology, on which they claim there is practically an evangelical consensus, although it is not always consistently carried through in its implications: “If it is true that the kingdom will be fully established only when Jesus returns, it is equally true that it will be established by his hand alone” (131); “The primary task of Christians in this age, with reference to the kingdom, is not to build it or establish it or even to build for it, but rather to be witnesses to this representing, suffering, forgiving King” (138).

One unfortunate digression is the six pages in the middle of the book given over to a defense of one particular approach to economics (in broad strokes, laissez-faire “trickle-down” capitalism vis-à-vis Keynesianism). While successfully demonstrating that Keynesian economics should not be confused with the gospel, dedicating that amount of space to defend a rival economic theory weakens the overall thesis that the gospel is not about theories of economics, but spiritual salvation and discipleship.

DeYoung and Gilbert confess their better instincts on this: “We realize that few people picked up this book hoping for a primer on economics…” (186); “We may not all agree on what economic policy is best (because these matters require prudential judgments on which Christians can legitimately differ)…”(190). While they may well be right (or wrong) on their personal view of economics, it would have been best to have left economic theories for another book on that particular topic, rather than making this one, which purports to be about mission and the gospel, also about economics. While they successfully (in my opinion) show why liberal politics and economics are not the gospel nor the biblical mission of the church, it would have been more helpful to their overall cause to also point out how conservative politics and economics are not the gospel or mission of the church either. Unfortunately, they chose not to go there.

All in all, however, I am very happy for the publication of this important book. Even if you don’t completely agree with DeYoung and Gilbert’s overall thesis, you will definitely want to read this valuable contribution in order to keep abreast of the ongoing discussion on this vital subject.

—————————–

* See Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers  Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006); The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010); John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1975).

As I think about the hard work and the perseverance though, I want to stop and count the costs.  Sam has worked with us for eight years.  He has changed a lot!  We have together strategized about evangelism and prayer, and church planting.  He spends between three and five days a week away from his wife and five young children as he goes down to the villages where we work.  There is a cost to him and his family and they all gladly pay it for the love of the Father.

I have paid a price as well. It is not easy being here.  Our standard of living isn’t great and it doesn’t help to face ungrateful government officials or thankless, resistant people.  We have never doubted the price we have paid together as a family until this year.  I have two girls in college in the US.  One is on the East Coast and is doing great.  The other just failed half her classes, has no friends within 500 miles and has spent the entire summer depressed out of her mind with no job, no where to go, and no one to help.  My wife and I have wept buckets.  Praise God our daughter managed to get enrolled back  into school and seems to be back on track but the whole situation is pretty shaky.  I know, I know, I can hear you from here.  Why don’t we leave?  Why don’t we take care of our daughter?  Who will look after her if we don’t?  Isn’t this our responsibility?  Yeah, it is.  And those baptisms would not have happened if we had left.  We counted the costs.  We hate the costs but they are what they are.  We have paid the price and all I can tell you is that we go on home leave this November and we are very much looking forward to Christmas with the WHOLE family again.

You have paid a price.  Did you know that?  You who give to the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon pay the roughly $40,000 it takes to fund me.  You pay a further $60,000 to fund our office which provides a humanitarian aid platform for 25 adults in this country.  You who give to Baptist Global Response- or the Hunger Offering- or the Human Needs fund have provided us with the $20,000 per year it has taken to run our well program.  You have counted the costs and paid.  We complain about the efficiency of the Cooperative Program and the SBC in general but the costs do go to something tangible: seven new brothers and sisters just last Wednesday.  Thank you.

Our God has paid a price.  He sent His Son Jesus to a lost world who did not ask for His help.  Jesus died at our own hands so that we could live.  He counted the costs and paid the price.  To some of you the costs I have listed seem pretty high.  Yes, we sometimes pray the prayer that Jesus prayed in the Garden and ask if there is not some other way.  There are any number of strategies, any number of methods, any number of ways.  But the only way to see lost souls come to faith is to count the cost and pay the price.  All I can say is that it is worth it.