If anyone doubts that Jesus’ teaching on divorce was shocking and new, look at the response of the men who listened to him give it.  In Matthew 19:10, the disciples heard Jesus’ teaching and responded that if that is right, “it is better not to marry.”  The idea of entering a marriage in which they did not have the right to send away the wife if she stop pleasing him was inconceivable.  They were used to weddings in which the “for better” was the man’s vow echoes by the feminine voice saying, “for worse.”  If marriage was did not serve their own needs they were not sure it was a good idea after all.

Jesus’ radical teachings on marriage and divorce were constructed on the foundation of the passage we just studied, Deuteronomy 25:1-4.  But it also expands the intent of that teaching such that it shocked the disciples and made them despair of marriage.

Man-Centered, Man-Serving Marriage

Prior to the law, divorce was based on the whims and desires of the husband, unrestrained by any stricture.  The standard of divorce was subjective, based on the will of the man. If he did not like a meal his wife prepared, is she spoke disrespectfully to him, if she failed to please him sexually, if he saw another woman he preferred, he was free to send her away as he wished.  You can imagine the dynamic of such marriages.

There were few options available to a single woman in Hebrew cultures.  She could return to her father’s home in shame, she could find another husband or she could enter some form of prostitution.  She could not get a job and forge a life on her own.  So, a woman needed to keep her husband happy, serve him and please him.  The husband was required to do little or nothing.  This twisted God’s original intent for marriage as a blessed partnership.  Men could mistreat their wives with impunity knowing that they had no recourse.  When God’s intent of a man’s loving leadership in his home is twisted into capricious cruelty and self-centeredness, it become an ugly thing.

Deuteronomy limited a man’s self-centeredness.  He was required to find “something indecent” in his wife – some moral flaw that justified the divorce.  Divorce was still a matter of the husband’s will, as all he had to do was give his wife a writ and send her away, but now he was required to have some grounds for the action.

How was Jesus’ teaching different?  He took divorce out of the whimsical subjective control of the man and gave an absolute standard.  Christian men were only allowed to divorce a wife on the grounds of marital infidelity.  Adultery broke the bonds of marriage and was the only exception Jesus gave to the standard of marriage.

There are four passages in which Jesus refers to divorce, and all carry the same basic prohibition against divorce and remarriage. This is Jesus’ first radical teaching – he reestablished the original intent of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and woman.  We will examine each passage, and then draw conclusions for our study.

Why the Differences? 

The first question to address is why only Matthew records the divorce exception.  In Matthew 5:31-32 (part of the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus lays down the standard that divorce is not permissible, except on the grounds of infidelity.  Then, in Matthew 19:1-12 we see a lengthy exchange between Jesus and some Pharisees in which they discuss the Deuteronomy passage.  Again, Jesus includes the adultery exception to the law of permanent marriage.  Mark 10:1-12 is a separate account of what is clearly the same discussion.  The two accounts are nearly identical, except that no divorce exception is granted, even on the grounds of adultery.  Luke 16:18 repeats the teaching of Mark 10:11-12 but does not include the context of the discussions, simply including the teaching in a series of statements that confront the Pharisees.  Our question is why there is an adultery exception only in Matthew.

Why is the Divorce Exception Only in Matthew?

We can dismiss some of the more common solutions, if we accept the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.  We cannot accept that either Matthew nor Mark or Luke got the teaching of Jesus wrong.  Any solution we must take seriously the truth of each passage.

One solution has been to say that the adultery exception was a textual error.  It was not part of the original text and was added later by a scribe to “clarify” the text.  The problem is that the textual evidence is pretty clear that Matthew did, in fact, include it in the original manuscript.  The evidence does not support a textually-based explanation.

The simplest explanation is probably the best one.  Matthew and Mark both recorded accurately the teaching of Jesus, but neither was attempting to give a full transcript of the message.  Jesus gave the adultery exception in his teachings.  Matthew recorded it.  Mark did not.  Mark was not trying to correct Matthew’s teaching.  Both texts are correct.  Jesus said the words recorded in both.  Matthew just records more what Jesus said.

The conclusion of all this is clear.  Jesus did, in fact, include the adultery exception as a part of his teaching on divorce.

The Words of Jesus

We now turn our attention to the four passages in which Jesus teaches about divorce.

Passage 1:  Matthew 5:31-32

This passage occurs in a series of illustrations showing how Jesus Christ has both fulfilled and surpassed the Law of Moses.  He raised the standard on murder and adultery.  The law prohibited murder; Jesus said hatred in the heart was just like murder, and just as sinful in God’s eyes.  The law prohibited adultery; Jesus prohibited lust in the heart.  He was raising a higher standard than the Mosaic Law had; a standard of the heart not just the outward behavior.

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Matthew 5:31-32

In the passages that follow, Jesus deals with Old Testament and traditional Jewish teachings on making oaths and on retaliation.  He replaced the Lex Talionis (eye for eye) with the “turn the other cheek” and “go the second mile” standard.  He then gave the teaching on loving our enemies.  All of these are explicitly raising the bar on the teachings of the law.

That is precisely what Jesus has done in Matthew 5:31-32.  He has taken the teaching of Deuteronomy 24 and substantially raised the bar.  His ways are higher than the way Israel lived under the law.

He mentions the certificate of divorce; then promptly does away with it.  A follower of Christ could no longer just give his wife a piece of paper.  Unless the bond of marriage had been broken with infidelity, he must remain married to his wife.  Jesus did not outlaw divorce, but he severely limited it.

Passage 2:  Matthew 19:3-12

We will look in some depth at this passage in Matthew, and then briefly mention Mark 10:1-12.  They cover almost exactly the same ground and put forward the same teachings.  We will not give special attention to Luke, since it only repeats the teachings of Matthew and Mark and gives no new perspective on the discussion.  The most significant difference, as we have already established, it that Mark did not choose to include Jesus’ adultery exception as part of the teaching.

Jesus had left Galilee and gone down to the region of Judea, across the Jordan River.  Large crowds followed him and he healed many.  The Pharisees, always looking to undermine Jesus or trap him in some misspoken word, posed a question to him.  “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any reason?”  They were, essentially, asking him if the Shammai or Hillel schools were correct in their teachings.  Jesus responded much like the angel did when Joshua asked him whose side he was on.  The angel said, “I’m not on either side, I’m in charge.”  Jesus said that he was not on the side of either group, but was establishing a new teaching that would render the discussion pointless.  Rather than argue over what “some indecency” means in Deuteronomy 24, he established a new and clear standard.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” Matthew 19:3-12

His first response was to take them back to Genesis 2:24 and reestablish the divine intent of marriage.  Divorce was not normal to God’s plan.  He intended a man and woman to join together and stay married as long as they both lived. God takes this man and woman and joins them together as one.  They are not two separate people anymore but one.  That is when Jesus lays down his fundamental, revolutionary, shocking teaching.  “Do not divide what God has joined together.”  God joins two people in marriage.  Men do not get to divide into two what God has made one at their own whims.  As a Christian I should not seek to or initiate the breaking of my marriage bond.  It should be sacred to me.  Again, this was a radical departure from anything that was being taught in any branch of Judaism.

The Pharisees responded by going back to Deuteronomy 24.  They realized that Jesus was teaching something very different from what they had interpreted Moses to say.  Look carefully at how they worded their question.  “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”  To them, this was a command of God, an expression of the way that things should be.  Jesus corrected that very quickly.  Moses gave that teaching “because of the hardness of your hearts.”  Moses did not “command” divorce, but “permitted” it in special circumstances because of the effect of sin on human life.

He then makes a very clear point.  “From the beginning it was not so.”  Moses and the law may have permitted a man some freedom in seeking a divorce, but that was not the original intent of God when He created us male and female and ordained marriage on this earth.  Divorce is always a variation from God’s original design, but is permitted in cases in which sin has destroyed a marriage covenant.  Sin causes divorce.

Then, Jesus lays out his radical new teaching.  If you divorce and remarry except on the grounds of adultery, you become an adulterer yourself.  Mark adds that if your wife remarries, she will become an adulterer as well.

It should be noted here that since Israel was no longer a sovereign nation, the Old Testament requirement of execution for adultery was no longer widely in place.  The Jews could not execute without the permission of the Romans.  I am not aware if honor killing, as is practiced in some Middle Eastern countries today, was a reality in that time, but the notoriously immoral Romans were not likely to sanction capital punishment for adultery.

The disciples understood what Jesus was saying, but they did not like it.  Jesus was saying that no matter how annoying, or undesirable, or nagging, or unattractive, or bossy a wife becomes, marriage is ended only by death, except in the case of adultery.  If a man married, it was a permanent decision and they did not much like that concept.

Jesus responds with a discussion of being a eunuch.  A eunuch, here, is one who chooses not to marry.  Jesus seems to be laying the groundwork for the teaching on marriage that Paul later laid down in full.  Marriage is blessed by God, but singleness has its advantages as well.  Jesus also makes it clear that this teaching is meant to be understood and applied by “those for whom it is intended” – the people of God, those who have the Holy Spirit’s power to make marriage work.

As mentioned earlier, Mark’s discussion is nearly identical to Matthew’s, though he leaves out a few details, most notably the adultery exception.  Luke uses the words of Jesus in Mark, but leaves out all the details.

What Constitutes “Adultery”? 

If Jesus permitted divorce only on the grounds of adultery, what constitutes adultery?  That is more difficult than it might seem at first.  Is an “emotional affair” adultery?  Is “making out” adultery?  What about some of the practices that are so common today but do not involve sexual intercourse?  Our nation was consumed in the later 1990’s about the question of whether the president had committed adultery with “that woman” or whether the things he did with her constituted sex.  Did he cheat on his wife?

The word in Matthew 19:9 is “porneia” and is a general and very broad word used to describe all illicit sexual activity.  Various attempts have been made to give this word a more specific meaning.  Some say it only refers to immorality during the formal betrothal period, or the discovery that the wife was too close a relative to continue the marriage.  The fact is that porneia is used in both those ways, but there is no evidence here to limit the meaning to a particular branch of illicit sex.  Porneia included premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality, incest; any immoral act beyond the boundaries of sex within marriage, the divinely ordained environment for sexual activity.

Porneia is used to describe a life of wanton immorality, prostitution and general moral impurity.  The sense here seems to be a continual lifestyle of infidelity, which breaks the marriage bond and covenant.  It is not that a single act of adultery is not a significant issue, but it may not reach the standard that is in view here.  A Christian couple can rebuild a marriage after an affair, and should certainly try.  Porneia would imply a lifestyle of immorality.  If one partner in a marriage refuses to be bound by the marriage covenant and engages in a lifestyle of immorality, the marriage covenant is effectively broken.

Marital fidelity requires much more than just abstaining from intercourse with others.  It involves a mind and heart of fidelity and commitment to the marriage.  Jesus pointed out clearly that lust in the heart was a sin of the same essence as adultery, so the command must encompass more than just a physical act.  When someone engages in an emotional affair, it is certainly a violation of the marriage covenant, though it may fall short of the standard for divorce.  The use of pornography is certainly a violation of the marriage covenant, but also probably does not justify divorce.  But acts of sexual expression other than intercourse would clearly classify as adulterous and immoral under this word.  A man is permitted to hold and kiss and touch only one woman, his wife, and she is bound by the same commitment.  Any form of sexual expression or fulfillment is forbidden with anyone except one’s spouse.  The continual and unrepentant lifestyle of immorality is the only biblical justification for divorce that Jesus gives.

Even if Jesus permitted divorce, the Christian must realize that the greatest expression of divine nature is to forgive sinners and restore what sin breaks.  If a spouse cheats, divorce may be permissible, but that does not make it always the best option.  It is best to forgive and let God rebuild the marriage, if that is possible.

Perspectives

1.  Jesus left no doubt that the original intent of God was marriage that lasted a lifetime.  One man, one woman; joined together by God for as long as life lasts.  Jesus left no doubt that while the Law permitted a man to divorce his wife with a certificate, that was what God permitted, but not what He intended.

2.  Immorality is the only grounds upon which Jesus permitted divorce.  Immorality implies a lifestyle of sexual immorality which effectively breaks the marriage covenant.  The innocent party is not bound to a covenant which the other party refuses to honor.

3.  If a divorce takes place on any grounds other than that of “porneia” it is not valid in the eyes of God.  If the parties of that invalid divorce remarry, their marriage is adulterous, because God sees them as still married to the previous spouse.

4.  Jesus made it clear that exceptions to divorce are permitted by God, but divorce is not something that brings pleasure to God.  Since our goal is to bring pleasure to God, not just to do what God permits, it is incumbent on the Christian to do whatever he or she possible can to preserve a marriage, to forgive sin and sinners and to make marriage permanent.  A Christian should only seek divorce, even in the event of immorality, as a last resort when every attempt at reconciliation has been rebuffed.

I have heard Christians say, “one time is all it would take.  If he tries it I will throw the bum out.”  That is an understandable human sentiment.  But God is not pleased with “one strike and you’re out” ethics.  Sin is sin and it is always serious.  Even a brief moment of infidelity breaks trust and works to destroy a marriage.  But redemption brings forgiveness and Christians work to rebuild what sin breaks, not to throw it away.

5. It is important to note that the teaching of Jesus limits the right of remarriage.  If divorce is not on biblical grounds, remarriage is prohibited.  On the other hand, if a divorce is granted on biblical grounds, the presumption is that remarriage is then permitted.  A divorce on biblical grounds is the ending of marriage covenant and implies the right of the innocent party to remarry.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce is shocking and revolutionary.  He held up the original intent of marriage clearly and uncompromisingly.  He also made a single exception to his rule of permanent marriage, adultery.  In that case, divorce was permissible in God’s eyes.

Previous Installments

Part 1 of this series “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Does the Bible Say?” introduces the topic and sets forth three different approaches to the topic.

Part 2 of the series, “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: The OT Foundation: Does God Hate All Divorce?”, examines several OT passages that set the foundation of the biblical teaching.  It especially examines the Malachi passage that has been interpreted as a general statement, “God hates divorce.”

Part 3 focuses specifically on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the key OT passage on the subject.  “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 – Establishing Grounds for Divorce.“

SBC Voices is what I call a blue-collar blog.  We do not have the star power of some of the other active SBC blogs.  We are more of a discussion forum on Baptist issues.  Most of the prominent Baptist blogs focus on the ideas and opinions of one man.  They are good blogs, well worth reading.  But we are a little different.  You come to SBC Voices to talk about the issues you read about on other blogs.  We are a place for average Baptists to have a voice about what is going on in the SBC.

At least, that is the goal.

For years, we have done something called “Blog Madness” in March.  It’s a tournament where we vote for and select our favorite blogs.  It’s now February, so March is just around the corner.  We are going to do Blog Madness again, but this time it will be different.

This will be “Blue-Collar Blog Madness.”

This year, the only blogs that will qualify for Blog Madness will be average blogs from average Baptists.  I’m defining that pretty simply.  If you are currently on our blogroll, the “Featured SBC Blog Posts” screen on the top of our main page, you are not eligible for Blog Madness this year.  Blogs that do not appear on our blog roll are eligible for this year’s tournament.

That is where we need your help.  We need you to nominate Baptist blogs that are not on our blogroll but are worth reading.  We would like to find 64 such blogs to put into our little tournament.

Here’s how it will go.

1)  You can nominate a blog you think is worthy to be considered for our tournament.

• The blog has to be, in some way, Southern Baptist.  We are SBC Voices, after all.  Blogs need to be written by Baptists or have some focus on SBC-related things.
• The blog cannot be on our current blog roll.
• You must send the name of the blog or better yet, a link to it.
• For the record, many of the contributors here have a personal blog.  Those blogs will be eligible to participate in the tournament.
• You must nominate the blog by Sunday, February 25.
• Yes, you can nominate your own blog.  In fact, I encourage it.

2)  We will divide the blogs into four regionals (perhaps geographically, perhaps not) and begin the voting in early March.

The tournament will then proceed pretty much as usual from that point on. The sixteen names in each regional will be narrowed down to the final four in each of the regionals, the “Blog Sixteen.” After another round of voting  there will be a winner from each regional.  They will face off in the Final Four and we will have a winner.

3)  The prize, in addition to bragging rights (which we shouldn’t be doing anyway), will be a place on the SBC Voices blogroll.

So, let me know which blogs you think are worthy to be part of our Blue-Collar Blog Madness this year.  You can either nominate in the comment stream, or you can shoot me an email at my special SBC Voices email: davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com

Let the madness commence!

I want to share a true story with you. The names have been omitted, except mine, because it’s my story and I want to tell it that way.

Once upon a time in a good ole SBC legacy state, there was a church. A church with “Together We Build” envelopes in the pews, WMU Circles, a day care, a youth group and grumpy old deacons. The grumpy old deacons were the guardians of everything in that church. There was one, in particular, who knew how to play the politics and play them well.

He manipulated the operations of the nominating committee. He forced out youth ministers like a Steinbrenner. He was the force behind a deacon resolution about not wearing sweatpants to church. He was a stickler for the old ways, the necktie, and the Cooperative Program. He would use whatever means he could find to see to it those things were honored in the church. He would move that motions be tabled so they could be brought up next business meeting, knowing that gave him time to consolidate his votes. He would work behind-the-scenes. He could have given lessons to President Clinton (note: it was in Arkansas. He might have).

That church scheduled, as so many did in those days, Fall and Spring Revivals.

In the fall of 1991, as revival time rolled around again, he pushed for his agenda: he wanted a specific preacher, specific dates, and he wanted youth pizza night on Thursday, not Wednesday. Youth should be showing up on Wednesday anyway, so there’s no ‘reviving’ them if they don’t have to come an extra time. Yes, seriously.

He pushed and pressured and got his way. He always did.

The catch in this story? While a huge amount of this man’s life forms my basis for “What Deacons Ought NOT Do,” he also politically pushed through the environment that led me to Jesus.

See, I was absent that Wednesday, don’t remember why. I talked my friends, who I knew were lost (and still are, unfortunately,) into coming for pizza and staying for the service. That preacher that was insisted on? Preached classic hellfire and brimstone.

And when I responded to the invitation, that grumpy old political deacon led me to Jesus.

I still see his methods as wrong. I still see the echoes of the damage done in that church by the battles between his faction and the other factions.

But the other factions would have ended the revival on Wednesday. Still, though, they all came together and served up a ton of pizza (not sure if that’s an exaggeration!) for a group of youth on Thursday.

So, I have mixed reactions to the politics in the SBC. I do not like committees that meet that appear to have preformed conclusions. I do not think that the SBC should be used to advance one person’s legacy or fame, unless that man be Jesus of Nazareth. I think that the denominational publishing group should focus on providing material that strengthens and disciples, not divides or softens. I think openness builds trust.

But I know this: this past year whomever each of us would deem the “worst offender” in terms of political machinations in the SBC has done work for the Kingdom of God. Whether your bugbear is Calvinists or Arminians (tired of not-Calvinist. Open to suggestions of other labels, since we seem to need them), megachurches or rural churches, GCRs, Name Changers, Old Namers, Southern, Southwestern, Founders, Bloggers, Loggers, or what-not, do you really see evidence that your opponents are doing nothing for the Kingdom?

I know that’s it’s possible that there are people who will destroy more than they build. I’ve been accused of that myself. I know that doctrine is worth fighting for and that the means must be as biblical as the ends.

I also know that God can work out through the mess. I was saved one night because a church put aside the bickering and put together one man’s agenda and God worked anyway. Despite, really, the best efforts given to stop it.

What about us? As SBC participants? I have mixed reactions because I know this: God can work, even if the Name Change Committee convinces the Executive Committee to adopt “United Federation of Baptists” as a dba and never presents it to the Annual Meeting. Because the Gospel does not change, no matter what they do in Nashville or New Orleans.

Do I think we should surrender all efforts to do the politics rightly? No. The church where I was saved hit that classic Baptist “plateau” and stopped growing and making disciples for several years. Then, a crisis drove new leadership into place. Light shined into the processes and the way things were done changed.

The old deacon resigned from deaconship, citing that he was “too old” to keep up. His legacy fades. The church? It’s growing now, reaching people for Christ, making disciples.

His name fades: most of the folks baptized by that church in the last decade never knew him. Some people do remember him fondly, but mostly that’s just “those years when things were so contentious.”

My hope and prayer is that we’ll get past these issues in the SBC. I know that many folks had high hopes that the post-CR days would be the days that things were better, that we got back to reaching people and making disciples. That was my hope as well, but that’s not where we are.

We need to get it straightened out. We need to move forward to a place where “above reproach” is the norm. I honestly do not know how we get there. Are there people who are trying to use the SBC for their purposes? Probably so. Are there agendas that distract us from what matters? There are. Are there competing versions of what the future should hold for the SBC? Certainly.

Yet God is still working through the SBC. He can continue to work even in the mess. Does the mess need to go? It does.

Someday, most of our names will be forgotten. Even denominational presidents and entity leaders fade into history.

Trust God to work. Speak the truth and stand for it.

Hold on to what matters: make disciples of all nations.

Because the next generation depends on it. Even if we cannot fix the politics now, we can make disciples who will carry the Gospel. That’s the critical call. Not to save the SBC, not to be sure all the committees behave, but to make disciples.

Let that be our focus, please.

Comrade Brady loses.  Premiere Belichick is defeated.

The world, for a few brief moments, is a place of joy

I know, its a T-Rex, Not a Brontosaurus, but....

I’d really like to watch a football game tonight.  Well, I’d like to watch the New York Giants beat the New England Communists, anyway.

But I will be taping the game.

We have church on Sunday night.  I know a lot of you no longer have Sunday Night services and I’ve wondered if they are going the way of the dodo bird, the mastodon and Training Union.  But we still have a service every Sunday night.  Sunday night is not a biblical mandate and those who don’t have one are not sinning, but it is part of our regular weeking schedule.

And I just can’t bring myself to cancel the service or to change it because of a football game.  Christmas?  Yeah, we cancelled service so people could be home with their families.  Snow storms?  Of course.  But a football game?  We are going to alter the schedule we have set because of a worldwide festival of commercialism and fanaticism called the Super Bowl?

When we cancel our services for a football game, we are crossing a line I don’t want to cross.

When I was growing up, nothing came before church.  Maybe it was legalistic and overly formal and all that. But if family came to town we brought them to church.  We were there Sunday morning and night, and Wednesday night.  If there was a school event or a sports event, we went to church.  Back then, the Wizard of Oz came on TV one Sunday night a year.  I actually faked illness to stay home and watch it.  We went to church!

Did that go too far?  Perhaps.  I don’t know.  But I know that I had a sense of the importance of the gathering of believers that many do not have today.  ”I can’ t come today, pastor.  It is the one year anniversary of when we grouted the tile in our basement shower and we are celebrating with brunch.”

Be careful what you cancel church for.  Subtly, it seems to me, you are setting spiritual priorities that your people may pick up on.

I know, we’d probably have 10 times as many people here tonight if we watched the game (blacking out the godaddy.com commercials), served popcorn and had a devotional during halftime.  We probably won’t have 20 people here tonight (maybe revival will come and 25 will show up).  But I just wonder what message we are sending when we let a football game interrupt our worship schedule.

I know, I’m old.  But there were things about the good old days that I liked!

Green Lake Conference Center is gorgeous. Speaking at the Minnesota/Wisconsin pastors/wives retreat has been fun (for me at least). The people are wonderful.

Internet and phone service not so great.

Hope everyone is behaving. Contributors, take charge if needed but play nice. Someone keep an eye on CB Scott.

I am excited about what might happen at this month’s Executive Committee meeting.  I’ve been advocating for a name change for some time, so your decision to name this task force and study the issue, thought it has been controversial, was welcome to me.

I have no doubt that you will have dealt with these issues thoughtfully and honorably as a task force.  Some of the best minds (and strongest personalities) we have in the SBC are in that group.   You chose well!

I’m not going to try to tell you what name you should recommend. That is the part of this whole thing I’ve never been able to figure out.  But I trust that the brilliant minds in your task force will be able to come up with something great (or tell us that there isn’t anything that improves on what we have).

But as the report comes out and as you promote this among us (assuming you and your task force recommend a change), I have some suggestions or how to manage the process.  Maybe its a little presumptuous of me, but we are Baptist and everyone gets to have an opinion, right?

So, here is mine.

1)  Please honor God’s people as you present your proposal 

I was a big supporter of the GCR, but I was disgusted at the way it was presented at the Orlando convention.  Honestly, I wanted to vote against it just because the process was so manipulative.   Please don’t tell us that this is God’s will.  Tell us what you think it is God’s will and then let us decide if we agree.  Present your proposal and let us pray and seek wisdom.  Trust God’s people to decide.

Don’t use pressure tactics to bully people into voting yes.  One GCR proponent used the image of Israel lacking the faith to enter into the promise land.  I’m not too limber so making that hermeneutical stretch just isn’t possible for me.  Please rise above that kind of thing.

Don’t insinuate that if we love Jesus and love missions, we will go along with the proposal.  People can love Jesus and love missions and want to keep Southern in our convention’s name.  I disagree with them, but they are not evil!

All that to say, trust God’s people!  Tell us what you propose, why you propose it, why you think we should support it and trust the Spirit of God to promote it if it is the right thing.  Trust God to move God’s people!

2)  Be as transparent as possible.

Tell us how you came to this decision and for the love of all that is holy do not ask for the records of the task force to be sealed.  Pretty please?  With sugar on it?

If you ask us to support something that has sealed records attached, well, that will go over like David Worley in skinny jeans.  You may not know David, but trust me, it would be a monumentally bad idea!

3)  Honor your opponents.

I’d say, “Kill them with kindness” but I’m hoping for a minimum of bloodshed.  There is going to be a lot of hostility attached to this.  Let your love shine.

I have no doubt you would do that anyway, but I couldn’t have a post with two points – three points is a minimum!

I have a secret to share.  I did not vote for you when you ran for president the first time in Orlando.  I voted for my friend Leo Endel the first time around, then voted for Ted Traylor in the runoff.  I’ve never been as happy to lose an election in my life.  Of course, I think Leo would do a great job, and Ted Traylor as well, but you have been a wonderful leader for the SBC.  I though Phoenix was a great convention and you handled things well.

Of course, you will be facing a little more challenging convention this year.  But I think if you and the name-change task force will be transparent and will eschew manipulation and pressure tactics, I think it will go a long way.

You have been a great president for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Or whatever it might be called in the future.

Some questions to ponder, my beloved, blustery, battling, (bloviating?) Baptist-blogging buddies.

• Is there a secret conspiracy of Jewish bankers which has conspired through the centuries to control international monetary affairs?
• Did communists infiltrate every level of USA government and society during the Cold War era in an attempt to gain control of the US?
• Did the FBI, the mob, and/or the Cubans conspire to hire Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot JFK, or perhaps use him as a patsy in the operation?
• Did man really walk on the moon or was it all filmed on a sound stage somewhere?
• Did George Bush concoct an elaborately intricate plan to bring down NYC’s Twin Towers and pin the deed on Islamic terrorists to justify his war plans in the Middle East?W
• Most importantly: is there a secret plan among Reformed Southern Baptists to take over the SBC?

Joseph Nye Welch was born in Primghar, Iowa, not too far from where I sit here in Sioux City.  He was the chief counsel for the United States Army during the McCarthy hearings in the early fifties.  As the investigation and hearings became more shrill, more harsh and more conspiratorial, the nation became less enthusiastic about McCarthy’s work.

On June 9, 1954, McCarthy accused Fred Fisher, one of Welch’s junior associates in his law firm, of contact with a legal organization with communist sympathies.  Welch had reached the end of his patience and confronted the Senator.  To this point, few had the temerity to stand up to McCarthy.

Welch challenged him.

Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.

Then, Welch uttered the words that became so famous; the words that hastened the demise of McCarthy’s inquisition.

Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

It was time for the inquisition to end.  This one man’s voice coalesced those who felt the rhetoric had gone too far and the McCarthy era soon came to its end.

It is time that we, as Southern Baptists, bring the Calvinist/anti-Calvinist war in the SBC to an end.  We must come to our spiritual senses and stop what we are doing.  I’m not accusing anyone of being a modern-day Joseph McCarthy.  I have no desire to put white hats on some folks and black hats on others.  It is seldom that simple.  My desire is to confront what I see as a growing tendency among Southern Baptists to define things in terms of conspiracy theories and takeover attempts, good guys vs bad guys, us against them.

Will we continue to disagree?  Yes.  But if the current culture of suspicion, innuendo, accusation and distrust continues, there will not be an SBC for us to fight over in 30 years.  The manner of our engagement on Calvinist issues is much more damning to the future of the SBC than either the extremes of Calvinists or anti-Calvinists.

It is time we allowed the Spirit of God to produce love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control among us.  It is time that we leave behind the bitterness, envy, strife, rivalry and malice that has marked so much of this debate. The way we carry on the debate is far more damaging than the issues of the debate itself.  If we continue to fight, bite and devour as we have done, there will be little left for the victors to enjoy!

We can do better than that.  We must do better than that.  I hope and pray that we will rise above the petty conspiracies and walk in unity.

Beginning Thoughts

I want to say two things to start this.

1)  I am not part of any Reformed SBC conspiracy.

While I am what is generally called a Calvinist, I am not a 5-pointer, I am not one of those mythical “aggressive and obsessed” Calvinists we hear so much about, and I have absolutely no desire to see the SBC “reformed” and become a Calvinocracy.  I’m a (moderate?) Calvinist who thinks some people make WAY too much of Calvinism.

In fact, there is much within the modern Reformed Baptist movement with which I disagree – in style as well as substance.  I do not like the tendency toward celebrity worship (okay, veneration) among some Calvinists. I am opposed to the tendency toward arrogance that some in the movement exhibit. I am not a huge fan of the eschatological tendencies within the movement, but I know when the Rapture occurs, that will be corrected!  I think the passion for things like elders and other side issues is “much ado about nothing (well, not that much anyway).  I was supernaturally delivered from cessationism – it was a miracle!  So I am uncomfortable with the tendency among some Calvinists to create, as Driscoll jokingly said, a new Trinitarian rubric – Father, Son and Holy Bible.

All of this is to say that while my soteriology leans to the Calvinist side, if there is a conspiracy, I’m not part of it.  Of course, if I was part of the conspiracy, I guess I would deny it anyway.

2)  I think the conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.

The current tendency among non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists in the SBC (and among some of our esteemed regulars here) to posit some sort of Calvinist conspiracy to take control of the SBC is ridiculous on its face, divisive in its effect and dangerous to the future of the SBC.

First of all, does anyone really believe there is a secret cadre of the predestined elect huddled behind closed doors somewhere plotting this strategy?  Is there not a single honorable man or women among the cadre who becomes disgusted with the manipulation and publicly refutes it?  Look at the recent Calvinist brouhaha at the Elephant Room?  Calvinists can’t agree on much these days except God’s sovereign choice in salvation.  Are they monolithic enough to pull off this kind of conspiracy? Has anyone thought that the whole idea of such a takeover is directly contrary to the Calvinistic ethic that God is in control?  Are these men all frauds who espouse one theology but live another?

To posit a conspiracy, you have to answer these questions yes, and that is preposterous to me.

There is a better, more charitable, more grace-filled way of explaining what is going on without resorting to conspiracy theories or near conspiracy-theories.

Could it be that there are just two (actually more) divergent visions of what the SBC’s future ought to be?  Could it be that one side simply has more votes at the SBC than the other and that no actual conspiracy exists?

What Are Conspiracy Theories?

A conspiracy theory is a way of explaining what is going on in the world, or in our nation, or in an institution such as the SBC. It usually involves some kind of clandestine or hidden effort to take control of the nation or institution contrary to the will of the people involved.  The elements of a conspiracy theory are:

• A small group of people who exert undue control over a larger group, usually for personal gain or other hostile intent.
• The employment of secret, often manipulative, methods to accomplish the goal.  Conspiracies operate in the darkness, not the light.
• The conspiracy is often parasitical or destructive to the host.  Communists were not infiltrating America to build the American dream!
• By definition, conspiracies are difficult to prove or disprove.  The proof of the existence of a conspiracy theory is almost as impossible as proving it does not exist.
• Some conspiracies really exist.  While Senator Joseph McCarthy may have gotten out of hand, there is little question that communists had actually infiltrated American society.  Sometimes, they prove true, but most of them are imaginary.  The few that prove true provide support to the many that are fictional.

The SBC Conspiracy

Some are insinuating, or in some cases trumpeting, the existence of a conspiracy among Reformed Southern Baptists to take over the Southern Baptist Convention and to make the SBC their own.

• A smaller group of very powerful Reformed celebrity pastors are working clandestinely to take over the SBC structure and make it their own.
• These Reformed Baptists don’t really like the SBC as it has existed, but want to remake it in a completely new way, one that is inimical to the historical SBC.
• The GCR was designed in furtherance of this conspiracy – it was not really an attempt to refine the SBC’s mission, but to break with the past and to forge a new future in which the infamous “YRR” faction prevails.
• The (stupid) decision of the GCR committee to seal their records was part and parcel of the conspiracy.  Of course, the committee’s stated reason to seal the records must not be true.  There is something in those records that proves the conspiracy and “they” don’t want you to see it.
• The name-change proposition is evidence of this conspiracy.  It is not really, as has been claimed, an effort to find a more missionally-appropriate name, but to reforge a new and presumably Reformed community inhabiting the hallowed halls of what was once the SBC.
• In all of these issues there was a pre-determined outcome (they’ve already picked a name) and the whole process is just to hoodwink us into thinking that this wasn’t a foregone conclusion.
• Especially pernicious in the name-change is the fact that Bryant Wright used an unconventional method to appoint the unofficial task force.  The tyrant did an end-around Convention history, thereby proving that he is part of the conspiracy.

But, Is There a Conspiracy?

There are certain things that are undeniable in the modern SBC.

1) Calvinism is on the rise. 

When I was a young seminarian, Calvinists were kind of like Bigfoot – a lot of people believed they existed but they were very hard to find.  At Southwestern, I had both Curtis Vaughn and Tom Nettles as professors.  Both were known as Calvinists, though it was not a significant part of what they taught, at least in the classes I had.

People were wary of Calvinists back then, but Calvinists were such a small minority in the SBC that we were hardly a threat big enough for anyone to target.  We were tolerated, but held almost no positions of influence in the SBC.

Today, the percentages are very different.  The Calvinist of Calvinists, Albert Mohler, has been at the helm of our flagship seminary now for nearly 20 years.  In that time, Calvinism has risen in prominence and Calvinists have been included in the highest offices of the SBC.  Seminary presidents, agency heads and other positions of influence – places once closed to the Calvinist contingent are now open.

And that is where the problem arises.  Calvinists are no longer contented to sit silently in the rear pew.  Calvinism is now a real threat in the SBC to those who view the doctrine as a threat to the gospel and to Christianity.  It can no longer be ignored.  Those not willing to coexist with it must fight against it.

2)  Calvinists and Non-Calvinists are both Convictionally Baptist

While some have tried to question this, both SBC Calvinists and SBC non-Calvinists are convictional and committed Baptists.   Southern Baptist Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike believe in inerrancy, in baptism by immersion of believers and support the Baptist Faith and Message.  There is more on which we agree than that on which we disagree.

One of the most divisive and regrettable tactics in modern Baptist debate is the tendency to insinuate that those with whom you disagree are not really Baptist. They are not “Convictional Baptists” or celebrate true Baptist Identity, nor do are they a part of someone’s perception of the Baptist majority.

3)  Calvinists and non-Calvinists have a different vision of the SBC’s future.

Calvinists and non-Calvinists are not the same.  They differ in some of their methods, beliefs, strategies and leadership styles.  There is certainly disagreement over some programmatic preferences and strategic priorities.  A Calvinist is more likely to operate a church with a plurality of elders and will not likely end a service with an evocative invitation.

But, are we so divergent that we cannot live together?  Must Calvinists try to take over the denomination to protect their place in it?  Must non-Calvinists stop the “takeover bid” of Calvinists who intend to bring the destruction of the SBC as we have known it?

There is no shortage of voices claiming that the SBC Reformed movement is a threat to the future of the SBC.  Jerry Vines’ recent statement is just one among many who have made that point.

There is no question that a Calvinist-influenced SBC will have a somewhat different future than a Calvinist-free SBC.

4)  Differences are not Conspiracies!

Just because we disagree does not mean that someone is fomenting rebellion or subterfuge.  Permit me to develop this thought in more detail.

We Can Discuss Our Differences without Alleging Conspiracies

If we do not learn to live together, work together and partner together for missions, as Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, the SBC is finished.  If the current rancor and divisive spirit continues, we splinter into ineffectiveness.

• If Calvinists continue to treat non-Calvinists as if they were theological rubes, we are finished.
• If Calvinists continue to insinuate that being “gospel-centered” implies accepting Calvinism, pass in the song books and turn out the lights, because we are through.
• If anti-Calvinists continue to advance Calvinist conspiracy theories as facts, the SBC is over.  Once you could get away with it and just tell Calvinists to tell their story walking.  But if you do that now, you are drawing the curtain on the SBC.  There are too many Calvinists holding too many positions of influence and giving too great a percentage of Cooperative Program dollars.
• If non-Calvinists continue to say, “We love Calvinists” but demand that they sit quietly on the back pew and not advance their views, we might as well call it a day.

In the words of the great Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence,

‘Gentlemen we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly all hang separately.’

The stakes are pretty high.  If we keep relating to each other as we have related to each other, we are destroying the Southern Baptist Convention we all claim to love.

The Root of the Problem

The Southern Baptist Convention is a political, deliberative body.  In such a body, the messengers of the Annual Meeting decide the future of the SBC.  During the Conservative Resurgence, there was a group of conservative pastors who met to plan strategy and figure out how to present their case and prevail at the Annual Meeting.  Those in power at the time of the CR painted this as an evil “takeover” conspiracy.

But the fact is, we conservatives had a different vision for the future of the SBC than did our liberal and moderate opponents.  We showed up at Annual Meetings year after year and we won vote after vote.  So, the direction of the SBC was returned to its more conservative roots.

Was that a conspiracy?  Depends on whether you liked the results or not. Moderates still talk about the “takeover” as if it were an evil conspiracy to steal the convention from real Southern Baptists.  Of course, we view Adrian Rogers, Patterson, Pressler and the others in a very different light.

That is the nature of Baptist life.  Each constituency advocates its vision and whoever is in the majority sets the direction.

I believe that a lot of the frustration today roots in the fact that peole who believe themselves to be “majority Baptists” have not been able to win any significant vote in the last five or so years. At every point, they have failed to gain a majority.  The Garner motion passed by a huge majority.  The SBC approved the GCR by an overwhelming vote.  The presidential candidate endorsed by most of the so-called “majority” groups didn’t even make the run-off in the 2010 presidential election.  If self-described “majority Baptists” can’t win a vote at the Convention, something must be afoot.

If my side can’t win, the other side must be doing something evil, right?

The Solution

Let’s admit where we are.  We are a denomination in search of a future.  And we certainly have different ideas what this means.  My view is different than yours.  So, we are going to New Orleans to talk about it, pray about it and vote on it.  We are a deliberative body and that is how it works.  Traditionalists.  Hipsters. Calvinists.  Non-Calvinists.  The stray Arminian. Anti-Calvinists. People from all corners of America.  We will be there to vote on some issues and the side that has the most people there to vote will get its way.  That is the assumption of Baptist polity.  A group of Baptists, even with disagreements, will gather and God’s will is done through the majority.  Obviously, that doesn’t always happen, but that is who we are and that is how we do business.  We have to accept that when our side has the votes and when they don’t.

The world will be watching us in New Orleans.  If we can’t have a decent, Christ-honoring discussion about changing our name at the Annual Meeting, shame on us.  If we bite and devour each other, we dishonor the One whose blood purchased us all. If we continue to posit conspiracy theories and evil motives in those with whom we disagree, this may be the end of the SBC as we know it.

If the Task Force brings a name-change proposal forward, and it passes at the Executive Committee level, I will likely vote for it (unless they want us to be the LifeGuideWayStone Baptist Convention).  But if those who don’t want a name-change have more votes, I won’t be too devastated.  Life will go on.  But if there is a ruckus in which Baptists act like ancient Philistine warriors, then we will do real damage – way more than a name-change proposal could ever do.

Am I being dramatic?  Yes.  Melodramatic?  Perhaps.  But I believe the stakes are high.

For the sake of our Savior, let’s leave the nonsense behind.  Let us rise above the flesh and the anger and the assignation of evil intent and as brothers and sisters let us pray and talk and seek the direction of the Lord.

Enough is enough.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. Don’t talk to me about JFK, the Illuminati or Area 51. However, mindful of the fact that the Pharisees conspired with Judas to give up Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, we must admit in all fairness that sometimes there is indeed a conspiracy, even in religious matters. Just as businesses and politicians must deal with secret agendas, religious organizations are not immune from silent takeovers simply because our purposes are spiritual rather than financial or civic.

As I write this, I am completely sober and of sound mind. I slept well last night, have risen early and am on my second cup of coffee. But I am wondering this morning: “Is the Southern Baptist Convention quietly being reformed without the clear knowledge and awareness of the majority of our members who contribute vast resources for the spread of the gospel?” The most honest answer I can give is this: “I truly don’t know.” I have no idea, but what bothers me most is the very fact that I do not have access to the information that might help establish facts providing an answer.

Secret Documents and Unconventional Committees

Perhaps some of the answers might be found in the box containing the proceedings of the Great Commission Task Force, a box under lock and key, hidden in the Southern Baptist Archives at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, concealed from the eyes of common Southern Baptists until 2025, even though the committee was formed by Southern Baptists and should have been completely accountable to Southern Baptists. Think for a moment about the tactics of those who would establish and consolidate their power. If you are powerful enough to keep secrets from the organization that created you, essentially to control the media and their coverage of your activities, then you have just dealt a serious blow to freedom of the press. If Obama formed a committee with taxpayer money and then refused to allow its proceedings to be made available to the press, there would be a public outcry. But within the Southern Baptist Convention, there has been just such a power play, and everyone has moved on as if this were absolutely normal.

The next step in asserting your authority and continuing your reform might be to take a bold action without the consent of the governed, as did our SBC President when forming the unauthorized name change committee. Call it executive initiative or whatever you like, but set up your own formal committee accountable only to you. There is extraordinary power inherent in the ability to create leadership structures. That is why most of our churches have an awkwardly named “Committee on Committees.” But if you simply form a group on your own authority, calling a press conference to establish their legitimacy, you strike one more blow against the congregational polity that has ruled both our churches and our convention. Since the convention refused to form a renaming committee a few years ago, just form one on your own anyway and then tell them you did it. Announce the changes you’d like to implement. Make these changes appear inevitable. Since messengers were not empowered to block the committee’s formation in the first place, maybe they will not feel empowered to block its recommendations either.

A Rapidly Changing Convention

Whether we are being taken over by an organized, reformed theological movement is very difficult to prove, but no one can deny the rapid pace of change we find both in our churches and in our denomination:

a.  Our Polity

We see a consolidation of power among a few key leaders, almost resembling an elder-rule model rather than a congregational one. In the convention, we see officers and entity heads lead us with very little formal accountability, as their boards have been packed with those who support their reform agenda. Those who object to matters from the lowly convention floor are either dismissed or tolerated in a condescending fashion by those on the platform.

b.   Our Ecclesiology

We see more churches practicing a reformed ecclesiology with its strong emphasis upon strict church discipline, along with rumors of alcohol use in the Lord’s Supper and the possible acceptance of membership transfers by those whose experience was merely infant baptism rather than believer’s baptism.

c.   Our Soteriology

We see 10% of our churches and 35% of our seminary graduates embracing five point Calvinism. Because this creates tensions when new Calvinist pastors seek to change existing non-Calvinist churches, the emphasis turns to church planting, but does this really solve the problem? Do our non-Calvinist Southern Baptist Churches desire to reproduce other non-Calvinist churches or to financially support the creation of hundreds or even thousands of new Calvinist churches, thus populating the very faction that may indeed be reforming or taking over the convention?

d.  Our Missiology

Many among the young, restless and reformed set are less than thrilled with the Cooperative Program and much more enamored with the Acts 29 Network. Will we continue to embrace the cooperative missions support method or will the societal method emerge as the targeted method of choice among new church plants?

e.  Our Civic Engagement

Just five or ten years ago, did Southern Baptists not speak to our culture and society with greater clarity and force concerning those areas in which our world has turned away from biblical convictions? We seem far less equipped to sound the trumpet and call our nation to repentance and freedom and the truth of God’s Word. Our current concern with cultural accommodation may indeed be rooted in the good intention to build bridges to the lost and introduce them to Jesus, but we all know where that road with good intentions often leads. As a ministry strategy, this accommodation tactic has produced less than stellar results and is often difficult to distinguish from plain, old-fashioned cultural liberalism and worldliness.  In the process we are losing something of our bold stand for truth and righteousness. If the Southern Baptist Convention does not cry out against the evils of our society, who will?

f.  Our Cultural Identity

Yes, Southern Baptists are synonymous with pro-life, pro-family, pro-religious liberty, conservative family values, with missions and with biblical inerrancy. But we are also synonymous with fried chicken dinners, wearing bathrobes in the annual musical drama, promoting Annie and Lottie, offering condolences with a casserole and solving most of our problems in committee meetings with a lot of prayer and strong coffee. It would be an understatement to say that this cultural identity is under attack. It does not bother me that a growing number of our churches do not resemble that description. It bothers me when they belittle it, considering their church culture superior.

g.  Our Name

The authority to name someone or something should not be minimized. It is indeed enormous. Adam was privileged to give names to the animals, thus demonstrating his dominion over them. Parents name their children. To name something is to exercise authority over it. If you can rename an organization that is 167 years old, then you have firmly established your power over that organization. It is not a stretch to call this the quintessential reforming act. It may not change everything else, but it does show that if you have the power to do this, then you have the power to do anything and everything else.

It Really Is A Question

Let me conclude with a mild disclaimer many of you will ignore. Please note that my headline includes a question mark rather than an exclamation point. Although I have used many words to describe the case for a possible reforming agenda, I do not necessarily conclude from those arguments that there is definitely an organized takeover at work in our denomination seeking to change our name, our culture, our theology, our mission strategy, and our leadership style. But when I consider the evidence of so much change over such a short period of time, it is hard for me to conclude that this is all happening by accident.

What if the Conservative Resurgence was simply Act One in the much longer drama we may one day refer to as the Calvinist Revolution?

Think about it. If you really wanted to reform the convention, would you announce to everyone that you were doing it or would you just start working quietly behind the scenes until somebody noticed and told you to stop? If we are indeed being secretly reformed, might we not realize it until it is too late?

Now would be a good time for SBC leaders to demonstrate full disclosure and total transparency. This is not a time for secret boxes and unauthorized committees. Something in Southern Baptist life today just doesn’t feel right. No, it’s not a grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas, but I can’t escape the nagging suspicion that we might find the answer hiding in plain sight somewhere in Louisville, Kentucky.

In the last 50 years, we have seen the removal of Christian influence in the public schools. The result of pro-secular idealism has created a moral vacuum in public education. The result of this moral decline has led many believing families to pull their kids out of the public education. This has created an even large moral and ethical voids. The children are suffering and need spiritual life. They need to hear about Jesus, but there is a systematic abandonment of the care of children. The pressing issue for me is how the church has begun to follow suit. We have begun to create children’s programs that are separated from the church, in effort to remove the “distraction” of the children. Its not that we don’t love or care for our kids, but we have removed the biggest and most substantial event and outreach ministry in any church. We have dropped Vacation Bible School from many of our churches, and we wonder why the kids are falling away.

I don’t want to drop a bunch of stats, but a majority of believer come to faith in the elementary school years. Many of us came to faith in Sunday School, kids programs and VBS. VBS is a place where students have an immersion in Biblical truth, and our partners at Lifeway have done a tremendous job of creating material the teaches scripture, reinforce it with songs, crafts, missions and games. We create an environment that supports spiritual growth of our kids, and put a great deal of effort into this program each summer.

The problem is that many churches don’t want to put the resources into children. Children don’t bring in finances, they don’t staff ministries, and they can be loud and messy. We have given up trying to find workers, we don’t want to pay for the material, and we simply just don’t want the hassle. Then we complain about the spiritual condition of the kids, leaving church, getting into trouble, not being consistent, they are following our example. We abandon them, they leave us.

We start with dropping VBS, in the end, they drop the church. Why are we surprised?