Posts Tagged ‘Central Baptist Theological Seminary’

Kevin Bauder wrote this article entitled Churches, Pastors, and Politics on July 2, 2012 for Baptist Bulletin. I thought this was helpful for churches and pastors in a presidential election year.

Throughout their history, Baptists have been strongly committed to the separation of church and state. At the same time, they have supported the rightness of the individual Christian’s involvement in governmental affairs. Their support has been more than theoretical: Baptists have often served in the military or held public office. Many Baptists think that voting for the correct political candidates is almost a moral obligation. Yet this willingness to become involved in public affair raises potential problems for Baptists, who must decide what boundaries are appropriate for political involvement by individual Christians, for Christian leaders, and for Christian churches.

The Mission of the Church

For Baptists seeking to understand their relationship to the state, a solid understanding of the church’s mission is foundational. Like some other Christians, Baptists typically distinguish the mission of the church as the church from the obligations of Christians as private individuals. They have often defined the mission of the church by appealing to the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19, 20). In this text, the risen Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all the things that He has commanded. If these verses can be rightly applied to the church (as most Baptists think they can), then the mission of the church is decidedly spiritual.

Another Biblical text that is important for understanding the mission of the church is Ephesians 4:11–16. In this text, the apostle Paul articulates four tests that can be used to determine the health and success of a church (Eph. 4:13). These tests include unity of the faith, unity of the full knowledge of the Son of God, mature spiritual manhood, and conformity to the full character of Christ. Since these tests define church success, they also define the church’s mission. Once again, the church’s mission is spiritual.

The New Testament assigns no political mission to the church. Nowhere is the church asked to reform civilization or to capture the social order. Nowhere is it given the job of dominating the political process. The church as the church has no political responsibility.

The church does, however, bear a moral responsibility to the world at large (Eph. 5:3–14). The apostle Paul commanded churches not to participate in the works of darkness, but to reprove them (v. 11). These works include sexual immorality, impurity, greed, filthy behavior, foolish speech, and coarse joking (vv. 3–5). Whether through conduct or direct confrontation, Christians are obligated to let the world know what God thinks of such behaviors. God uses this exposure to bring conviction of sin to worldly people and to prepare the way for the proclamation of the gospel (v. 13).

The ministry of exposing the works of darkness may be similar to the phenomenon that Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:24 and 25. There he pointed out that unbelievers may be brought under conviction of sin by hearing prophecies in the church. This occurs, he said, when the secrets of their hearts are made obvious so that they feel themselves convicted and called into account.

The gift of prophecy is no longer being given within the church, but the duty to expose and even reprove sin remains. Part of this exposure certainly depends upon Christians living their lives differently from the unsaved around them. Christians must not participate in the works of darkness. Part of this exposure may also involve deliberate verbal rebukes and challenges. Specifically, the ministry of church leaders involves an element of reproving, rebuking, and exhorting—and they are to persevere in this ministry whether it seems to be welcome or even effective (2 Tim. 4:1–5).

In sum, the mission of the church is spiritual in nature. It centers upon the proclamation of the gospel, which is clearly an element in making disciples. It involves observing the ordinances and teaching believers. But it also includes proclamation of all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27), including the exposure of those works that God considers sinful.

Thus, while the church is not called to a political mission, it is called to a moral mission. Sometimes unsaved people prefer wickedness to morality. Sometimes they write laws to protect their immoral conduct. Sometimes politicians are willing to curry favor by passing immoral laws. Under such circumstances, the church’s ministry of moral reproof will certainly run afoul of powerful political enemies. When that happens, the church must not be intimidated into abandoning its proclamation of God’s displeasure with the works of darkness. Churches and pastors must continue to treat the ministry of exposure and reproof as part of their mission. Preaching morality is not preaching politics, even when morality is being undermined within the political sphere. The church as a church may and should rebuke governors and oppose laws that are at odds with true Biblical morality.

Christian Political Responsibility

The prophet Daniel provides an example of a man of God who served within the government of unbelieving Gentile kings. Many lessons can be drawn from the nature of his service, but one in particular stands out—God judges kings, even unbelieving kings of pagan nations. When Nebuchadnezzar became proud and tried to claim credit for his own accomplishments, God broke his pride by reducing him to insanity (Dan. 4). When Belshazzar in his arrogance defiled the vessels from the temple, God immediately pronounced and executed judgment (Dan. 5). God holds kings accountable for their actions whether they are believers or not.

The obligations of Christian citizens will vary depending upon the nature of the societies within which they find themselves. Believers living under repressive and authoritarian governments may have little opportunity to influence the political process. The Western democracies, however, are constructed around the notions of limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the popular election of officials. Western governments are bound by constitutions and are ultimately answerable to their citizens. This complex of political arrangements means that average citizens exert a direct and substantial influence over national policy. In these nations, votes matter because ordinary citizens, working together, have the power to reshape the entire national direction. Such citizens are not merely the ruled, but also the ultimate rulers.

If God held kings accountable in Biblical times, then He certainly must hold presidents, prime ministers, parliaments, congresses, and courts accountable today. More than that, he must hold individual citizens responsible to execute their political responsibilities rightly, for in the long run, officials can govern only as the people allow. Even the unsaved are accountable, but Christians, who ought to understand God’s design for nations, have a special responsibility. Even if they are a minority, they must use their influence within the public square to move their government as far as possible toward just policies—and that means policies that are just as God understands justice.

How should Christians influence their government? The first and most obvious way is through the proclamation of the gospel. The gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). The gospel transforms those who receive it, altering their identity and progressively remaking them in the image of Christ (2 Cor. 5:16–21; Col. 3:8–17). This transformation affects not only the inner life of believers, but also their social relationships (Col. 3:18–25). When the gospel begins to transform enough people within a single society, the society itself will necessarily be altered.

Preaching the gospel is the single most important way in which Christians can influence the civil order, but it is not the only way. Part of the Christian mission involves exposing and even reproving the works of darkness (Eph. 5:3–17). This ministry is not merely the business of the church, but also of individual Christians. Whether through word or deed, Christians have a responsibility to remind the unsaved world that certain ways of living are futile and destructive.

Some ministry of exposure and reproof must precede effective efforts at legislation. In Western societies, laws ultimately depend for their enforcement upon the consensus of the governed. A law that is held up to contempt will eventually be overturned, and those who try to maintain or enforce it will be viewed as oppressors. If they intend to influence society, individual Christians must capture hearts and imaginations as well as legislatures and courts. Moral reality has been worked into the very nature of the created order. Certain patterns of conduct will inevitably produce disastrous consequences for the society that tolerates or encourages them. As citizens, Christian individuals have a duty to point out these consequences and the behaviors that lead to them, showing people the connections and persuading them of the necessity of civil order in these areas.

Beginning with the United States, the Western democracies have chosen a form of order in which government is genuinely “of the people.” Consequently, to some extent, every citizen is a ruler. Those who rule cannot escape their duty by simply choosing not to pay attention to their obligations. In other words, in those nations that are governed by participation of the populace, Christians have a duty to use their voice and influence. Because they bear some responsibility for public affairs, they have a duty to seek public justice.

What can Christians do? At the least, they should refuse to support any unjust policy, even (and perhaps especially) when the policy seems financially advantageous. Second, they should consistently exercise their vote—which is not necessarily the same as voting. If no suitable candidate is available, Christians may sometimes choose not to vote, but refusing to vote should be a choice and not mere negligence. Third, many should become involved in the political process by attending their local precinct caucuses. Fourth, some might join the campaign staff of a particularly desirable candidate. Fifth, some may even choose to run for public office. Baptists believe that these are all legitimate areas of Christian involvement.

Often, questions are raised about whether pastors should become active in politics. Such questions may lead to different answers depending on the circumstances. On the one hand, pastors are also citizens and bear the responsibilities of citizens. They are not Scripturally forbidden from voting, campaigning, or even holding office. On the other hand, a couple of warnings should be issued about pastors and politics.

The first and most obvious is that pastors bear a greater responsibility than temporal government. They lead the church of God. This leadership places the care of souls upon their shoulders. They must not allow temporal concerns to blur their focus or diminish their effectiveness as shepherds of God’s flock.

Second, when pastors speak to political questions, they must do so as citizens and not as pastors. They must not carry questions of mere politics into their pulpits or ministries. Nor may they attempt to leverage their pastoral prestige into political influence. The fact that a man is a pastor gives him no right whatever to be heard on merely political issues. If pastors try to convert their pastoral authority into political prestige, they may gain a brief increase in civic influence, but they will also dilute the authority of their office, for a pastor as a pastor possesses only the authority to explain and apply the Word of God. The moment he begins to exploit his pastoral influence for the purpose of political persuasion, he demeans the Scriptures and damages the true authority of his office.

Of course, pastors have a perfect right and even a duty to address moral questions, even when those questions also happen to be political. Moral instruction is certainly under a pastor’s purview, and it is a necessity if the members of his flock are to understand their civic responsibilities. The moral preparation of God’s people may be a pastor’s single greatest contribution to their civil effectiveness.

Kevin Bauder (DMin, Trinity Evangelical School; PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is research professor of systematic theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, Minn. This article is an excerpt from RBP’s Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order, which will soon be available from Regular Baptist Books.

As of June 30, Ergun Caner is no longer President and Dean at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. Why? According to the statement released by Liberty, Ergun Caner “made factual statements that are self-contradictory.”

Caner, however, will remain as a professor of theology with Liberty. The controversy erupted when both Muslims and Evangelicals found inconsistencies, or lies, according to some, in Caner’s testimony shared in pulpits around America.

The Washington Post wrote:

“As he told it to church audiences across the country, Caner was entrenched in Muslim extremism when he moved to the United States from Turkey as a teenager and found Jesus. He wrote books and, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, developed a reputation for his impassioned speeches on Muslim radicalism to largely evangelical audiences.”

But Mohammad Klan, college student and blogger in London, found Caner’s parents’ divorce records showing the family moved to Ohio in 1970, when Caner was 3 or 4, contradicting his account of teenage years in Muslim extremism in Turkey.

This embellishment has provided fodder for skeptics like convert from Christianity Daniel Florien:

Leave it to Liberty University to come up with a statement like this regarding Liberty’s seminary president Ergun Caner:

After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory.

How can factual statements be self-contradictory? Doesn’t that mean at least one of them are not factual? Maybe they’re leaving things open for parallel universes.

Caner also claimed to have debated leading Muslim apologists such as Shabir Ally, president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre. James White, who has debated Shabir Ally, refutes this claim by Caner.

There are other notable conservatives, however, who have come to Caner’s defense, such as, Norman Geisler. Here is one answer Geisler gives in his July 6 explanation of Caner’s statements:

1. Ergun Caner claimed to have been born in Istanbul when he was actually born in Sweden.

 Response: All of Caner’s books (see Unveiling Islam, 17) and nearly all of his interviews and sermons state that he was born in Sweden.  Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry.  Thus, an occasional misspoken word about his birthplace is understandable.  Nonetheless, Ergun publically apologized for this and other mistakes on February 25, 2010.

Geisler gives seven answers to the alleged lies. Geisler does not address Caner’s claim to have debated leading Muslim apologists such as Shabir Ally.

Jeff Straub provides another example of pulpit embellishments:

About twenty-five years ago, I heard a well-known Indiana pastor claim to have preached 44,000 sermons in his lifetime—44 years of ministry! Apparently he had been claiming for years that he preached 1000 times annually. Now there was a heroic feat! Yet not one of his “friends” challenged him, at least not publicly. Do the math. To preach 1,000 times in a year, you need to preach 2.73 times per day, every day of the year. And do it again next year, and the year after that. Once I started thinking about the math, I thought I must have misunderstood him . . . until others told me they had heard him make similar statements. Then I read that the great evangelist George Whitefield was estimated to have preached between 19,000 and 22,000 times in his lifetime . . . half the number of this pastor. Whitefield was an itinerant, and there are accounts where he preached seven times in one day. What pastor in a settled pulpit preaches 1000 times in any year?

I don’t think the Indiana pastor set out to lie to the crowd . . . at least I hope not, any more than Ergun Caner set out to bamboozle his audiences with his Islamic exploits. They just got carried away.  But these men still lied. And by doing so, they lost the one thing without which no preacher can really represent a holy God—personal integrity.

Why do we preachers think we must become the hero of our stories?

Do we think we are helping God out? Do we doubt the power of God’s Word or the Gospel which alone is the power of God unto salvation to every person who believes? Are we trying to exalt our name above God’s by playing to the grandstand?

All of us preachers should strive to say what Paul was able to said to the Thessalonians:

“For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ” (1 Thessalonians 2:3-6).

Does this mean we preachers can never use personal illustrations in our sermons?

For more on Illustrations see Seven Steps to Preparing a Sermon, Step 5 (Develop the Sermon Outline) Part 2 “Illustration.”

Certainly personal anecdotes are legitimate material for sermons as long as they do not dominate. Illustrative material should come from what we read, what we experience (personal illustrations) and what we imagine (hypothetical examples).

Paul models how to use yourself in a sermon to shed light on what you are preaching. In Acts 14:27, at the end of his first missionary journey, Paul gave his God honoring report. Luke records the church’s first missionary furlough at the sending church in Antioch of Syria: “When they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.” When our personal illustrations are God centered and not self-centered or self-serving then there is no way our factual statements will ever be self-contradictory.