I just wasted 15 minutes reading a comment thread on another website dealing with what I think is the most ridiculous discussion that I hear regarding Christianity and church. The discussion was on what is the proper clothing for people to wear on Sunday morning.
It is sad that this is such a divisive issue for some people. Some folks insisted that people should wear the best clothes they have because it shows respect and pleases God. Others insisted just as forcefully that "dressing up" keeps some "unchurched" people from feeling comfortable. The tone and triviality of the discussion has motivated me to share some thoughts on it here.
1) God is much more concerned with the posture of your heart in worship at church than He is about what you are wearing.
2) If you dress up for church, do it for the right reason. If you just want to be seen or show off your nice things you aren't doing anybody any favors much less pleasing the Lord. I admit that I generally dress for church the same way I would for court (remember I'm a lawyer by trade). My reasons for this are: a) I want to model to my family the same amount of respect for God's institution as I show for those of man; b) I have found in my life that my dress does affect my attitude. When I am dressed up my mind feels more alert than when I'm in jeans. I want to be at my best when I'm at church most especially when I am teaching and this helps me to perform better; and c) I personally just like wearing a suit. Notice that none of those reasons are directly Scriptural or have to do with making me more worthy than anybody else. They are all matters of personal conviction and preference. To make any more of it than that is to be a self-righteous jerk.
3) If you dress down for church, do it for the right reason. If you just want to be different from old, stuffy hypocrites in "traditional" churches or if you just want to brag about how hip and counter-cultural you are then you aren't pleasing the Lord either. That said, I do believe there is something to be said for intentionally creating a culture in a church and that the cookie cutter culture churches have employed for a long time in America does not fit some people as well as others. There's nothing wrong with having a contemporary worship culture any more than there is with eating chocolate ice cream. Vanilla just isn't everybody's favorite and I get that. It is great to give people a choice.
4) It doesn't matter how you are dressed if the Gospel is not proclaimed and the Holy Spirit is not present. Friends, if people are leaving your church because some folks are over dressed or some folks are under dressed, chances are you don't have a clothing problem, you have a spiritual problem. My experience is that when people in a congregation experience the life changing message of Christ and interact with a spirit filled body of Believers, it doesn't matter if they are wearing tuxedos or sweat pants. If we believe the Gospel can overcome the power of sin and death, then surely the color and design of some swaths of fabric shouldn't pose that much of a problem.
So I got that off my chest...now I can get back to studying for midterms.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The SBC and What's in a name?
As a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary I have watched with interest the reaction to the recent report of the name change study committee. For those who haven't followed the story, last year Bryant Wright (SBC President) appointed a committee to study the wisdom and feasibility of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. It has been suggested by some that the regional connotation of Southern may be some type of hindrance to ministry efforts beyond the southeastern US.
The committee recently reported its recommendation. Importantly, the idea of a name change was rejected because of questionable need and legal costs that would mount into the millions. However, for those churches and missionaries who believe the name may pose a hindrance in their particular venue, they recommended what amounts to an official nickname of Great Commission Baptists. Nobody will be forced to use the nickname, but it will merely exist as an option for those who want to try.
If you are like me, you might think how in the world would this be problematic to anyone. Judging from reading the reaction online and around blogs though you'd be wrong. Here are some of the more common reactions/objections I've seen and my response to them.
1) "I don't care what they do, I'll always be Southern Baptist." I hear this a lot and I sympathize with that. Anybody who has ever heard me say a word knows I'm about as Southern as they come. I've been attending SBC churches my entire life. I attend their "flagship" seminary (not sure what that means but that's what they tell us anyways). I am proud of my affiliation with an organization that does so much to spread the Gospel, but it's not who I am. I'm a Christian. Jesus Christ is the only name for which I'll contend unconditionally and I sincerely believe that most if not all of those I hear saying these things would agree with me on that. But to hear some of these folks it's as if they think the committee is telling them they should apologize for being Southern or that they shouldn't call themselves Southern Baptists. Friends, nobody is asking us to apologize for anything and nobody is saying we can't or shouldn't call ourselves "Southern Bapists", and most importantly nobody is suggesting that we compromise on the core doctrines that define the substance of who we are. There's no reason to act like we are under attack from within.
2) "I've never had any objection to the name Southern Baptist in my ministry". To that I say, "so what?" That is an anecdotal statement and proves nothing at all. Your experience does not cancel out the experiences reported by people in the field who say that it hinders them. Are we to call them liars without having been in their particular situation? Surely we can give these brothers and sisters in the Lord that much benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I don't think the name is a widespread problem but I can see how there might be situations where it is. What's the harm in putting it to the test and finding out? It seems worth a shot to me.
3) "We've got bigger fish to fry". I've heard this a lot and I completely agree. Many people are rightly pointing out that a name is superficial and point to the real substantive problems facing the SBC (and there are many). Though this is true its application in this context represents flawed logic and a foolish management style. It basically says that we can't address small problems until big problems are fixed. You can't run an organization like that. It takes time to build consensus and address big problems. It would be foolish to just ignore smaller problems that might be easily fixable because you are dealing with the big things. Good leaders can and should multi-task. Any time spent criticizing the committee for taking up this small issue is much better spent praying for solutions and consensus in dealing with the big ones.
4) "What we really need is revival". Amen Brother! But here is the thing, do you really believe saying that in a critical spirit is going to do anything to bring it about? Further, do you doubt that the leaders in Nashville and at the State Conventions want the same thing? If I did doubt that, then I'd probably be looking for a new church affiliation. I don't think there is any controversy or dispute that we need revival in America (and in our SBC churches). Yet I see some declaring this as if the matter is hotly contested. Surely we have more important things to do than to get bogged down in a contest to see who can scream about the need for revival the loudest.
Don't misunderstand me, I passionately believe we need revival and think it is healthy to talk about the need constructively. Let's acknowledge the need, roll up our sleeves, and get out in the field and work for the harvest. If somebody is willing to cooperate with me in doing that, I really don't care what he calls himself.
The committee recently reported its recommendation. Importantly, the idea of a name change was rejected because of questionable need and legal costs that would mount into the millions. However, for those churches and missionaries who believe the name may pose a hindrance in their particular venue, they recommended what amounts to an official nickname of Great Commission Baptists. Nobody will be forced to use the nickname, but it will merely exist as an option for those who want to try.
If you are like me, you might think how in the world would this be problematic to anyone. Judging from reading the reaction online and around blogs though you'd be wrong. Here are some of the more common reactions/objections I've seen and my response to them.
1) "I don't care what they do, I'll always be Southern Baptist." I hear this a lot and I sympathize with that. Anybody who has ever heard me say a word knows I'm about as Southern as they come. I've been attending SBC churches my entire life. I attend their "flagship" seminary (not sure what that means but that's what they tell us anyways). I am proud of my affiliation with an organization that does so much to spread the Gospel, but it's not who I am. I'm a Christian. Jesus Christ is the only name for which I'll contend unconditionally and I sincerely believe that most if not all of those I hear saying these things would agree with me on that. But to hear some of these folks it's as if they think the committee is telling them they should apologize for being Southern or that they shouldn't call themselves Southern Baptists. Friends, nobody is asking us to apologize for anything and nobody is saying we can't or shouldn't call ourselves "Southern Bapists", and most importantly nobody is suggesting that we compromise on the core doctrines that define the substance of who we are. There's no reason to act like we are under attack from within.
2) "I've never had any objection to the name Southern Baptist in my ministry". To that I say, "so what?" That is an anecdotal statement and proves nothing at all. Your experience does not cancel out the experiences reported by people in the field who say that it hinders them. Are we to call them liars without having been in their particular situation? Surely we can give these brothers and sisters in the Lord that much benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I don't think the name is a widespread problem but I can see how there might be situations where it is. What's the harm in putting it to the test and finding out? It seems worth a shot to me.
3) "We've got bigger fish to fry". I've heard this a lot and I completely agree. Many people are rightly pointing out that a name is superficial and point to the real substantive problems facing the SBC (and there are many). Though this is true its application in this context represents flawed logic and a foolish management style. It basically says that we can't address small problems until big problems are fixed. You can't run an organization like that. It takes time to build consensus and address big problems. It would be foolish to just ignore smaller problems that might be easily fixable because you are dealing with the big things. Good leaders can and should multi-task. Any time spent criticizing the committee for taking up this small issue is much better spent praying for solutions and consensus in dealing with the big ones.
4) "What we really need is revival". Amen Brother! But here is the thing, do you really believe saying that in a critical spirit is going to do anything to bring it about? Further, do you doubt that the leaders in Nashville and at the State Conventions want the same thing? If I did doubt that, then I'd probably be looking for a new church affiliation. I don't think there is any controversy or dispute that we need revival in America (and in our SBC churches). Yet I see some declaring this as if the matter is hotly contested. Surely we have more important things to do than to get bogged down in a contest to see who can scream about the need for revival the loudest.
Don't misunderstand me, I passionately believe we need revival and think it is healthy to talk about the need constructively. Let's acknowledge the need, roll up our sleeves, and get out in the field and work for the harvest. If somebody is willing to cooperate with me in doing that, I really don't care what he calls himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)