Posted: 9/5/03
TEXAS BAPTIST FORUM:
Judicial activism
I've noticed in the media coverage of Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments travail in Alabama a constitutional “sleight of hand” being performed by pundits before an unsuspecting public.
Those opposed to the judge's display of the Ten Commandments have cleverly substituted the phrase “state endorsement of religion” for “state establishment of religion.” Moore's 5,000-pound monument represents the “endorsement of a specific religion” we are told.
So what? Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing, preferring or even supporting with tax dollars a particular religion, just as President Thomas Jefferson–the father of the phrase “separation of church and state”–did when he requested funds from Congress to support Christian missionaries to the Kaskaskia Indians.
The First Amendment to the Constitution only prohibits “Congress” from making a “law” regarding the “establishment” of a state religion such as our forefathers experienced. Period.
Moore is not a congressman and has no power to establish a state religion.
The Alabama controversy is just one more example of judicial activism run amuck. By creating an imaginary right for citizens to be shielded from any type of religious expression in the public square (we had better get to work sandblasting the phrase “Praise be to God” from atop the Washington Monument), the courts are taking away the very real constitutional right the 10th Amendment grants us for protection from federal imperialists like federal Judge Myron Thompson.
Robert Jeffress
Wichita Falls
Balancing principles
Judge Roy Moore has created a stir. Who is right? The answer is somewhere in-between.
In most conflicts, there is more than one principle involved. That is true here.
Yes, we want to avoid constraining others to the altar. God himself does not. No, we should not let anyone stop us from telling others of our Savior. Yes, we want to maintain “law and order.” No, we do not want to mar Martin Luther King's example of civil disobedience.
How are we supposed to do the calculus to resolve these issues? “Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind.” God is actually less concerned whether Moore keeps the statue in the courthouse than he is that all of us do our best to figure out the best answer we can and act accordingly. God is well able to take things from there.
Here is the ultimate point: “Do not judge your brother, because to God he stands or falls.”
Argue with passion, but don't forget saints can differ and yet maintain fellowship with each other. As with meat offered to idols, I submit keeping the Ten Commandments posted in the Alabama courthouse falls in that category.
Thomas F. Harkins Jr.
Fort Worth
Marital equality
Christian duty demands a response to Jimmy Stanfield's assertion that Christ did not teach equality (Aug. 25).
We are clearly taught that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. Certainly that means all are equal and capable of fulfilling any role to which they are called by God.
Those who would demand women submit to their husbands without imposing a similar duty upon the husband implicitly suggest a man has free reign over his wife and thus support an unjust, un-Christian slave system.
The Apostle Paul instructs us to submit to each other (Ephesians 5:21) and follows that with explicit instructions to the covenanting marriage partners. Wives submit to their husbands, and husbands love their wives.
What does love require? An uncoerced self-sacrifice of or subordination of one's own will to the good of the other without concern for self. What does submission demand? Certainly not subjugation but rather a free surrender of one's will to the good of the other without regard for self-interests.
Submission and love, therefore, are synonymous, and man and wife are thus equal partners in marriage. Each partner has different duties and responsibilities, but they both are commanded to love each other equally and exclusively and to mutually serve each other for as long as they both shall live.
Kevin T. Holton
Waco
Women & silence
Melissa Crawford quotes a phrase from 2 Timothy 2:12 where Paul tells Titus that he “does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent” (Aug. 11). She contrasts the “I do not allow” with “thus saith the Lord.”
If that were the only place that the issue were raised, then she may have a point. But consider: “As in all congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the church. They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husband at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only one it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am saying is the Lord's command. If (she) ignores this then (she herself) will be ignored” (1 Corinthians 14:33b-38).
Burt Bull
Kingsville
Science & religion
For once, there is a mutual interest shared by good science and good religion. The State Board of Education will hear final presentations on new biology textbooks Sept. 10. These will frame the understanding of evolution our children are taught for the next six years.
Texans for Better Science Education will advocate complete and open teaching of evolution by correcting factual errors in texts and covering both the strengths and weaknesses of theories. Fortunately, Texas law requires this. We will present a petition already signed by thousands of Texans.
Evolution supporters are mounting a campaign of censorship to retain errors implying science explains the origin of life from natural causes. That means no action of a Creator. New understanding makes clear that science has not established this.
Standard readers can register their support for getting their children's biology texts brought up to date. Sign the TBSE petition at www.strengthsandweaknesses.org.
Ide Trotter
Duncanville
Baylor together
I am not a Baylor man. In fact, my most sacrificial experience with Baylor is the tuition I pay for my two children. I love the institution that I attended, Georgia Tech, because it produced a community that all graduates celebrate.
But I also have developed a love for Baylor. The vision that Robert Sloan has developed is a prime reason for my attachment. Why not the world's premier evangelical institution of unparalleled learning? Sounds like something the founders of Baylor would have been excited about.
I know Robert Sloan. He is a good man, Christian gentleman and evangelical scholar who loves the Lord. If he has made some mistakes, he is not alone. Most ministers, university professors and church members also have made our share.
But I believe President Sloan is a man we can all unify around. He has Baylor and the kingdom of God at his heart.
As an outsider looking in, I would like to say to the Baylor family that now is the time to join together, not shoot at each other, because only the evil one wins when that occurs.
By the way, isn't there something I have heard about a “Good Ol' Baylor Line”?
Jim Haskell
Georgetown
Poor leadership
In telling me recently his pastor had resigned, a friend also related: “In all of his years with us, he never dragged us into this denominational mess. He never mentioned it from the pulpit.”
Texas Baptists are a missions-minded people. The channel for most of them since 1925 has been the Cooperative Program, which, in all its forms, supports missions statewide, nationally and overseas. For the sake of the thrust of this letter, let's ignore the fact that the (new) Southern Baptist Convention, which has responsibility for the national and overseas portion, bears little resemblance to the pre-1979 convention.
Most Baptist churches are challenged to support the Cooperative Program. Although in many the percentage is declining, most still give a significant percentage of their income through the CP to support those mission endeavors.
It is poor stewardship of the office of the pastor and poor leadership to on one hand challenge a church to support missions endeavors through the Cooperative Program and on the other ignore the new philosophy behind missions programs that has taken root since 1979 and how it became entrenched.
Toby Druin
Waxahachie
No sheepdogs
In “Hearing God,” Dallas Willard presents two sentences that answer the Baptist dilemma today.
First, he writes, “To manipulate, drive or manage people is not the same thing as to lead them.”
Second, he quotes C.H. Spurgeon, “I would sooner be the leader of six free men, whose enthusiastic love is my only power over them, than play the director to a score of enslaved nations.”
Maybe it is time for all sections of Baptists to pray that the Lord of the harvest would send us shepherds rather than sheepdogs.
Marvel G. Upton
Sacramento, Calif.
God's truth
Jerry Barker wrote, “God has miraculously supplied us with the Bible in exactly the form and using exactly the words that he wants us to have at this moment in time” (Aug. 11). I believe this statement just as surely as I believe that God exists. However, the words on paper do not become truth until they are “hid in the hearts” of those who believe and trust in God.
God's truth comes to us through his creation; the words of Moses and the prophets; his Son, the Living Word; and the words of the apostles and other inspired New Testament writers.
We can know all truth as the Holy Spirit brings it to our remembrance. We must seek all possible help through prayer and the teachings of godly pastors and teachers. God's truth is ultimately revealed when it becomes evident in the lives of Christians.
James M. Skipper
Pearland
God forgets
When one of my preacher friends announced one Sunday that he'd be preaching on “Five Things that God Doesn't Know,” it caused the immediate departure of some scandalized saints. And I'm sure some might depart on a sermon titled “What God Doesn't Remember,” too.
God has a good memory. He remembers the times we've thought on his name (Malachi 3:15). He remembered the thief on the cross, his covenant with his people, and that we're in the Lamb's Book of Life. He even has the hairs on our heads numbered (Matthew 10:30).
But even though he is an omniscient God, there's something he promised never to remember–our forgiven sins.
Doug Fincher
San Augustine
Defense of Piper
In response to the question, “Did Christ die for us or for God?” Roger Olson (Aug. 25) is certainly correct to answer “both/and,” not “either/or.” Christ died for the glory of God and for the love of his people. But Olson is incorrect to suggest that John Piper denies this.
A search on the DesiringGod.org website shows that Piper has written, “The death of Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of divine love” (Romans 5:8); that becoming a Christian is first asking the question, “Am I persuaded that Christ died for me and I died in him?” and then answering, “Yes, from the heart”; that a key component to spiritual warfare is saying to Satan, “Christ died for me. Christ was raised from the dead for me”; and that the phrase “in his blood” (Romans 3:25) “is precious because it means that Christ died for me.” The examples could be multiplied.
In fact, before this article was published, Piper responded to an inquiry from Olson regarding these “reports from youthful listeners.”
Piper responded that he has always said “yes” to the question of whether Christ died for us. But if he had ever denied it, he would need to repent or explain that he means, “Christ did not die for us in the way he died for God, and Christ died for God to deal with the greatest problem so that he could then deal justly with our problem.”
In response to Olson's criticism that Piper did not mention love as one of God's attributes on display in the magnification of his glory, Piper pointed out that he speaks about the love of God at almost every place that he goes.
Piper thanked Olson for the heads up about how his message was being heard, promised to take this into account as he crafted his messages and indicated that he didn't want to be misunderstood or biblically unbalanced.
Therefore, it is certainly disappointing that Olson would perpetuate this misunderstanding in print, implying that Piper denies the “both/and,” and saying that “the God proclaimed by John Piper” is “aloof and self-absorbed.”
In fact, Piper loves to stress the paradoxes of God's majesty and intimacy, terror and tenderness, severity and sweetness. “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: 'I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.'”
Justin Taylor
Executive editor
Desiring God Ministries
Minneapolis
Correction
I apologize to the admirers and heirs of J.B. Phillips, who, rather than Paul Little, wrote “Your God is Too Small” (Aug. 25).
Thanks to the perceptive readers who caught the mistake and urged its correction.
Roger E. Olson
Waco
Fine response
The editorial on homosexuality (Aug. 11) is the finest Christian response to the challenging situation of homosexuality that I can remember ever reading.
No alarmist talk about “the demise of civilization”; no rose-colored glasses optimism; no separation of people (who are all sinners) into categories of good and bad. Common sense based on Christian love and God’s revelation.
Dick Garrett
Fort Worth
Question not productive
I appreciate the main point of Roger Olson’s article: we must not emphasize one aspect of God’s character over another (Aug. 25). I also grant to Olson that the writings and preaching of John Piper may be lacking in multiple references to God’s love.
However, asking ourselves the question, “Is your God too big?” is not a productive one. In order to gain the interest of people in our culture, we often emphasize warm, inviting aspects of God’s character, such as his mercy and kindness. In time, our churches lose sense of the majesty of the God whose “greatness no one can fathom” and the one who has earth as his footstool (Psalm 145:3; Isaiah 66:1).
Olson closes his article by saying an overemphasis of the glory of God makes God seem impersonal and aloof. Surely God was not aloof when he revealed the depth of his glory to Moses in Exodus 33 or when Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted up in Isaiah 6.
God’s promotion of his glory is the most loving thing he can do for his creatures. By doing so, God gives us what we most need—himself.
I have found Piper’s emphasis on God’s renown refreshing and utterly helpful. Though Olson’s point is well taken, some of his conclusions can be dangerous to a church that desperately needs to “ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name” (Psalm 29:2).
Cliff Lea
Corpus Christi
Teach the Commandments
We need to make a stand for God and his Son, Jesus.
You have heard of the removal of the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama. My plea is to teach these commandment’s to our children. We cannot let the devil take over without a stand for our Lord. The devil cannot win, and neither will the “dark side.”
What will happen next? Are they going to take “God” out of “God Bless America”? They say they are trying to “seperate” state and church. But what are they really trying to do?
Please pray that God will triumph.
If we go on preaching the Ten Commandments, Satan will have lost. The more this word is spread,through the church,the sadder Satan become’s.
Zola Lee
New Albany, Ind.
Paul chose word deliberately
Jimmy Stanfield writes, “How sad that some are so blinded by worldly ideals that they would undercut the authority of the apostles” (Aug. 25). I did not sense Melissa Crawford was in any way attempting to undercut the authority of the Apostle Paul in her letter (Aug. 11). I would hasten to say, “How sad that some are so blinded by traditional teachings and faulty interpretations of Scripture that they would undercut the actual teachings and writings of the apostles.”
Alluding to Ephesians 5:23, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church …” as justification that “Christ does not teach equality,” Stanfield does what too many people do. He interprets a small section of Scripture by a paradigm he has already configured for himself rather than taking into consideration what Scripture, as a whole, teaches about a subject.
For the record, Paul deliberately chooses the word “kephale” for “head,” a word that was never used to mean “boss” or “chief” or “ruler,” but, instead, meant “head” as in a person’s physical head, but also a military term, as in “one who leads,” in the sense of being the first into battle.
And don’t forget Paul also writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,” but all are “one in Christ Jesus,” (Galations 3:28, 29) and “co-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:14).
Pamm Muzslay
El Lago
We are to stand for truth
Women preachers and homosexuals confused! Listening to the “angel of light” instead of the word (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) ? Women again taking the bait—apple—and man right behind. Now homosexual preachers, and marriage being approved (Leviticus 18:22-30)!
Don’t be ashamed of the word, asserting, agreeing to issues such as “women should have the right to be pastors,” just because not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings or be politically correct. Jesus was very blunt, as was John, Peter and Paul presenting the Word.
We are to stand for truth, not error that infiltrates our churches, our thoughts. If the thought and/or practice disagree with the word, then it is wrong.
Marriage in God’s sight is when the virgin comes together with a husband, as she was made to bear children (1 Timothy 2:11-15). Paul’s point is the body can only have one head (she forfeited her chance), and the man is to preach (he fell because of love, not lust), and is held accountable for the fall, and now responsible for spreading the word. If not, there would have been no need for her to be a partner, but a slave, or just a playmate.
Case in point to prove this is that of a homosexual. If a homosexual should be saved, his (or her) “playmate” cannot be automatically saved, as the male/female relationship of marriage for becoming one cannot be attained. Acts 16:31 agrees with 1 Corinthians 7:14. Virgins, singles come on their own. All can be in Christ.
James Parks
Dallas
What do you think? Submit letters for Texas Baptist Forum via e-mail to marvknox@baptiststandard.com or regular mail at Box 660267, Dallas 75266-0267. Letters may be edited to accommodate space.
News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.