Why We Should Positively Teach the Gospel Rather than Engage in Polemics with Gusto

I recently came across a blog post written by Tim Keller on his City to City Blog that spoke to my heart. The application for me and my ministry is clear, and I thought I would pass it on to see if it was as helpful to others. Tim wrote ....

D.M. Lloyd-Jones once had a memorable encounter with T.T. Shields, the pastor of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto, and a leading defender of orthodoxy against the growing liberal theology of the churches in Canada. Shields regularly attacked other church leaders in both his preaching and his writings. Lloyd-Jones shared virtually the identical theological positions with Shields, but he believed "'that the Baptist leader (Shields) was sometimes too controversial, too denunciatory and too censorious.' Rather than helping young Christians by the strength of his polemics against liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics, Lloyd-Jones believed that Shields was losing the opportunity to influence those whose first need is positive teaching.” (I. Murray, D.M. Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years, p.271). We should recall that Lloyd-Jones was quite willing to engage in polemics himself. He and John Stott clashed publicly over whether evangelicals should remain in the Church of England. (Lloyd-Jones said they should not.) And yet Lloyd-Jones opposed making polemics a major part of one’s ministry, and challenged Shields.

In their meeting, Shields asked Lloyd-Jones if he enjoyed reading the works of another contemporary defender of orthodoxy. Lloyd-Jones said that he seldom read the author, because, “he doesn’t help me spiritually.” Shields responded: “Surely you are helped by the way he makes mincemeat of the liberals?” Lloyd-Jones responded: “You can make mincemeat of the liberals and still be in trouble in your own soul.” This touched off an extended debate. At one point Shields said that he was only doing what Paul did to Peter—contradicting and opposing him. Lloyd-Jones responded “The effect of what Paul did was to win Peter round to his position and make him call him ‘our beloved brother Paul’ [2 Peter 3:15]. Can you say the same about the people whom you attack?” For this Shields had no answer. The simple fact was that his polemics were really designed simply to stigmatize and marginalize his opponents, not persuade them. Suddenly the younger Lloyd-Jones appealed to Shields in a bold way. In the 1920s, Shields had expected an appointment to McMaster University, but theological liberals blocked it. Lloyd-Jones pointed out that from that time it had changed the tone of his ministry. “Dr Shields, you used to be known as the Canadian Spurgeon, and you were…but over this McMaster University business in the early twenties you suddenly changed and became negative and denunciatory. I feel it has ruined your ministry. Why don’t you come back! Drop all this, preach the gospel to people positively and win them!” (Murray, p.273)

On the lips of someone else, this could be seen as an appeal to “just preach Jesus” and not care about sound doctrine. But it is hard to accuse Lloyd-Jones of that. Rather, Lloyd-Jones was standing in the tradition of Gillespie and Alexander. Polemics is medicine, not food. Without medicine we will surely die—we can’t live without it. This is why “polemical theology’ must be a required part of every theological curriculum. Yet we cannot live on medicine. If you engage in polemics with relish and joy—if polemics takes up a significant percentage or even a majority of your time and energy—it is like trying to live on medicine alone. It won’t work, for the church or for you. That was Lloyd-Jones’s message.

____________________________________

Technorati Lists Grace and Truth to You A Top 100 Blog

I don't know a great deal about technology, but over the past few years I've become a tad bit more proficient. Technorati is the resource for all things associated with blogging, and according to the professionals Grace and Truth to You is in the Top 100 blogs for two categories: Living and Religion. Last week this blog cracked the Top 10 of all Religious Blogs. It's obvious the subject matter of this blog covers more than just religion. Posts relate to history, culture, politics, the family, and a host of other topics. But it is true that one of the major functions of this blog is to address issues related to the Southern Baptist Convention. I write, and it seems that people are reading. In commemoration of reaching the 4,000,000 visitor mark, I refer the reader to an interesting commentary on the power of blogs in the 21st Century:

It used to be that once something appeared in print it was rarely ever challenged. I think, to to a certain extent, the system in place for challenging the journalists and national newspapers was too complex and time consuming for many of us to pursue. ..not to mention that the Press Complaints Commission is a self regulating body… Today, however, it’s much easier to correct factual inaccuracies--(thanks to the power of blogs).

Here's hoping that the ideologues who give an inaccurate and false accusation of "liberal" toward those conservative, Christ-honoring, Bible-believing Baptists within the Southern Baptist Convention who happen to disagree with their ideological interpretations of Scripture can forever be corrected by bloggers who will correct the record.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Christian Liberal Ideology and Christian Fundamentalist Ideology Are Brothers from the Same Mother

Classical Liberalism and classical Fundamentalism within Christianity, at first glance, seem to have nothing in common. The former makes figurative the historical narrative of Scripture while the latter makes literal the figurative, poetic and apocalyptic language of Scripture. Classical Liberalism denies, or removes from, truth in the sacred text, while classical Fundamentalism affirms all, and adds to, truth in the sacred text. Classical Liberalism turns salvation into something not needed, while classical Fundamentalism turns salvation into something not heeded. Classical Liberalism affirms the Bible to be sufficient for next to nothing, while classical Fundamentalism affirms the Bible to be sufficient for absolutely everything. At this moment, the Southern Baptist Convention is overwhelmed by the latter group (classical Fundamentalists). Grateful as I am that classical Liberalism is not at home within the SBC, it behooves us all to recognize the similarity between classical Liberalism and classical Fundamentalism in order to focus on a Gospel Resurgence within our Convention. We have no hope of the gospel being our priority if we don't see that Liberalism and Fundamentalism share the same DNA.

Both ideologies find it difficult to allow the freedom to express disagreement.

Or, to put it more bluntly, classical Liberalism wants only Liberals to be heard, and classical Fundamentalism wants only Fundamentalists to be heard. Adherents to both ideologies remind me of weak, insecure Chief Executive Officers who can't let their boards ever question their decisions--out of fear they may move in the wrong direction. Of course, the wrong direction is any direction opposite of the views of the CEO. Rather than being open to dissenting views, all dissent is ridiculed and stifled. Stifling and silencing opposing views is as prevalent in the university, institution, classroom or church controlled by classical Liberals as it is by those conrolled by classical Fundamentalists. Since classical Fundamentalism is the struggle within the SBC at this moment, allow me to show the danger of Fundamentalism silencing all dissenting views on various subject matters. We have seen Fundamentalists remove missionaries who disagree over the cessation of spiritual gifts, professors who disagree over women being able to teach men in a classroom setting, and a host of other examples of silencing and removing dissenting viewpoints in the SBC these last few years; but now the SBC is being given another example of the prevailing ideologists clamping down on any opposing view.

An Attempt to Remove Professors Who Do Not Teach Storehouse Tithing

An excellent biblical presentation on the Old Covenant practice of "storehouse tithing" is found in an article entitled “Will a Man Rob God?” This study on tithing in the Old and New Testaments by Andreas J. Kostenberger and David A. Croteau, who at the time the article was published served as professor and Ph.D. student respectively at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, is an excellent argument for pastors and teachers to cease their emphasis on "the tithe" and encouraging their members to give "cheerfully, generously, and regularly" as led by the Holy Spirit. Dr. Kostenberger remains a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. David A. Croteau is now a professor in the religion department at Liberty University.

I received information that Southern Baptist pastor Les Puryear, a small church pastor who ran for President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008, contacted the supervisors of these men at the respective seminaries where they are employed. I was told Les was seeking their termination for teaching giving and Christian stewardship in a manner contrary to "storehouse tithing" and the practice of the Jews in the Old Testament. I contacted Les to ask if this was true, and he both called and wrote a written response which he published in the comment section of his blog. He wrote:

-- "Thanks for your email. I returned your phone call as well but your assistant said you were in a staff meeting.

First, I don't know who your seminary contact is, but rest assured that I will raise the issue of private information being leaked to you, to seminary officials.

Second, your source is wrong. I have not asked for anyone to be fired, nor will I ask for anyone to be fired.

Third, I appreciate your concern with tertiary issues, however, I believe that this issue goes beyond tertiary and to a foundational issue of our convention and that is the role of Holy Scripture in the life of the Christian. That is the issue I am addressing. If you think the validity of scripture is a tertiary issue, then we have a true disconnect." --

I took Les at his word and thanked him for not seeking the termination of the professors who disagreed with his views on "storehouse tithing."

But then, after my conversation with Les, I was given excerpts of the letter Les sent. Pay close attention to what Les writes to the seminary supervisors:

1) -- "It has come to my attention that one of your professors has written a document that is available online in which he states that the biblical command to tithe is no longer applicable."

2) "I do not believe that (professor’s name) position is the typical position among SBC pastors. My concern is the influence which (professor’s name) may have upon future pastors who may teach this unbiblical position."

3) "I am completely shocked and surprised that in the years following the Conservative Resurgence, (school name) would employ a professor who teaches that tithing is not necessary."

4) "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?" --

I will accept that Les didn't mean what it sounds like he meant. Asking the supervisors of the respective professors "is it helpful to keep this professor on faculty?" may not, at least technically, be a call for the professors' terminations. But let me turn the phrase around to maybe help Les understand the signficance of such a letter from the perspective of those who are being pressured to be silent about their beliefs in order to continue as seminary faculty members. Suppose one of the members of the church where Les pastors wrote to the chairman of his deacons and said the following:

"Do you think it is helpful to our church to keep Pastor Les on the payroll when he is publicly teaching (blank)?"

I would think that the impression given by the letter would be, "Les, stop teaching (blank) or you may be fired!" I honestly don't believe I am the only one who believes the letter Les sent is indicative of an inability for Fundamentalists to handle dissent. There are some people in the SBC who still don't seem to get the problem we are facing as a Convention. The struggle within the Southern Baptist Convention is no longer over the Bible. We are in as much trouble today as we were years ago when Southern Baptists were shouting "Liberalism! Liberalism! We must throw out the Liberals!" Though some doubt the extent of Liberalism within the SBC in the late 1970's, there can be no doubt the spread of Fundamentalism in the SBC in the early 2010's. We have substituted one ideology for another ideology--and the brother of the former has the same DNA.

Both can't stand dissent or disagreement.

Well, if we threw out adherents to the Liberal ideology in 1979, then we better get ready to throw out the adherents to the Fundamentalist ideology of the present or apologize for what was done to the people we Southern Baptists called "liberals" in the late 1970's.

In His Grace,

Wade

Liberal Fundamentalism Is No Different Than Conservative Fundamentalism: Both Are Intolerant

For those who think my angst is only against the intolerance of conservative fundamentalism in the SBC, I thought I might show how liberal fundamentalism is just as bad in Baptist circles. Whereas conservative fundamentalists will often discriminate against and demean women, liberal fundamentalists will often discriminate against and demean evangelicals.

My daughter is a student Baylor University in Waco, Texas. There is an English professor named Joseph Jeyaraj (pronounced "jayrash") who joined the faculty of Baylor University's English Department during 2001 in a tenure track position. Dr. Jeyaraj's Christian testimony is very moving. He is not only a solid, evangelical Christian, he is an outstanding scholar. For some unknown reason, Dr. Jayaraj was given no document at the time of his hiring which would have informed him of the standards by which he would be judged when it came time for tenure review.

In 2003 a new tenure track policy document was approved by Baylor University's Provost's Office outlining the standards to be followed in the English Department for adjudicating faculty members' candidacy for tenure. This document and information was also withheld from Dr. Jeyaraj. The document states:

Each year, the chair will appoint three members of the tenured faculty to a Teaching Review Committee. Members will serve for three years, starting in fall 2003. One member will be replaced in 2004, another in 2005, and the third in 2006. After 2004, all newly-appointed members of the committee will serve for three years, but will be replaced at the staggered intervals suggested by the above. Barring extraordinary circumstances, the membership of the Teaching Review Committee will rotate through all members of the tenured faculty before any member is asked to repeat this service. Criteria for Tenure: English Department, Baylor University, 1 March 2003", p. 5

This Teaching Review Committee was designed, according to the manual, to provide mentors for tenure track faculty in the English Department and to assist in the growth of the faculty member's classroom skills and scholarship. Joseph never experienced this mentoring due to the information being withheld from him by his department chair. The reason for not informing Joseph of the Teaching Review Committee and the official tenure review process is seen by what happened next.

The English Department discontinued Joseph in 2004. However, due to the protests of those in the know, the university acknowledged shortly thereafter that a mistake had been made and it reversed the decision. Soon after this reversal, at the urging of the Provost, Dean Daniel appointed a committee to independently investigate Joseph's performance. The committee fully exonerated Dr. Jeyaraj, and in a report delivered in 2005, the Daniel committee said that Joseph's teaching, research, service and collegiality were all good.

Here's Where Things Get Worse

However, despite the exoneration by the Daniel Committee, in the spring of last year, 2006, the English Department of Baylor University discontinued Joseph's employment again. It was said he was denied tenure because he did not follow the approved 2003 guidelines for tenure track positions. This was when Joseph discovered for the first time that there was such a document -- it was never offered to him or explained to him -- but then used against him for termination.

In a letter dated March 20, 2006, Dean Nordt summarized the reasons for discontinuing Dr. Jeyaraj:

"According to several tenured faculty members, [Dr. Jeyaraj] has not made satisfactory progress [in the area of collegiality]. Others believe Dr. Jeyaraj's difficulties in getting along with his colleagues stem from cultural differences".

It was less than a year earlier that the Daniel committee, appointed to investigate the unjust discontinuation, reported:

In sum, reliable first-hand accounts of Dr. Jeyaraj's collegiality suggest that, while there have been misunderstandings with some faculty members, no problems in this area would indicate serious deficiencies. This committee was formed, in part, to respond to concerns that Dr. Jeyaraj was denied tenure based on allegations received at second and third hand; therefore, this committee must avoid repeating that error by not relying on information that may be in a personnel file to which we have been denied access (emphasis mine). According to all first hand accounts, this committee has heard, no serious problems with collegiality exist.

For several years Joseph's chair, Dr. Maurice Hunt, maintained files, which he refused to disclose, but based his public recommendations upon. The usual tactic of those who wish to get rid of someone without having to prove cause is to simply say, "Trust (us), there's a problem. We won't tell you what the problem is, nor give you evidence that exists, but it is there."

One might ask, 'Why is Dr. Joseph Jeyaraj treated in such an unjust manner, as compared to other tenure track faculty?' I would propose that just as conservative fundamentalists are intolerant of those who are different than them, liberal fundamentalists are also intolerant of anyone who is unlike them. I imagine that most Baylor parents, like me and Rachelle, who are paying $30,000 a year in tuition for their child's college education would much rather see evangelicals in tenure track positions rather than known Marxists or classic liberals as Baylor University has hired in the past. Dr. Jeyaraj is the kind of professor I desire my daughter to have, and the obvious desire by those in control of the tenure review process to remove Joseph is troubling.

If someone responds, 'But surely there are just reasons academic reasons for discontinuing Joseph Jeyaraj?' the answer would be 'No, there is not." I have been informed that academic departments at Baylor grant tenure on the strength of five or six scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals, requiring that three or more of the articles appear in top-tier journals for the particular area of discipline. Joseph has two articles in print in tier-one journals, one article in print in an Indian journal, two articles in print in conference proceedings (these had been submitted to the conferences, and were thus, we assume, peer-reviewed), and four articles forthcoming, two of which are in tier-one journals. One of the articles in print is going to be reprinted in a book to be published by a reputable publisher in Joseph's field. He has acceptance letters for all the forthcoming articles.

In addition, the Daniel Committee, just one year earlier summarized the excellent work of Dr. Jeyaraj as follows:

The evaluators were unanimously positive about his teaching; his rapport with students; his ability to mix quizzes, lecture, discussion, and analysis of texts; his effective use of examples to illustrate rhetorical strategies in technical writing; and his linking assignments and discussion to a specifically Baylor culture. Evaluators noticed that Dr. Jeyaraj chats amiably with students as they enter the classroom. During the class, he moves around the room, encouraging students in their in-class assignments and gently prodding their participation in discussion. Dr. Jeyaraj was also able to weave into the conversation instructive comments about the complexities of globalized communication. No one noticed any evidence of tensions in the classroom or deficiencies in the manner of presentation; on the contrary, all concur that Dr. Jeyaraj is doing an admirable job of engaging students and making them active learners. He brings to his students both an expertise in the art of technical writing and a global perspective that they rarely encounter at Baylor.

Again, why the harsh treatment of Joseph by his own department? One can't help but assume that since Joseph is an evangelical Christian and a supporter of Baylor's 2012 Vision that the politics of the fundamentalist liberals have gotten in the way of fair treatment of Dr. Jeyaraj. It's the Klouda and Clippard issue in reverse. One wonders if a prejudice against Joseph's brand of Christianity is the cause of the unusually harsh judgment of his collegiality and teaching. I am beginning to discover that some junior faculty in reactionary departments at Baylor often suffer for their Christian and academically progressive views.

Our children at Baylor deserve better than this kind of treatment of the very professors we desire to teach them. I am putting the regents and administration on notice that liberal fundamentalism causes me just as much consternation as conservative fundamentalism.

And I will do something to stop both from destroying our Southern Baptist agencies, schools and ministry. But I'm not sure it's me Baylor should worry about. Inconsistency in the review process of tenure track professors, or violating the institution's guidelines for tenure track review, or intentionally withholding tenure track guidelines from faculty -- and then using those same guidelines for discontinuation of a professor -- will draw the attention of accrediting agencies.

Let's hope Baylor University wakes up before it's too late.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson