ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC:
WHERE WE WERE, WHERE WE ARE
AND WHERE WE ARE GOING
The rapid-fire proposal of new economic policies by the current administration in Washington has left many of us breathless. Cap and Trade, bailouts, health-care reform, climate change legislation are all programs that have the potential of severely altering what America has stood for in matters related to the economy. Though never officially Laissez-faire in policy, America has generally followed a more free-trade, lower federal taxes, and less redistribution of wealth approach than has been the case in many European countries and, of course, in the communist bloc when it existed. That has been where we have stood, though not unanimously so. But, as the proverb states, we need to see where we have been in order to see where we ought to be going. This is the first of a multi-part essay on America and economics. Obviously this is not intended to be thorough, though it is a sample of a larger project that I have been working on that is now nearing completion. This first installment will show where free trade, lower government philosophy about economics comes from, and how antebellum nineteenth century Christian thinkers reacted to it and to America’s rapid rise to being and industrial powerhouse. The second part will look at what brought us from there to the Great Depression, and the third part will track our history from that signal event to where we are today.
The story begins, in a sense, not in Philadelphia, but in Glasgow. Adam Smith was a Scotsman, a moral philosopher and educator, and in 1776 he published what would be his most famous book, The Wealth of Nations. It would take a separate essay even to introduce Smith adequately, but in a few sentences we can at least trace the key elements of his book, and what he was trying to accomplish with it. Smith was convinced that the mercantile system of economics that prevailed in his day was outmoded and destructive of wealth. It was based on the belief that real wealth was to be found in hard coin or bullion, gold and silver, and that the more of this that a nation owned, the wealthier it was. In order to maintain that level of wealth, therefore, governments micro-managed their economies, putting heavy restrictions on imports and on buying anything from other nations that would decrease their stockpile of “wealth.” Governments also managed the economy in many other ways in terms of productivity, prices, and distribution.
Smith opposed all of this. He began with a new definition of “wealth.” For him, wealth is the productivity of a nation, and that has little if anything to do with how much gold bullion a king might have in his cellar. Since wealth was productivity, he encouraged that governments ought to remove all restrictions to productivity, and that entrepreneurs ought to restructure their business models around three ideas: free trade, the division of labor, and the development of new technologies.
It was in America, the nation founded the same year as Smith’s volume on the wealth of nations, where his ideas would first be tested and tried, though England was close behind, and Germany not far behind England. In order for Smith’s project to be undertaken in full measure, several freedoms were needed. First, political freedom was a necessity. Some kind of republicanism or democratic republicanism was a basic requirement. Through the Middle Ages the authorities, whether kings, barons, or other types of unelected political powers, often saw fit to confiscate the property of those under their jurisdiction. Then again, in various sorts of ways the governments at various levels controlled prices, production, and distribution. It was against this “mercantilist” system of political economy that Smith had dedicated his efforts. It would be only in a political economy that eschewed mercantilism that could witness whether or not Smith’s theories might be workable. The American form of government as it crystallized in the Constitution offered that very kind of political freedom since most government officials in the federal system would be elected in some form by qualified holders of political franchise, and since, for a variety of reasons, the early American economy was virtually free from government intrusion.
Second, freedom of press is crucial to a capitalistic political economy. This is the case since the press needs to be free to disseminate information about the nature of the exchange of goods and services and about the ethical status of various industries. It must also be free to report on any alleged government intrusion into the economy. There must be no coercion from the state over the press, and there must be freedom for one form of the press to monitor whether other forms of the press are being manipulated by business interests for their own purposes.
Third, freedom of markets is fundamental to this system. That is almost by definition basic to Smith’s approach to economics. What we need to note here is that the American government early on played little role in manipulating markets, in interfering with production, and, for the most part, in overly taxing products for consumption by the populace. The free market means small government regulation of trade, low tariffs on goods imported, low taxes on sale of goods, and not preferring one industry or one company over against others. Though there was considerable disagreement on such matters as the national bank and on whether the federal government had any right at all to tax goods and services, the early American experiment was closely aligned with Smith’s ideology on this particular issue of markets.
Because America was a place where there was little regulation of the economy, Smith’s ideas seemed to bear themselves out, in some cases even long before his book appeared. New England was financed early on by joint stock corporations, especially the Massachusetts Bay Company and the Plymouth Bay Company. The men who founded these companies back in England were known as “adventurers.” That seems an odd name for men who never left home, but it was a term etymologically related to our modern term “venture capitalist.” These men went out on a limb and invested their own money in a “venture” which might not have met with success with the expectation that they would realize a profit. The venture was relatively free from government regulation, and the profit would, hopefully, be relatively free from government monitoring since it was obtained outside the normal network of government oversight. The New World of British colonization in the Western Hemisphere would seem to offer a pragmatic testing ground for ideas like those represented in Smith’s philosophy.
Specific intellectual responses to Smith in America were mixed. This was to be true in the general intellectual world and in the world of Christian intellectuals. In America the two “worlds” were not widely separated until later in the nineteenth century. In this way, America was different from Europe and even England, where the Enlightenment had created two intellectual communities, one of them broadly Christian, and the other decidedly non-Christian, and even anti-Christian. In America, the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century was still, generally, a Christian intellectual world. Stewart Davenport (Friends of the Unrighteous Mammon, University of Chicago Press, 2008) has identified three responses to the new “political economy” ideology developed by Smith and carried on by the French Physiocrats and Smith’s other disciples: the clerical economists, who were supporters of Smith’s approach; the contrarians, who opposed it; and the pastoral moralists, who adapted it to their own moral ideology. All three groups were represented by avowedly Christian thinkers, each of whom claimed that his theory was completely consistent with biblical ethics and the teachings of Jesus. Just how did each group make its case?
The “clerical economists” were supportive of America’s rapid rise to commercial success and were further sanguine about Smith’s overall approach to political economy. They supported free trade, the division of labor, and the rapid evolution of industrialized technology. They held these views in spite of the so-called, “Adam Smith problem,” which was that Smith’s theory was not in any sense compatible with biblical or otherwise altruistic ethics. These individuals were well-known Christian leaders, mostly educators, who did not believe that Smith’s approach to political economy was anti-Christian or necessarily injurious to the spiritual life of those who were being affected by it in the marketplace.
One of the most outspoken supporters of Smith was Baptist minister and professor of moral philosophy, Francis Wayland. At the heart of Wayland’s own moral theory lay a commitment to Scottish Common-Sense Realism. This was a worldview articulated by, among others, Thomas Reid and Dugald Stewart. Reid and Stewart were convinced that God had established the world according to certain natural moral laws and that humans were endowed by God with the ability to discover what those laws were. Wayland and the other political economists contended that Smith’s approach was intuitive, that it was pragmatically advantageous, and that its utility was being proven in the material success of the American experiment. So, for Wayland, the proof lay in a mix of natural theological intuitions, utilitarianism, and American millenarianism. As a college president and professor, he also wished to extend the scope of these ideas to the point of changing the college curriculum to include more practical discipline.
On the other side of the debate lay a group known to historians as the “contrarians.” Chief among them were Presbyterian layman and industrialist Stephen Colwell and sometimes-minister and educator Orestes Brownson. Colwell married into wealth and spent most of his adult life managing his father-in-law’s iron foundries. But he traveled widely in Europe and there witnessed what he thought to be the natural result of political economy—a starving working class made of the many and an opulent ownership class made up of the very few. He believed the same thing was happening in the United States of America in the 1830s and 40s. He laid the blame for all of this on the explicit self-centeredness of Smith’s approach. Tell people that satisfying their own interests and their own needs is entirely appropriate, and they will do just that, and the devil take the rest. “It may be worth inquiring whether the principles upon which free trade is urged will not go far in their ultimate conclusions to dissolve the whole fabric of human society,” he wrote. He opposed free trade, the division of labor, and the development of industrial technology. All of it, he was convinced, was evil and could not be reformed.
Orestes Brownson concurred with Colwell, at least in the early years of his writing. Brownson loathed economic inequality during the period before 1840. He especially was angry at anyone who argued that God approved of such inequality in the name of progress and civilization. He contended that the gospel itself was against any sense of inequality. The clerical economists had argued that class distinction is not important, and that it may lie even in the providence of God. Brownson replied that social and economic inequality was created by men, and that such inequalities must now be reversed in the name of progress, even if that meant an assault on private property. He was not opposed to private property per se, but he was against any kind of hereditary property. He was not, then, a communist, but did call for the state to reform all laws related to wealth inheritance. The basis for his views was primarily religious in nature—he believed the Bible was against the call to financial success.
The clerical economists, then, supported America’s rapid rise to industrial leadership and wealth and the philosophy that supported and informed that rise. The contrarians were opposed to such industrialization and wanted the US government to intervene. There was also a third group, identified by Davenport as the “pastoral moralists,” a group less-well identified ideologically, but people who recognized the danger inherent in industrialization, free trade, and the division of labor, but who were not philosophically opposed to it. Among them was William Arnot, who warned, “Among the elements of the nation’s greatness lie the seeds of sure decay. The very abundance of our material resources, and the very excess of our mercantile enterprise, seem to be forcing into earlier maturity the vices that will lay our glory in the dust.” These pastoral moralists were ministers first, and so found themselves from time to time having to warn their people, pastorally, of the danger that lay in the accumulation of wealth. These men, including Presbyterian pastor Henry Boardman, Unitarian Andrew Peabody, and Congregationalist Joseph Emerson, were not ideologically opposed to capitalism, but were concerned about what capitalism might become in the hands of entrepreneurs.
Three responses to the rise of industrialization and to the philosophy that underlay it—the philosophy of Adam Smith. All three responses from antebellum American Christian leaders, some educators, some captains of industry, some pastors. What none of them suspected was that there was lurking in the shadows a much more strident voice, one that was not buttressed by quotes from the Bible, but one that would sound a clarion call against Smith’s project. We will take that up in the next installment.
Chad Owen Brand
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Of Scarecrows and Tin Men: GCR and the Economic Health of the SBC and the Country
OF SCARECROWS AND TIN MEN
THE GCR AND THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE SBC AND THE COUNTRY
L. Frank Baum published The Wizard of Oz in 1900. Though it is now generally seen as one of the quintessential children’s stories, it was originally intended also as a political satire on the Presidential election of 1896. The campaign was waged against the backdrop of the economic panic of 1893 that was almost as severe as the Great Depression. In the story the Tin Man represents the factory workers, forced to work so many hours to make a living that their grueling labor caused then to lose their hearts. The Scarecrow was the late-century farmer, duped by robber barons to get out of debt by making more silver coinage, thus devaluing the money through inflation, but, what did they know? They hadn’t got a brain. At least, so goes the interpretation. All of this was taking place on a stage set right before a new century dawned—a century of hope for the country, perhaps even for the world.
On April 16, 2009, President Daniel Akin of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary preached a message entitled “Axioms of Great Commission Resurgence.” It was in some sense a response to many concerns that had been voiced for several years throughout the SBC for more conversions and more baptisms both on the mission field and here at home. It was in another sense a clarion call for Southern Baptists to lift up their chins, to raise their heads, to clench their teeth and march forward in mission thrust as they had done in 1919 with the Seventy-Five Million Campaign. The response to Akin’s challenge from key SBC pastors and most of the entity heads was immediate and passionate. They saw this as a moment when we as Southern Baptists could once again say, “Let’s Roll.” And make it happen.
To make something like this happen, to see it through, takes more than a sermon and conference or two. It takes a strategy that takes into full account the strengths and weaknesses of our institutions, the real condition of our churches, and the strength of our resolve. It also must consider the obstacles before us, obstacles of many kinds. One of those obstacles is the economic condition of our denomination and of our country.
All one has to do is to look at the receipts of the International Mission Board in last year’s Lottie Moon Offering. The goal was $170 Million. The actual gifts totaled $141 Million. That constitutes a $29 Million shortfall. The impact is real, it is significant, and it represents a potential retreat on the part of Southern Baptists in the area of missions. This would be unprecedented in the last century. It would also be a serious blow to our sense of call as an evangelical denomination still committed to sharing the genuine gospel with genuinely lost people who need to hear it more than anything else in their lives.
There have been significant efforts on the part of many churches and SBC entities to soften the blow of this shortfall by taking special Lottie Moon offerings in August, special one-time offerings to send to the IMB by individual churches, entities, and other similar efforts. All of those are commendable, and those who have criticized these efforts (and many, especially on the left wing of the SBC, have been critical) have done so out of an agenda that is mainly bent on bashing the Southern Baptist Convention. Still, the traditional strategy of the IMB getting about half of its budget through the CP and about the other half from Lottie Moon is the formula which has worked for decades and is still likely the right strategy for the future. So, what will happen if 2009 witnesses a similar shortfall? The impact could be devastating.
One of the components of the GCR is Article IX, which calls for the SBC to consider what might be a “More Effective Convention Structure.” One of the key statements in the GCR document says this: “At the midpoint of the 20th century the Southern Baptist Convention was a convention characterized by impressive institutions, innovative programs, and strong loyalty from the churches. But the convention has too often failed to adapt its structure and programs to the changing culture. We are frequently aiming at a culture that went out of existence years ago, failing to understand how mid-20th century methods and strategies are not working in the 21st century.” There may be reasons why we ought to reconsider the structure of the SBC, at least in part for economic reasons. We do not have unlimited resources. (There is, in fact, no such thing as unlimited resources in the human, worldly economy.)
Churches have constantly to ask themselves, “Are we using the best possible methods to carry out our calling to reach our community with the gospel?” What is true of churches ought also to be true of the SBC. We cannot simply assume that, because of what we believed in 1845, or 1891, or 1919, or 1925 to be the best methodology for carrying out our mandate, that such a methodology will be perennially right for us into perpetuity. It is always good to reevaluate methodology. Not message. That IS perennial. So, we should trust the Task Force to be good stewards of their mandate, and to give due consideration to their recommendations at the right time.
The economic challenges before us are real. Cap and Tax. The Bailouts. Health Care Reform. If all of these were pushed to the limits that some in Congress would like to see happen, there is little doubt that we as Americans would be more and more impoverished in the years and decades ahead. Already the printing of currency to stave off the economic crisis has seriously devalued the dollar and created an impending new crisis. Has anyone in Washington ever taken Economics 101? Has anyone in Washington any sense of historical perspective about what Germany went through in the 1920s? I wonder. The challenges of the future could be far more profound than we anticipate even now.
On the other hand, the IMB difficulties, severe as they are, could be easily solved. The shortfall was $29 Million. There are about 8 Million Southern Baptists who attend church at least once a month. Do the math. That is less than 4 dollars per person. If we can’t get Southern Baptists to pony up an additional 4 bucks a person for our mission offering every Christmas, then the problem is not the economy.
L. Frank Baum seemed dubious about the prospects of the future, but at least he could entertain the children. Let us hope we can do far more than that. There is much at stake.
Chad Owen Brand
THE GCR AND THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE SBC AND THE COUNTRY
L. Frank Baum published The Wizard of Oz in 1900. Though it is now generally seen as one of the quintessential children’s stories, it was originally intended also as a political satire on the Presidential election of 1896. The campaign was waged against the backdrop of the economic panic of 1893 that was almost as severe as the Great Depression. In the story the Tin Man represents the factory workers, forced to work so many hours to make a living that their grueling labor caused then to lose their hearts. The Scarecrow was the late-century farmer, duped by robber barons to get out of debt by making more silver coinage, thus devaluing the money through inflation, but, what did they know? They hadn’t got a brain. At least, so goes the interpretation. All of this was taking place on a stage set right before a new century dawned—a century of hope for the country, perhaps even for the world.
On April 16, 2009, President Daniel Akin of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary preached a message entitled “Axioms of Great Commission Resurgence.” It was in some sense a response to many concerns that had been voiced for several years throughout the SBC for more conversions and more baptisms both on the mission field and here at home. It was in another sense a clarion call for Southern Baptists to lift up their chins, to raise their heads, to clench their teeth and march forward in mission thrust as they had done in 1919 with the Seventy-Five Million Campaign. The response to Akin’s challenge from key SBC pastors and most of the entity heads was immediate and passionate. They saw this as a moment when we as Southern Baptists could once again say, “Let’s Roll.” And make it happen.
To make something like this happen, to see it through, takes more than a sermon and conference or two. It takes a strategy that takes into full account the strengths and weaknesses of our institutions, the real condition of our churches, and the strength of our resolve. It also must consider the obstacles before us, obstacles of many kinds. One of those obstacles is the economic condition of our denomination and of our country.
All one has to do is to look at the receipts of the International Mission Board in last year’s Lottie Moon Offering. The goal was $170 Million. The actual gifts totaled $141 Million. That constitutes a $29 Million shortfall. The impact is real, it is significant, and it represents a potential retreat on the part of Southern Baptists in the area of missions. This would be unprecedented in the last century. It would also be a serious blow to our sense of call as an evangelical denomination still committed to sharing the genuine gospel with genuinely lost people who need to hear it more than anything else in their lives.
There have been significant efforts on the part of many churches and SBC entities to soften the blow of this shortfall by taking special Lottie Moon offerings in August, special one-time offerings to send to the IMB by individual churches, entities, and other similar efforts. All of those are commendable, and those who have criticized these efforts (and many, especially on the left wing of the SBC, have been critical) have done so out of an agenda that is mainly bent on bashing the Southern Baptist Convention. Still, the traditional strategy of the IMB getting about half of its budget through the CP and about the other half from Lottie Moon is the formula which has worked for decades and is still likely the right strategy for the future. So, what will happen if 2009 witnesses a similar shortfall? The impact could be devastating.
One of the components of the GCR is Article IX, which calls for the SBC to consider what might be a “More Effective Convention Structure.” One of the key statements in the GCR document says this: “At the midpoint of the 20th century the Southern Baptist Convention was a convention characterized by impressive institutions, innovative programs, and strong loyalty from the churches. But the convention has too often failed to adapt its structure and programs to the changing culture. We are frequently aiming at a culture that went out of existence years ago, failing to understand how mid-20th century methods and strategies are not working in the 21st century.” There may be reasons why we ought to reconsider the structure of the SBC, at least in part for economic reasons. We do not have unlimited resources. (There is, in fact, no such thing as unlimited resources in the human, worldly economy.)
Churches have constantly to ask themselves, “Are we using the best possible methods to carry out our calling to reach our community with the gospel?” What is true of churches ought also to be true of the SBC. We cannot simply assume that, because of what we believed in 1845, or 1891, or 1919, or 1925 to be the best methodology for carrying out our mandate, that such a methodology will be perennially right for us into perpetuity. It is always good to reevaluate methodology. Not message. That IS perennial. So, we should trust the Task Force to be good stewards of their mandate, and to give due consideration to their recommendations at the right time.
The economic challenges before us are real. Cap and Tax. The Bailouts. Health Care Reform. If all of these were pushed to the limits that some in Congress would like to see happen, there is little doubt that we as Americans would be more and more impoverished in the years and decades ahead. Already the printing of currency to stave off the economic crisis has seriously devalued the dollar and created an impending new crisis. Has anyone in Washington ever taken Economics 101? Has anyone in Washington any sense of historical perspective about what Germany went through in the 1920s? I wonder. The challenges of the future could be far more profound than we anticipate even now.
On the other hand, the IMB difficulties, severe as they are, could be easily solved. The shortfall was $29 Million. There are about 8 Million Southern Baptists who attend church at least once a month. Do the math. That is less than 4 dollars per person. If we can’t get Southern Baptists to pony up an additional 4 bucks a person for our mission offering every Christmas, then the problem is not the economy.
L. Frank Baum seemed dubious about the prospects of the future, but at least he could entertain the children. Let us hope we can do far more than that. There is much at stake.
Chad Owen Brand
Friday, October 23, 2009
Calvin for Profit
In a brand new book, Calvin and Commerce: The Transforming Power of Calvinism in Market Economies, by David Hall and Matthew Burton, readers are treated to a smorgasbord of theological, political, and economic wisdom that, if heeded, could transform the nature of the debate taking place in our political arena right now. The book is filled with great research into the political and economic implications of the Reformation, especially the Genevan version, but in this blog I am only going to touch on a very few of the items that are worthy of comment.
The authors make a case that the reforms enacted under Calvin's leadership in Geneva were nothing short of astounding in impact. Largely because of Calvin's consistent teaching on obedience to God, thrift, Sabbath keeping, generosity, hard work, and making use of God's created order as good steards of the gifts of God, the city's productivity sky-rocketed in short shrift. When Calvin came to Geneva in 1536 there were fifty merchants, three printers, and few if any nobles. By the late 1550s Geneva was home to 180 merchants, 113 printers and publishers, and at least seventy aristocratic refugees who claimed nobility (page 27). This was the result of two primary forces--Calvin's teachings and the attractiveness of the city to refugees and others looking for a place to go in fleeing religious persecution.
Those are fascinating statistics. In fact, they are more facinating to me than they were even to the authors of the book, who do not make much comment on the numbers. Here is what I mean. During times of dislocation and demographic movement, it is not common for commerce to thrive. This is especially in the case in static societies, such as Reformation Europe, where people did not typically move far from their birthplace. But think about this even in a more modern context, late nineteenth century European migrations to the United States. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the large influx of "European Trash" (as they were often called at the time) into New York City, Chicago, Detroit and other large northeastern cities knows what the impact was: slum neighborhoods, massive unemployment, crime (Mafioso and others), alcoholism, and social unrest. This went on for decades in some places. But not so Geneva. Why? The major reason is that the city was being reformed under godly teachers, and that the theology of work, whcih is heavily based on a theology of creation, fall, and redemption, caused a rising economy, not a falling economy to develop.
The authors of the book have reasons why this sort of thing would work at all. They write, "Views about wealth flow from theology or ultimate values. The thesis of our claim is that financial and business concerns are not separate from but an extension of theological (in this case Christian) beliefs" (page xvii). What a thought! Financial and business concerns are an extension of theological values. Anyone who has studied the history of economics (even in a cursory way) knows this to be true. Adam Smith argued for free markets, private property, private ownership of the means of production, low governmental taxation, inheritance rights, and freedom of all to engage in whatever commerce they desired, religious liberty. The result--the most productive and wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the United States. Karl Marx argued for abolition of private property, a heavy graduated income tax, the abolition of inheritance, centralization of credit in the hands of the government, the abolition of religion. The result--The Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea.
Ideas have impacts. Anyone who would like a better understanding of the impact of Reformation thought on economics and the potential for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ought to take a read on this new book. There is an old saw about Capitalism. "Capitalism is the worst sort of economic system around; except for all the rest." I believe that! In a day when our government is edging its way toward the Marxist pathway, we need to wake up and smell the Genevan coffee. Let's don't go there!
Chad Brand
The authors make a case that the reforms enacted under Calvin's leadership in Geneva were nothing short of astounding in impact. Largely because of Calvin's consistent teaching on obedience to God, thrift, Sabbath keeping, generosity, hard work, and making use of God's created order as good steards of the gifts of God, the city's productivity sky-rocketed in short shrift. When Calvin came to Geneva in 1536 there were fifty merchants, three printers, and few if any nobles. By the late 1550s Geneva was home to 180 merchants, 113 printers and publishers, and at least seventy aristocratic refugees who claimed nobility (page 27). This was the result of two primary forces--Calvin's teachings and the attractiveness of the city to refugees and others looking for a place to go in fleeing religious persecution.
Those are fascinating statistics. In fact, they are more facinating to me than they were even to the authors of the book, who do not make much comment on the numbers. Here is what I mean. During times of dislocation and demographic movement, it is not common for commerce to thrive. This is especially in the case in static societies, such as Reformation Europe, where people did not typically move far from their birthplace. But think about this even in a more modern context, late nineteenth century European migrations to the United States. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the large influx of "European Trash" (as they were often called at the time) into New York City, Chicago, Detroit and other large northeastern cities knows what the impact was: slum neighborhoods, massive unemployment, crime (Mafioso and others), alcoholism, and social unrest. This went on for decades in some places. But not so Geneva. Why? The major reason is that the city was being reformed under godly teachers, and that the theology of work, whcih is heavily based on a theology of creation, fall, and redemption, caused a rising economy, not a falling economy to develop.
The authors of the book have reasons why this sort of thing would work at all. They write, "Views about wealth flow from theology or ultimate values. The thesis of our claim is that financial and business concerns are not separate from but an extension of theological (in this case Christian) beliefs" (page xvii). What a thought! Financial and business concerns are an extension of theological values. Anyone who has studied the history of economics (even in a cursory way) knows this to be true. Adam Smith argued for free markets, private property, private ownership of the means of production, low governmental taxation, inheritance rights, and freedom of all to engage in whatever commerce they desired, religious liberty. The result--the most productive and wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the United States. Karl Marx argued for abolition of private property, a heavy graduated income tax, the abolition of inheritance, centralization of credit in the hands of the government, the abolition of religion. The result--The Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea.
Ideas have impacts. Anyone who would like a better understanding of the impact of Reformation thought on economics and the potential for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ought to take a read on this new book. There is an old saw about Capitalism. "Capitalism is the worst sort of economic system around; except for all the rest." I believe that! In a day when our government is edging its way toward the Marxist pathway, we need to wake up and smell the Genevan coffee. Let's don't go there!
Chad Brand
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Eschatology forum
To listen to the forum on end times that Professors Ware, Schreiner, and Brand held earlier this week, just go here:
http://www.boycecollege.com/
Monday, September 7, 2009
Heart to Heart
I have been preaching through the Sermon on the Mount, and one thing we have discovered is that Jesus laid down some very high expectations for his disciples in that message. "Except your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." "He who is angry with his brother may be in danger of hell fire." "Do not judge others." "Do not worry about anything." "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." Those paraphrases of just a few of the expectations of Jesus point out how high and daunting is this expectation of discipleship. Moses' words from his mountain are not any more difficult than Jesus' words from his mountain. So, what do we do with that? What's a Christian to do?
In the Old Testament there are two passages which I had never juxtaposed until the last twenty-four hours, and I think that what we learn from these two texts might point us to a way to deal with Jesus' expectations.
In Jeremiah 17:9 we find the prophet making a very harsh indictment of the Jerusalemites of his day. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" The Weeping Prophet makes this statement as a part of his lengthy indictment of the people of Judah in his day. They were idolaters, they had no desire to keep God's law or honor his covenant, and so, as Jeremiah warns them, God is going to send a fire storm of judgment on them. There is a sense of course in which all humans have deceit in their hearts, and this verse of Scripture is rightly used by systematic theologians (like me!) to point out that all persons have sin in their lives. It is also important to note, though, that the statement has special force here in the historical context of Israel's idolatry and rebellion. It is true of Israel in general, at this time, that the people's hearts were marked by deceit and desperate wickedness and not much else.
Contrast that statement with 1 Samuel 16:7. "But the Lord said to Samuel, 'Do not look at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.'" The context here, of course, is Samuel's search for a replacement for Saul, and God has led him to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem. Gazing on Eliab, eldest son of Jesse, Samuel believed he had found the man, due to the boy's doughty stature, but the Lord, of course, would choose David because the Lord looks at the heart.
Now, how do we understand the contrast here, and what might this tell those of us who have the task of discipleship before us? David was no less of a man born into this world with a nature of sin than the Jerusalemites of Jeremiah's day. David himself admits this when he writes, "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5). In addition, David was a man who would commit sins both large and less large. He would become an adulterer and he would conspire to murder. In addition to that, there are texts that hint that some of his warring was not exactly pleasing to God (he was a "man of bloodshed"). In contrast to Genesis 2:24 David would take many wives, and when those wives bore to him children, he had a difficult time raising some of them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. When Amnon raped his half-sister, David did not exact the penalty prescribed by the law. And when Absalom exacted retribution by killing Amnon, neither did David deal with his son in the manner given by Moses. There seems plenty here to make us wonder, "how is the heart of David any different from the heart of Jeremiah's enemies?"
The answer is, that David's heart was greatly different. First, his heart turned toward God early and stayed toward God all his days. For all his failures, David did not want to be a spiritual failure. He wanted to love and serve God. That comes out over and over again in his Psalms. "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" "I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart, I will tell of all your wonders." "Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for him." "Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer." Sinner though he was, David all of his life wanted to know God. He was never content with the nature of his spiritual experience of God, and more than anything, he wanted to know God.
Second, when confronted with his sin, David always took the blame for his own sin and repented. Contrast David with his predecessor, Saul. When Saul was confronted with his failure to do the will of God in 1 Samuel 15, he blamed his soldiers for taking the plunder, and then went on to say that he had disobeyed God for God's own good, in order to make sacrifice to the Lord. Samuel's response was that God desired obedience rather than sacrifice. Saul only admitted doing wrong after Samuel told him that God was taking the kingdom from him. By contrast, when David was confronted by Nathan the prophet after the sins against Bathsheba and Uriah, when Nathan pointed the long, bony prophet's finger at David and pronounced, "Thou art the man" (some passages only work in the KJV), David confessed his sin and repented before God. Further David would write a Psalm of repentance (Psalm 51), akin to Augustine's Confessions (a bishop admitting publicly to the sins of his younger years) so that all would know of his repenting. And he would also pen these words: "O Lord, you have searched me and known me, you know when I sit down and rise up, you understand my thoughts from afar. . . . Search me, O God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts. And see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Saul would never have composed those last lines, but the man who committed grave sins still wanted more than anything else to serve and know the Lord. Though a sinner, and even a terrible sinner, David's heart was different from the hearts of those in Jerusalem who would fall to Nebuchadnezzar.
So, what about the Sermon on the Mount and its demands on us? What about Christian discipleship in general? Well, in the New Testament we find exactly the same kind of teaching about the heart that we observe in these two Old Testament texts. In Matthew 15:19-20 our Lord said that out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness and slanders. And John, in his first epistle states "We shall know by this that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before him, in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God" (1 John 3:19-21). The heart can be filled with evil, or, on the other hand, it can be the dwelling place of God (Eph. 3:17).
The Bible lays out for us the demands of discipleship, and it lays them out with great clarity and specificity. "If any man will come after me let him deny himself, take up the cross and follow me." There is no excuse for half-hearted spirituality. There are only two gates, one of which is wide and easy, and the other of which is narrow and hard. The Lord is clear--pick the narrow and hard way. And pick it will all your heart!
As Jesus said those words in Matthew 5-7 he knew that no one who ever lived would live up to those demands perfectly throughout an entire lifetime. The only one who would do it would be he himself. Most of us have broken every one of the demands in the Sermon on the Mount at some point in our sinful existence. We have all stared at a woman to lust at some point. We have all wanted retaliation against a wrong on some occasions. We have all had anxiety over food and raiment at various times. We have judged others unfairly. We have sometimes done unto others what they have done to us--and that was not pleasant! Like David, we have had hearts for God, but sometimes hands for the devil. So, how do we cope with this?
Like David, we must be people who never stop seeking the Lord. Early and late, during youth and dotage, we must be people who are constantly composing new psalms, even if only in our own private prayers. We must tell God that we love him, over and over, even in the midst of our weaknesses, failures, and spiritual inadequacies. Even in the midst of our sins. We must be people who desire not only to do good works, but to do them for the Father, consciously presenting them to him. "Here, Father, I taught this class, I made this hospital visit, I gave this food, but I gave it so that you would be pleased with me, Father. I don't care if anyone else noticed, but I did it for you." This is what it means to be a person after God's own heart. This is why David danced before the Lord when he brought the ark into Jerusalem. Some misunderstood and despised him for it, but he did not care--he did not do it for them. And neither do we carry out our ministries for them, but for the Father.
Like David, we must be people who never stop confessing our sins. When we confess our sins, we are saying, "Lord, there is still that in my heart that is not pleasing to you. I find in myself the very thing Jeremiah spoke of, and I hate it. Take it from me." The reason that David's heart was a heart that God was pleased with was that he saw the defilement in his heart and sought to have it exorcized; the Jerusalemites in Jeremiah's day thought that their hearts were perfectly fine. Like Saul, they thought they were, basically, OK. The one who thinks his heart is pure is defiled; the one who sees defilement in his own heart is one who, as Jesus said in the Beatitudes, is "pure in heart." If you follow the progression in the Beatitudes, you don't get to purity of heart, though, till you first admit your poverty of spirit, and then mourn for your sins. The Sauls and the Jerusalemites of this world will not do that. The Davids of this world do it all the time.
What does this mean for us, when you boil it all down? Seek God every day. Realize that you cannot be an occasional Christian. When you sin, go to God and pour out your heart of confession. Realize that every moment of every day is lived in the company of a heavenly Father who wants nothing more than to bless those who hunger and thirst for him.
Let's live like that! Is there any other way to live?
I have been preaching through the Sermon on the Mount, and one thing we have discovered is that Jesus laid down some very high expectations for his disciples in that message. "Except your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." "He who is angry with his brother may be in danger of hell fire." "Do not judge others." "Do not worry about anything." "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." Those paraphrases of just a few of the expectations of Jesus point out how high and daunting is this expectation of discipleship. Moses' words from his mountain are not any more difficult than Jesus' words from his mountain. So, what do we do with that? What's a Christian to do?
In the Old Testament there are two passages which I had never juxtaposed until the last twenty-four hours, and I think that what we learn from these two texts might point us to a way to deal with Jesus' expectations.
In Jeremiah 17:9 we find the prophet making a very harsh indictment of the Jerusalemites of his day. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" The Weeping Prophet makes this statement as a part of his lengthy indictment of the people of Judah in his day. They were idolaters, they had no desire to keep God's law or honor his covenant, and so, as Jeremiah warns them, God is going to send a fire storm of judgment on them. There is a sense of course in which all humans have deceit in their hearts, and this verse of Scripture is rightly used by systematic theologians (like me!) to point out that all persons have sin in their lives. It is also important to note, though, that the statement has special force here in the historical context of Israel's idolatry and rebellion. It is true of Israel in general, at this time, that the people's hearts were marked by deceit and desperate wickedness and not much else.
Contrast that statement with 1 Samuel 16:7. "But the Lord said to Samuel, 'Do not look at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.'" The context here, of course, is Samuel's search for a replacement for Saul, and God has led him to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem. Gazing on Eliab, eldest son of Jesse, Samuel believed he had found the man, due to the boy's doughty stature, but the Lord, of course, would choose David because the Lord looks at the heart.
Now, how do we understand the contrast here, and what might this tell those of us who have the task of discipleship before us? David was no less of a man born into this world with a nature of sin than the Jerusalemites of Jeremiah's day. David himself admits this when he writes, "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5). In addition, David was a man who would commit sins both large and less large. He would become an adulterer and he would conspire to murder. In addition to that, there are texts that hint that some of his warring was not exactly pleasing to God (he was a "man of bloodshed"). In contrast to Genesis 2:24 David would take many wives, and when those wives bore to him children, he had a difficult time raising some of them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. When Amnon raped his half-sister, David did not exact the penalty prescribed by the law. And when Absalom exacted retribution by killing Amnon, neither did David deal with his son in the manner given by Moses. There seems plenty here to make us wonder, "how is the heart of David any different from the heart of Jeremiah's enemies?"
The answer is, that David's heart was greatly different. First, his heart turned toward God early and stayed toward God all his days. For all his failures, David did not want to be a spiritual failure. He wanted to love and serve God. That comes out over and over again in his Psalms. "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" "I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart, I will tell of all your wonders." "Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for him." "Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer." Sinner though he was, David all of his life wanted to know God. He was never content with the nature of his spiritual experience of God, and more than anything, he wanted to know God.
Second, when confronted with his sin, David always took the blame for his own sin and repented. Contrast David with his predecessor, Saul. When Saul was confronted with his failure to do the will of God in 1 Samuel 15, he blamed his soldiers for taking the plunder, and then went on to say that he had disobeyed God for God's own good, in order to make sacrifice to the Lord. Samuel's response was that God desired obedience rather than sacrifice. Saul only admitted doing wrong after Samuel told him that God was taking the kingdom from him. By contrast, when David was confronted by Nathan the prophet after the sins against Bathsheba and Uriah, when Nathan pointed the long, bony prophet's finger at David and pronounced, "Thou art the man" (some passages only work in the KJV), David confessed his sin and repented before God. Further David would write a Psalm of repentance (Psalm 51), akin to Augustine's Confessions (a bishop admitting publicly to the sins of his younger years) so that all would know of his repenting. And he would also pen these words: "O Lord, you have searched me and known me, you know when I sit down and rise up, you understand my thoughts from afar. . . . Search me, O God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts. And see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Saul would never have composed those last lines, but the man who committed grave sins still wanted more than anything else to serve and know the Lord. Though a sinner, and even a terrible sinner, David's heart was different from the hearts of those in Jerusalem who would fall to Nebuchadnezzar.
So, what about the Sermon on the Mount and its demands on us? What about Christian discipleship in general? Well, in the New Testament we find exactly the same kind of teaching about the heart that we observe in these two Old Testament texts. In Matthew 15:19-20 our Lord said that out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness and slanders. And John, in his first epistle states "We shall know by this that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before him, in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God" (1 John 3:19-21). The heart can be filled with evil, or, on the other hand, it can be the dwelling place of God (Eph. 3:17).
The Bible lays out for us the demands of discipleship, and it lays them out with great clarity and specificity. "If any man will come after me let him deny himself, take up the cross and follow me." There is no excuse for half-hearted spirituality. There are only two gates, one of which is wide and easy, and the other of which is narrow and hard. The Lord is clear--pick the narrow and hard way. And pick it will all your heart!
As Jesus said those words in Matthew 5-7 he knew that no one who ever lived would live up to those demands perfectly throughout an entire lifetime. The only one who would do it would be he himself. Most of us have broken every one of the demands in the Sermon on the Mount at some point in our sinful existence. We have all stared at a woman to lust at some point. We have all wanted retaliation against a wrong on some occasions. We have all had anxiety over food and raiment at various times. We have judged others unfairly. We have sometimes done unto others what they have done to us--and that was not pleasant! Like David, we have had hearts for God, but sometimes hands for the devil. So, how do we cope with this?
Like David, we must be people who never stop seeking the Lord. Early and late, during youth and dotage, we must be people who are constantly composing new psalms, even if only in our own private prayers. We must tell God that we love him, over and over, even in the midst of our weaknesses, failures, and spiritual inadequacies. Even in the midst of our sins. We must be people who desire not only to do good works, but to do them for the Father, consciously presenting them to him. "Here, Father, I taught this class, I made this hospital visit, I gave this food, but I gave it so that you would be pleased with me, Father. I don't care if anyone else noticed, but I did it for you." This is what it means to be a person after God's own heart. This is why David danced before the Lord when he brought the ark into Jerusalem. Some misunderstood and despised him for it, but he did not care--he did not do it for them. And neither do we carry out our ministries for them, but for the Father.
Like David, we must be people who never stop confessing our sins. When we confess our sins, we are saying, "Lord, there is still that in my heart that is not pleasing to you. I find in myself the very thing Jeremiah spoke of, and I hate it. Take it from me." The reason that David's heart was a heart that God was pleased with was that he saw the defilement in his heart and sought to have it exorcized; the Jerusalemites in Jeremiah's day thought that their hearts were perfectly fine. Like Saul, they thought they were, basically, OK. The one who thinks his heart is pure is defiled; the one who sees defilement in his own heart is one who, as Jesus said in the Beatitudes, is "pure in heart." If you follow the progression in the Beatitudes, you don't get to purity of heart, though, till you first admit your poverty of spirit, and then mourn for your sins. The Sauls and the Jerusalemites of this world will not do that. The Davids of this world do it all the time.
What does this mean for us, when you boil it all down? Seek God every day. Realize that you cannot be an occasional Christian. When you sin, go to God and pour out your heart of confession. Realize that every moment of every day is lived in the company of a heavenly Father who wants nothing more than to bless those who hunger and thirst for him.
Let's live like that! Is there any other way to live?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Preaching on Sin
My father-in-law early on was not altogether proud to have a preacher in the family, but on one occasion when I told him that I was on my way out to preach, he urged me, “Well, give ‘em hell.” I tried to retort that this was not really what I was supposed to do. On later reflection, though, it seemed to me that I certainly was intended to give them, or at least display to them, hell. And in showing them hell, the preacher must show them the road to hell—the pathway of unrepented sin. Preachers must preach on sin.
Of course, there are great temptations not to preach on sin(!) Brian McLaren tells us that this is not the way to reach Gen-Xers. Robert Schuller told us this was not the way to reach Boomers. Harry Fosdick told us this was not the way to reach Moderns. I am sure we could find such sentiments all through history, and the reason is that we do not like to be told that we are sinners, and so, preachers who preach on sin take the chance of alienating their congregations, or at least some members of their congregations. Here is the problem with that fear—at a certain level the task of preaching is precisely to alienate. We are to expose the sinfulness of the congregation by preaching the gospel, and such gospel preaching includes preaching on sin. If we are unwilling to do that, then we are, in A. W. Tozer’s words, “water-boys of the pulpit.” Let me explain what I do mean by alienation, and what I don’t mean by it.
Both Paul and Jesus begin their gospel presentations with a discussion of sin. After a few introductory words and a preliminary consideration or two, Paul spends two and a half chapters at the opening of Romans discussing the sinfulness of humanity—all humanity. And of course, he does so eloquently and passionately. These words are endemic to the gospel itself, since, in telling the gospel story we have, presumably, to tell why Jesus ever came to die on the cross in the first place. Without sin, there is no beautiful manger scene (and of course, it was not all that beautiful, anyway); without sin, there is no healing of the sick or raising of the dead; without sin there is no Sermon on the Mount. Here is the point: sin is the context in which all of those things took place, and so, we cannot preach the gospel without preaching on sin. In other words, you cannot tell people about their best life today until you remind them first of their worse life yesterday.
Paul is not alone in this. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, after some preliminaries, expounded on the sinfulness of humanity—all humanity. In Matthew 5 beginning in verse 21, Jesus, in this wonderful inaugural message in Matthew, in which the gospel is explained with great clarity, expounds on six commandments and the ways in which the Jews were, on the one hand, misunderstanding them, and, on the other hand, breaking them. I have space here to elaborate on only the first two. Jesus addresses the laws against murder and adultery. He makes it clear that the common understanding of those laws is superficial, and in his truly authoritative fashion, he says, “Amen I say to you that you shall not live in a state of settled anger with your brother; Amen I say to you that you must not stare at your sister to lust.” Those two sins indict the entire human race. And this is something that was obvious even to pagans. In Greek mythology Ares, the god of war, was romantically linked to Aphrodite, the goddess of sex. War and sex. Anger and Lust. They seem opposite, since anger pushes the other away while lust lures the other close, but they are actually very similar. At the root of each lies the ego. “I have decided you are unworthy. I have decided to want you.” They are different in content but similar in intent. Even the Greeks knew there was a link between these illnesses, and that even their gods were infected with the disease. Of course, by the time the Greeks were anesthetized by the Romans, they no longer cared.
So, for Jesus, as well as for Paul, an explication of sin is an essential, a non-negotiable part of the gospel proclamation.
How deeply this infection runs in modern culture! So, do we simply let the disease take its toll, or do we do something about it? Let me tell you—their momma is not going to do anything about it in many cases. In a day when Baptist septuagenarians are shacking up, just who is going to try to keep the fox out of the henhouse? Well, if no one else will do it, then the pastor gets the call. And he should. And he better.
The preacher must declare that unrepented sin itself is alienation. The unrepentant sinner is alienated from God—either as a non-believer or as a believer under discipline from the Lord. The unbeliever, even the one in my church or your church on Sunday morning, stands in danger of hell-fire, as Edwards reminded us in his famous sermon. Curiously, in Jesus’ even more famous sermon, after discussing the sins of anger and lust, he said exactly the same thing. “If you do not deal with your sins of anger and lust, you are in danger of hell-fire.” Let me tell you something, fellow pastor, your members will not all faint if you occasionally use the word “hell” from the pulpit. (Well, not all of them!) I know the word was probably overcooked at one time in history, but undercooking is no more palatable than overcooking.
So, we preach on alienation, but not in order to alienate. We preach on alienation in order to reconcile. So, when you preach on sin, do it with tears in your eyes and not a flash of anger. (Don’t preach against anger angrily.) When you preach on sin and alienation, do it recognizing your own sinfulness and alienation. Admit that you, too, have been where they are, and that you are not the expert come here to lecture them on getting their lives right. You are simply the one who got out of the mire before they did, so that you could throw them a rope of rescue. But when you preach on sin, make it clear that this is a crucial moment. With both anger and lust, Jesus said, “Do something now! This is not the time to mull it over. Get out now, or you may be in hell by morning.” Preachers need to remind themselves of that, too.
Chad Brand
(This article also appears in the current issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology)
Of course, there are great temptations not to preach on sin(!) Brian McLaren tells us that this is not the way to reach Gen-Xers. Robert Schuller told us this was not the way to reach Boomers. Harry Fosdick told us this was not the way to reach Moderns. I am sure we could find such sentiments all through history, and the reason is that we do not like to be told that we are sinners, and so, preachers who preach on sin take the chance of alienating their congregations, or at least some members of their congregations. Here is the problem with that fear—at a certain level the task of preaching is precisely to alienate. We are to expose the sinfulness of the congregation by preaching the gospel, and such gospel preaching includes preaching on sin. If we are unwilling to do that, then we are, in A. W. Tozer’s words, “water-boys of the pulpit.” Let me explain what I do mean by alienation, and what I don’t mean by it.
Both Paul and Jesus begin their gospel presentations with a discussion of sin. After a few introductory words and a preliminary consideration or two, Paul spends two and a half chapters at the opening of Romans discussing the sinfulness of humanity—all humanity. And of course, he does so eloquently and passionately. These words are endemic to the gospel itself, since, in telling the gospel story we have, presumably, to tell why Jesus ever came to die on the cross in the first place. Without sin, there is no beautiful manger scene (and of course, it was not all that beautiful, anyway); without sin, there is no healing of the sick or raising of the dead; without sin there is no Sermon on the Mount. Here is the point: sin is the context in which all of those things took place, and so, we cannot preach the gospel without preaching on sin. In other words, you cannot tell people about their best life today until you remind them first of their worse life yesterday.
Paul is not alone in this. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, after some preliminaries, expounded on the sinfulness of humanity—all humanity. In Matthew 5 beginning in verse 21, Jesus, in this wonderful inaugural message in Matthew, in which the gospel is explained with great clarity, expounds on six commandments and the ways in which the Jews were, on the one hand, misunderstanding them, and, on the other hand, breaking them. I have space here to elaborate on only the first two. Jesus addresses the laws against murder and adultery. He makes it clear that the common understanding of those laws is superficial, and in his truly authoritative fashion, he says, “Amen I say to you that you shall not live in a state of settled anger with your brother; Amen I say to you that you must not stare at your sister to lust.” Those two sins indict the entire human race. And this is something that was obvious even to pagans. In Greek mythology Ares, the god of war, was romantically linked to Aphrodite, the goddess of sex. War and sex. Anger and Lust. They seem opposite, since anger pushes the other away while lust lures the other close, but they are actually very similar. At the root of each lies the ego. “I have decided you are unworthy. I have decided to want you.” They are different in content but similar in intent. Even the Greeks knew there was a link between these illnesses, and that even their gods were infected with the disease. Of course, by the time the Greeks were anesthetized by the Romans, they no longer cared.
So, for Jesus, as well as for Paul, an explication of sin is an essential, a non-negotiable part of the gospel proclamation.
How deeply this infection runs in modern culture! So, do we simply let the disease take its toll, or do we do something about it? Let me tell you—their momma is not going to do anything about it in many cases. In a day when Baptist septuagenarians are shacking up, just who is going to try to keep the fox out of the henhouse? Well, if no one else will do it, then the pastor gets the call. And he should. And he better.
The preacher must declare that unrepented sin itself is alienation. The unrepentant sinner is alienated from God—either as a non-believer or as a believer under discipline from the Lord. The unbeliever, even the one in my church or your church on Sunday morning, stands in danger of hell-fire, as Edwards reminded us in his famous sermon. Curiously, in Jesus’ even more famous sermon, after discussing the sins of anger and lust, he said exactly the same thing. “If you do not deal with your sins of anger and lust, you are in danger of hell-fire.” Let me tell you something, fellow pastor, your members will not all faint if you occasionally use the word “hell” from the pulpit. (Well, not all of them!) I know the word was probably overcooked at one time in history, but undercooking is no more palatable than overcooking.
So, we preach on alienation, but not in order to alienate. We preach on alienation in order to reconcile. So, when you preach on sin, do it with tears in your eyes and not a flash of anger. (Don’t preach against anger angrily.) When you preach on sin and alienation, do it recognizing your own sinfulness and alienation. Admit that you, too, have been where they are, and that you are not the expert come here to lecture them on getting their lives right. You are simply the one who got out of the mire before they did, so that you could throw them a rope of rescue. But when you preach on sin, make it clear that this is a crucial moment. With both anger and lust, Jesus said, “Do something now! This is not the time to mull it over. Get out now, or you may be in hell by morning.” Preachers need to remind themselves of that, too.
Chad Brand
(This article also appears in the current issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology)
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Our Daily Bread
Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread" (Matthew 6:11). I think most people who read this see it as saying, "Ask the Lord to give you and your family food if you are hungry." Of course, Jesus says nothing about being hungry. In the Ideal Prayer, it is simply the first petition that he tells us to speak after we have honored God in our prayer first. But it is not only a prayer to be prayed by the poor--it is a prayer everyone of us should pray.
Jesus uses extreme brevity in outlining the nature of kingdom praying. Three "You" lines addressed to God--his honor, his kingdom, and his will--, and three "us" lines detailing what we should pray for ourselves--food, forgiveness, and freedom from overpowering temptations. He leaves it to us to think through the implications of all of this. Give us our bread. Just what is involved in that? I like Luther's comment on this line. He wrote, “When we pray for bread we are praying for everything necessary for the preservation of this life, like food, a healthy body, good weather, house, home, wife, children, good government, and peace—that God may preserve us from all sorts of calamities, sickness, pestilence, hard times, war, revolution, and the like." That is exactly right. But notice the little word, "our." This is not to be an individualistic prayer, but a prayer addressed to God about our families, our neighborhoods, our nation, and our world. "Give all of us this day our daily bread." What we pray for, we intercede for, and what we intercede for we are to be engaged with. If we pray for bread for all, then we ought to be engaged at some level in seeing to it that such a thing happens. But how?
If we take Luther's words seriously, many of us will need to expand our understanding, not merely of this simple prayer, but of our role in longing for justice in the world. So, what does "give us this day our daily bread" mean practically? It means that those of us who can ought to give bread, or give the wherewithal to obtain bread to those who have none. But Luther rightly recognized that most people who will get bread will get it, not as a gift, but through work. So, we need to pray that God will open doors of labor so that we may earn our bread. Pray that we can find ways to prepare ourselves through training to be employed in our chosen fields. Pray that he will give us good health, so that we will have the ability to work. We need to pray for a good government that will afford people equal opportunities to find work and to be employed--and not to make it easier for some parts of the work force to profit and more difficult for others to do so by its own policies. We ought to pray for a good business environment and for the freedom for companies to pursue the profit advantage. After all, bread comes from profit. No profit, no bread, or perhaps little bread, or maybe unhealthy bread. We need to pray for a good labor force so that workers will be as efficient and hard-working as possible, since bread comes from hard-working and efficient people. We need to pray for a good economy, since it is only in that context that bread will be available to as many as possible, and that as many as possible will be employed in order to do everything we have outlined above.
Remember that our prayer for bread is for all of us to have bread--my family, my church, my neighborhood, but also the entire world. This makes it more complex, obviously, for lots of reasons. Those of us in the West surely realize that we have more bread, better bread, tastier bread, and healthier bread than many in the rest of the world. And we also ought to recognize that we ought to do something to make the field more level. The question is, what do we do? At one level we give bread. We give bread to Darfur and hope it does not wind up in the hands of pirates. But is giving bread the long term solution for most of the world? No. Agriculture experts tell us that we have the ability in terms of production to feed twelve billion people right now. That is more than twice the world population. So, if there were no distribution problem (and there is a huge one), it is possible that we could feed the world as it is. But is that the right way? No. The solution is to find a way to carry out the process I outlined above globally. To give bread, but then to help people find work so that they can buy their own bread, and to pray for and work for improved health so that people can stay employed, and to pray and work for government policies that will allow businesses to work free from over-regulation or interference, and to pray that companies will profit so that all who work there will have more bread, better bread, and so on.
The barriers to this are enormous. Most governments around the world do not want such a free marketplace, since they prefer to curry favor with parts of the economy that will support them, give to them, not oppose them, and so on. But if those barriers could, over time, be addressed, how could such a venture be successful? In their book, On Kingdom Business, Tetsunao Yamamori and Kenneth Eldred show how it is possible for the gospel to advance and for people to have more bread, not merely by receiving gifts, but by becoming entrepreneurs, if American and other Christians who have been successful in business will simply hear the call of the gospel to bring both the Bread of life, and the bread of the table to Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, South Asia, and the rest of the world. Scores of Christian entrepreneurs are now busy taking the story of the gospel and the story of business success to the world. These are people who have taken time out of their own business success stories to give time to helping others figure out how to make bread. Some took early retirement, hearing the call to do just this as their life's calling in their retirement years. It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that will make a substantial difference in the lives and lifestyles of people around the world asking, Give us this day our daily bread.
There is, however, an irony. At a time when American business leaders might have the opportunity to do more than at any other time in history to help lift up the economies of countries around the world, our own country is going backwards in its commitment to the economic models that have made us such an industrial powerhouse. Recent legislation and potential future legislation, if it is all passed, will hinder the very American entrepreneurs I have been discussing from being as helpful as they can be, since this legislation would take away much of their wealth. I have been hearing a lot of rhetoric about "We tried capitalism, and it didn't work. Look at the recent economic crisis." There are several things wrong with that statement. First, as economist Mark Skousen says, "We have never really tried capitalism." Just as the American industrial engine was firing up in the first decade of the twentieth century, politicians, listening to muck-raking journalists, imposed taxes, regulation, and anti-trust legislation that hindered industry from being efficient. During the 'thirties the federal government gave special favors to certain industries and corporations because it benefited the federal government to do so. It was those policies that prolonged the Great Depression, which probably would only have been known as The Significant Recession, if not for federal policies that kept us in economic downturn for eight years. Toward the end of the century much of that regulation was removed, but now, here we have it coming back--in spades. And why? Because of a bad economy, a bad economy largely foisted on us because of government policies changing on a variety of fiscal issues. Second, it was not capitalism, laissez-faire policies, that got us into the current pickle. It was the opposite--government tinkering in the economy. And now, we are moving in a direction that pretty closely follows Karl Marx's recommendations in his 1848 volume co-authored with Engels, The Communist Manifesto.
Let me make one thing clear. I am not placing one political party over the other. Both sides voted for the recent legislation, and both will likely vote for future legislation that could take us further into this pit. There is a part of me that wants to say, "A pox on both your houses." I love E. V. Hill's statement, "I don't go for the left wing and I don't go for the right wing, because they both flap off the same sick bird." Now everyone who knows me knows that I identify with traditional conservative views in the political sphere, but parties don't mean what they once meant. So, our task is to appeal to traditional American values on some issues, but especially to appeal to the Bible. If we are going to pray, "Give us our daily bread," we ought to support the type of economic and political model that can make that the most doable.
Well, I guess you know what I am preaching on Sunday, July 19.
Chad Brand
Jesus uses extreme brevity in outlining the nature of kingdom praying. Three "You" lines addressed to God--his honor, his kingdom, and his will--, and three "us" lines detailing what we should pray for ourselves--food, forgiveness, and freedom from overpowering temptations. He leaves it to us to think through the implications of all of this. Give us our bread. Just what is involved in that? I like Luther's comment on this line. He wrote, “When we pray for bread we are praying for everything necessary for the preservation of this life, like food, a healthy body, good weather, house, home, wife, children, good government, and peace—that God may preserve us from all sorts of calamities, sickness, pestilence, hard times, war, revolution, and the like." That is exactly right. But notice the little word, "our." This is not to be an individualistic prayer, but a prayer addressed to God about our families, our neighborhoods, our nation, and our world. "Give all of us this day our daily bread." What we pray for, we intercede for, and what we intercede for we are to be engaged with. If we pray for bread for all, then we ought to be engaged at some level in seeing to it that such a thing happens. But how?
If we take Luther's words seriously, many of us will need to expand our understanding, not merely of this simple prayer, but of our role in longing for justice in the world. So, what does "give us this day our daily bread" mean practically? It means that those of us who can ought to give bread, or give the wherewithal to obtain bread to those who have none. But Luther rightly recognized that most people who will get bread will get it, not as a gift, but through work. So, we need to pray that God will open doors of labor so that we may earn our bread. Pray that we can find ways to prepare ourselves through training to be employed in our chosen fields. Pray that he will give us good health, so that we will have the ability to work. We need to pray for a good government that will afford people equal opportunities to find work and to be employed--and not to make it easier for some parts of the work force to profit and more difficult for others to do so by its own policies. We ought to pray for a good business environment and for the freedom for companies to pursue the profit advantage. After all, bread comes from profit. No profit, no bread, or perhaps little bread, or maybe unhealthy bread. We need to pray for a good labor force so that workers will be as efficient and hard-working as possible, since bread comes from hard-working and efficient people. We need to pray for a good economy, since it is only in that context that bread will be available to as many as possible, and that as many as possible will be employed in order to do everything we have outlined above.
Remember that our prayer for bread is for all of us to have bread--my family, my church, my neighborhood, but also the entire world. This makes it more complex, obviously, for lots of reasons. Those of us in the West surely realize that we have more bread, better bread, tastier bread, and healthier bread than many in the rest of the world. And we also ought to recognize that we ought to do something to make the field more level. The question is, what do we do? At one level we give bread. We give bread to Darfur and hope it does not wind up in the hands of pirates. But is giving bread the long term solution for most of the world? No. Agriculture experts tell us that we have the ability in terms of production to feed twelve billion people right now. That is more than twice the world population. So, if there were no distribution problem (and there is a huge one), it is possible that we could feed the world as it is. But is that the right way? No. The solution is to find a way to carry out the process I outlined above globally. To give bread, but then to help people find work so that they can buy their own bread, and to pray for and work for improved health so that people can stay employed, and to pray and work for government policies that will allow businesses to work free from over-regulation or interference, and to pray that companies will profit so that all who work there will have more bread, better bread, and so on.
The barriers to this are enormous. Most governments around the world do not want such a free marketplace, since they prefer to curry favor with parts of the economy that will support them, give to them, not oppose them, and so on. But if those barriers could, over time, be addressed, how could such a venture be successful? In their book, On Kingdom Business, Tetsunao Yamamori and Kenneth Eldred show how it is possible for the gospel to advance and for people to have more bread, not merely by receiving gifts, but by becoming entrepreneurs, if American and other Christians who have been successful in business will simply hear the call of the gospel to bring both the Bread of life, and the bread of the table to Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, South Asia, and the rest of the world. Scores of Christian entrepreneurs are now busy taking the story of the gospel and the story of business success to the world. These are people who have taken time out of their own business success stories to give time to helping others figure out how to make bread. Some took early retirement, hearing the call to do just this as their life's calling in their retirement years. It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that will make a substantial difference in the lives and lifestyles of people around the world asking, Give us this day our daily bread.
There is, however, an irony. At a time when American business leaders might have the opportunity to do more than at any other time in history to help lift up the economies of countries around the world, our own country is going backwards in its commitment to the economic models that have made us such an industrial powerhouse. Recent legislation and potential future legislation, if it is all passed, will hinder the very American entrepreneurs I have been discussing from being as helpful as they can be, since this legislation would take away much of their wealth. I have been hearing a lot of rhetoric about "We tried capitalism, and it didn't work. Look at the recent economic crisis." There are several things wrong with that statement. First, as economist Mark Skousen says, "We have never really tried capitalism." Just as the American industrial engine was firing up in the first decade of the twentieth century, politicians, listening to muck-raking journalists, imposed taxes, regulation, and anti-trust legislation that hindered industry from being efficient. During the 'thirties the federal government gave special favors to certain industries and corporations because it benefited the federal government to do so. It was those policies that prolonged the Great Depression, which probably would only have been known as The Significant Recession, if not for federal policies that kept us in economic downturn for eight years. Toward the end of the century much of that regulation was removed, but now, here we have it coming back--in spades. And why? Because of a bad economy, a bad economy largely foisted on us because of government policies changing on a variety of fiscal issues. Second, it was not capitalism, laissez-faire policies, that got us into the current pickle. It was the opposite--government tinkering in the economy. And now, we are moving in a direction that pretty closely follows Karl Marx's recommendations in his 1848 volume co-authored with Engels, The Communist Manifesto.
Let me make one thing clear. I am not placing one political party over the other. Both sides voted for the recent legislation, and both will likely vote for future legislation that could take us further into this pit. There is a part of me that wants to say, "A pox on both your houses." I love E. V. Hill's statement, "I don't go for the left wing and I don't go for the right wing, because they both flap off the same sick bird." Now everyone who knows me knows that I identify with traditional conservative views in the political sphere, but parties don't mean what they once meant. So, our task is to appeal to traditional American values on some issues, but especially to appeal to the Bible. If we are going to pray, "Give us our daily bread," we ought to support the type of economic and political model that can make that the most doable.
Well, I guess you know what I am preaching on Sunday, July 19.
Chad Brand
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Ideal Prayer
This Sunday I am preaching the first half of the so-called "Lord's Prayer." Of course, we should probably not call it that, since it is not a prayer that the Lord would have prayed, since He did not need to be forgiven of sins. It is the Model Prayer, or the Ideal Prayer. I am not going to preach my sermon here in the blog, I only want to make an observation or two. First, this is the only time where Jesus calls God "Our" Father. He is always "My" Father, and some times "your" Father. But in this one place he uses the first person plural. But again, notice that he is not one who could ever pray this prayer. He is telling us that when WE pray, we should think of God as "our" Father. Not "my" Father, but ours. Why? Several important issues.
One, Jesus' experience of God as Father is unique to Him. God is our Father by grace, but He is Jesus' Father by nature. Jesus is the "only-begotten" Son of the Father, the monogenes, in Greek. That is why Jesus never speaks to a group and refers to God as "our" Father. My experience of God's Fatherliness, wonderful though it is, is infinitely inferior to that of the Lord. Not because God is at fault, but because I am at fault. Imagine a child in a house with a wonderful father. Now, mind you, this father is still a sinner, but he is a wonderful dad. But this child, like all children, along the way will disobey his father, he will misunderstand his father, he will misuse his liberties, and so on. Because of that, his experience of relating to his father will have its own defects--some perhaps because of the father's defects, but more because of the son's disobedience, rebellion, etc. Our Heavenly Father has no defects, and Jesus always did His will, so the experience Jesus had (and has) of the Father's good gifts will be an infinitely greater and more blessed experience than mine can ever be.
Two, Jesus wants us to understand the the Fatherliness of God draws us together and makes us brothers and sisters in Christ. No one of us has a greater access or greater appeal to God's Fatherliness than anyone else does. An Iranian Christian has no less access to God as Father than a Texan Christian. God smiles on his Sudanese children just as much as He does the ones in Kentucky. The Fatherliness of God is a corporate experience, not merely an individualistic one, and it is an experience that makes us part of the same family. Because of this, I find the hymn defective that starts out, "I walked through the Garden alone." Especially the lines, "He walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own. And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known." That's just a lie. The phrase, "Our Father," simple, plain, unostentatious though it is, renders that song a lie. (I know, Brad Paisley and Alan Jackson both recorded it, and I have their recordings on my itunes, but it is still a lie.)
Three, Jesus wants us to think of God as Father. Not as Parent. Not as Mother-Father. Karl Barth said it well (got to give him credit when we can): we must speak the language of Canaan. The language of Canaan is patriarchal. God is the Father of Jesus, and He is our Father as well, if we have been adopted into His family. (Plug here for Dr. Moore's new book.)
Church members of Northside Baptist Church, and students at SBTS, God is your benevolent Father. He is your disciplining Father. He is your educating Father. He is your comforting Father. He is your law-giving Father. He is your forgiving Father.
So, tonight, when you get ready to turn the lights out, and you think of the fact that you live your life in the very present and watchful light of the heavenly Father, thank Him that you can say the words, "Our Father." It is hard to imagine two more encouraging words than those.
Chad Brand
One, Jesus' experience of God as Father is unique to Him. God is our Father by grace, but He is Jesus' Father by nature. Jesus is the "only-begotten" Son of the Father, the monogenes, in Greek. That is why Jesus never speaks to a group and refers to God as "our" Father. My experience of God's Fatherliness, wonderful though it is, is infinitely inferior to that of the Lord. Not because God is at fault, but because I am at fault. Imagine a child in a house with a wonderful father. Now, mind you, this father is still a sinner, but he is a wonderful dad. But this child, like all children, along the way will disobey his father, he will misunderstand his father, he will misuse his liberties, and so on. Because of that, his experience of relating to his father will have its own defects--some perhaps because of the father's defects, but more because of the son's disobedience, rebellion, etc. Our Heavenly Father has no defects, and Jesus always did His will, so the experience Jesus had (and has) of the Father's good gifts will be an infinitely greater and more blessed experience than mine can ever be.
Two, Jesus wants us to understand the the Fatherliness of God draws us together and makes us brothers and sisters in Christ. No one of us has a greater access or greater appeal to God's Fatherliness than anyone else does. An Iranian Christian has no less access to God as Father than a Texan Christian. God smiles on his Sudanese children just as much as He does the ones in Kentucky. The Fatherliness of God is a corporate experience, not merely an individualistic one, and it is an experience that makes us part of the same family. Because of this, I find the hymn defective that starts out, "I walked through the Garden alone." Especially the lines, "He walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own. And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known." That's just a lie. The phrase, "Our Father," simple, plain, unostentatious though it is, renders that song a lie. (I know, Brad Paisley and Alan Jackson both recorded it, and I have their recordings on my itunes, but it is still a lie.)
Three, Jesus wants us to think of God as Father. Not as Parent. Not as Mother-Father. Karl Barth said it well (got to give him credit when we can): we must speak the language of Canaan. The language of Canaan is patriarchal. God is the Father of Jesus, and He is our Father as well, if we have been adopted into His family. (Plug here for Dr. Moore's new book.)
Church members of Northside Baptist Church, and students at SBTS, God is your benevolent Father. He is your disciplining Father. He is your educating Father. He is your comforting Father. He is your law-giving Father. He is your forgiving Father.
So, tonight, when you get ready to turn the lights out, and you think of the fact that you live your life in the very present and watchful light of the heavenly Father, thank Him that you can say the words, "Our Father." It is hard to imagine two more encouraging words than those.
Chad Brand
Friday, July 3, 2009
Northside Baptist Church is launching a new website, and one of the features is this new blog--Brandishings--by me, the pastor, Chad Brand. (Pretty clever, huh?) As you may know if you are looking at this blog in the first place, in addition to being the pastor of Northside, I also am Professor of Theology at Southern Baptist Seminary. I am hoping that this blog will feature opportunities for us to think about the church in culture, and what that means in every respect. I am proud of my denomination for recently launching Great Commission Resurgence. I am hopeful that we as Southern Baptists, as evangelicals, can work together to see a new resurgence of evangelistic efforts. My community (Hardin County), like all of yours, needs the Lord. I am proud to be able to work alongside people like Eddie Turner, John "Tree" Akers, both of whom are pastors at Northside, and many others in our church to win E-Town to the Lord. (And, of course, we will be doing it alongside the other evangelical, Bible-believing churches in our county.) That is our calling--to glorify God with our lives, and one of the things that brings Him greatest glory is when people are saved.
I hope you will check in here from time to time, see what is going on with us, and feel free to add your own comments. I thank God every day for the abundant blessings He has heaped on me, with church, the seminary, and above everything, a great family to be part of. I hope the Lord blesses you and yours in abundance.
Chad
I hope you will check in here from time to time, see what is going on with us, and feel free to add your own comments. I thank God every day for the abundant blessings He has heaped on me, with church, the seminary, and above everything, a great family to be part of. I hope the Lord blesses you and yours in abundance.
Chad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
