Baptist Theology in American Culture

The "Weaning" Process of American Faith

I have been weaning my mother goat from her kids. It is a process that is emotionally painful for both mother and kids. It is at least for them what they instinctively feel is unnatural. The kids want the milk and the mother wants to give it to them. Goats are heard animals and carry in their genes a high level of (emotional) dependence upon the whole.

It has set me to thinking about the separation of a parent from his or her children. The child sees it as natural and normal to wean from the care of their parents. But I don't think a parent ever gets fully weaned from their children. I am not even sure it is really God's will for them to be "weaned" in the sense that American culture insists upon. The American family, and especially the Christian family in America, would be much better off if family members not only loved each other but stayed physically together through generations. The American model of moving families around the continent has served to disband the fabric of family and effectively kill the faith of their fathers within one or two generations.

In much the same way American Christianity accepts a sort of weaning of its offspring that is unhealthy to the cause of Christ. I have, for instance, several men who have been trained under me in the ministry but believe they have outgrown me and my doctrine. Though they seem perfectly comfortable with the separation that is the result of their adventures into doctrines and practices I preach and taught them against, I still pine for them in a fashion similar to my emptiness for my children. My sons in the faith have forgotten me, but I cannot forget them.

And this laissez-faire attitude towards making their own way at the abandon of that which I preached contributes to the downhill slide of true faith. They think they have found something I (and preachers like me) were not aware of. In fact what they have found is the error we stood opposed to. And rather than humbling themselves and submitting to their fathers in the faith, they have let slip those things we hold so dear.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Bible Wines

Dr. Rick Shrader has written a piece in response to John Macarthur's article, written to the Young, Restless and Reformed crowd warning them against encouraging the drinking of alcoholic wine. Dr. Shrader's piece is researched, balanced and scholarly. I would recommend you read it here.

Bible Wines

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Spirit Filled?

The new group in the spiritual scene is now classified as the young, restless and reformed. This group of new preachers seem to be building the fastest growing churches now in America on the concept of being "socially liberal but theologically conservative."
Now enter John MacArthur. He would be the last one to be considered young and restless. But his theology, it seems to me, has been applauded by this new group. Until now.

In an effort to perhaps mentor this young, restless and reformed group MacArthur has written a series of blogs warning of some of their weaknesses. MacArthur is not so socially liberal as the new young group. Recently he wrote to warn them concerning their fondness of alcoholic beverages. I first heard of this through a friend who had attended a Driscoll conference in Seattle. During a break, my friend said Driscoll encouraged the attendees to have lunch at a nearby bar and to be sure to buy someone in the bar a beer.

Back to MacArthur. In response to his blog, numerous of the "YRR" crowd has blogged back. And not in repentance. One, who has just finished a book entitled, Spirit Filled, which suggests to be about the biblical reasons drinking is not sinful, wrote back in scathing words. He said that MacArthur's audience is "mostly graying, mostly fundamentalists and mostly Baptists." This YRR preacher was apparently in diapers when MacArthur made his statements about the blood of Christ and it's efficacy in atonement. Fundamental Baptists wrote MacArthur off way back then. His following is certainly not Fundamentalists and most certainly not fundamental Baptists.

However, when Baptist preachers did react to MacArthur's statements on the blood, though sone reacted without having all the facts, and I am sure many reacted aggressively in their own forums, to my recollection, none wrote with the flippant and rebellious attitude of the author of "Spirit Filled." There is an arrogance and pride in this young crowd that is as destructive and dangerous as anything I have seen in my years of the ministry. Little to nothing is sacred to this group. They have rebelled against their mentors. They have rejected the faith of their fathers. They have spurned the counsel of their elders.

May God open their eyes to repent and return.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Terrifying Fundamentalism

I was with a young pastor a week or so ago. His church is meeting in a building that has had three different church denominations in it previous to him. Although his is the fourth church to use the building, he has been there three years, and the Nazarenes who built the building have been was more than 30 years ago, to this day he says people will say "Oh, you are the Nazarene Church."

It just reminds me that people are not particular about their labels. To most people, a church is a church is a church.

The same goes with distinctions, the distinction of fundamentalism for instance. I realize that there is a multiplicity of fundamentalist organizations.
• Fundamentalist Jews
• Fundamentalist Islam and
• Fundamentalist Christianity
In fact, within Fundamentalist Christianity there is a multiplicity of divisions.

Marc Adler's article in Splice Today entitled, The Terrifying Christian Right, is written from the perspective on one who lumps all that anyone has ever labeled fundamentalist into the same inaccurate heap. Adler's article lumps Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Baptists in the very same camp as being dominionists.
• Dominionists are not Fundamentalists
• Evangelicals are not Fundamentalists for that matter
• True Baptists are not Fundamentalists

That there is a theological perspective called dominion theology is a fact. That dominion theology is dangerous, I will agree. That Baptists, along with evangelicals and fundamentalists have been misled into embracing dominion theology is an unfortunate truth. But to categorize everyone who believes the Bible to be the Bible to advocate dominion theology is inaccurate.

Fundamentalism has its problems to be sure. But let's be careful of our terminology. Bible believing Baptist people are not trying to take over the world. We do not want the media to proclaim the Good News, we are not asking women to stay and home and we certainly do not want to silence all voices but the Christian one.

We just want to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience.
We want the freedom to use the spoken and written word to persuade others toward our position and
We expect the Lord of Heaven to be glorified shortly

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

It's Not Doing or Even Being, but Believing

I met with a young pastor last week who related the following account to me. He said that when they first began the church he now pastors, he held a series of lessons exposing the doctrinal positions of various religious groups and Christian denominations. As a part of this series of lessons, he had gathered literature from each of those denominations he was teaching about so people cold see what these groups themselves circulated, and not just what he said about them.

It happened that a visitor came to the services the night he was addressing this visitors own denominational background. Having a packet of material in his hands from his own denomination he told the pastor, "I have gone to that church all my life and never knew this is what we believe."

It is not impossible for a person to attend almost any sort of church for a lifetime without knowing what the church actually believes. It is because many churches focus all attention on what they are doing, not on what they believe. Most independent Baptists are every bit as guilty of this as some other group. Too often the focus of our efforts to get people into our church has to do with highlighting our various ministries;
• What we can do for your children
• How we minister to the family
• The type of music program we feature
• The activites the teens are part of
• Etc.

Often times the pulpit is no more specific concerning what the church actually professes to believe. The pastor careful crafts his messages in such a way that he feels he is helpful to the congregation without hitting on points of doctrine that might come into conflict with a person's core beliefs.

Frankly, most churches today conduct themselves in such a way that a lost person could attend faithfully and never come into conflict with the message of the church.

That brings me to my consideration today. So far as a spiritual things are concerned, it is not nearly as imprtant what we do or even what we are as it is what we believe.

There are plenty of do gooder societies in our world.
And they do good things. I will not contest that. I will just say that the church of Jesus Christ has been given a different commission that good deeds.

There are plenty of people who are very good men
Benjamin Franklin, I have no doubt was a good man. Though in his early years, it sounds like he might have been a scoundrel, as he matured he developed a passion for the good and moral. His efforts to benefit his country, his community and even his world are legendary. Franklin, for instance, refused to be compensated for his design of the Franklin Fireplace, believing that something with som much potential for good belonged to the people and it would be improper for him to be paid for making it available.
But Franklin was also obviously unsaved. Though the evangelist George Whitefield had stayed in his home and Franklin had heard his sermons and printed his papers, Franklin rejected the message of the preacher. As good of a man as Franklin was, he is in hell today (unless he believed later in life and it was never reported.)

The one work that God has given the local church is the work of faith.
It is our duty to reach out to all mankind, not merely to get them to attend our congregations and convert them to our way of life. We are disseminators of faith, of doctrine. So far as the church of Jesus Christ is concerned, it is
• Not what we do
• Nor even what we are
• It is what we believe
that matters.

Sunday

I had a conversation with my oldest son this week. Bohannan is a pastor of a smaller sized church and must work a full time job to care for his family as well as for the ministry in which the Lord has placed him. This week an extended family member made an expectation of Bohannan and expected that Bohannan would meet that expectation, as Bo said to me, "On Sunday."

For Bohannan, as well as for me, Sunday is a different sort of day than the rest of the week. We hold it as sacred and hallowed. Things that would be perfectly acceptable any other day of the week are just not; come Sunday. It is a day for God. Sure, we eat meals, care for our pets, enjoy family time and many other things like that on Sundays. But Sunday is not a day for traveling - unless that travel is ministry related. Camping or fishing and hunting and other forms of entertainment take on a different hue. It is Sunday.

Centuries ago, when Baptist churches first found the freedom to worship without fear of persecution, Sundays were given to worship and ministry. After morning worship the members of the congregation were encouraged to devote the afternoon to ministering to the needs of orphans, evangelization of their neighbors, and even educating children in reading, writing and arithmetic. The day was treated wholly different than other days.

Sunday is not the New Testament Sabbath. We are not bound to observe it under the same laws as the Old Testament Jews did the seventh day of the week. But this does not mean we treat the day as profane. It is not.

It is Sunday.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Man of God

"Our people need a God-besotted man. Even if they criticize the fact that you are not available at the dinner on Saturday night because you must be with God, they need at least one man in their life who is radically and totally focused on God and the pursuit of the knowledge of God, and the ministry of the word of God.
How many people in your churches do you know that are laboring to know God, who are striving earnestly in study and prayer to enlarge their vision of God. Precious few.…")*

1 Timothy 6:11 KJV
But thou, O man of God ….

Over the years, as my relationship to the Lord has (I trust) grown, that which I would like to be known by has changed. Yea, even the concept of being known has changed for me because today I have no real desire to be known at all, but rather be completely unknown in Christ.

Early on I preferred the title, Pastor
I remember struggling in my early pastorate attempting to get people to call me by this name. While it is still the most common name my congregation address me by, I seldom introduce myself with that moniker any more.

Pastor is a title of office. I am convinced that the members of a church ought to respect this office. I just do not believe I must be identified with the title so much any more. I do, after all, still have the office.

My tastes fairly rapidly added to that title that of Preacher
This is can be considered a term of affection. When a church member calls me preacher they generally do so because I have progressed in their mind from one holding the official roll over them to one that has the emotional ministry to them.

The term preacher might also mark a degree of achievement in the ministry. If a pastor has developed skills in the pulpit so that his preaching is easier to listen to, e might be called preacher. If he has attained some level of skill in expositing the Bible and it is recognized by a congregation, the term preacher might be a reflection of that skill.

The term, Reverend, has never been a coveted title to me
However, under certain circumstances I have come to appreciate that title and even an occasional "Padre." I served as volunteer chaplain for the Astoria Police Department for several years. In that position, various officers referred to me addressed me as "Rev" or "Padre." I accepted those designations as gestures of warmth and was pleased to be addressed by them in those terms.

At one time I thought I liked to be addressed as Doctor.

When serving at Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College and then Heartland Baptist Bible College, it seemed important that students and staff address me with that title as a reminder of the educational atmosphere we were in.

While I have earned degrees, they are not accredited by the world's standards and mean very little other than that I did benefit from those studies necessary to attain said degrees.

I am no longer interested in titles.

Mom and Dad named me Marvin. I am happy with that. I don't even really have to have the Christian "Brother" before it.

But I do have a goal to pursue yet, not for a name, but for a quality. I long to be a man of God. Not merely a man of the book, or a man of the church. I recognize that I must be each of those to be a man of God. But I want to be a man of God. I want to be one who is wholly and completely devoted to God. I want to come to the place where my congregation recognizes me, not only as faithful to my responsibilities as a pastor, and not merely as skillful in my duties as a preacher; I want my congregation to see in me a man "who is radically and totally focused on God and the pursuit of the knowledge of God."