As I read this document, there is a level of sorrow then joy in God persevering my ancestors through many years of the most horrendous conditions known to man. As I think about Slave Ships, the destruction of families, little to no value for the life of blacks as they were beat, spit on, abused, sold as commodity, and then preached to as if their souls had more value than their lives, tears begin to form in the corner of my eyes. I then think about my library and how little of these men that I esteem for their doctrine, spoke out against such heinous activities.
I then start to think about Civil Rights era and visions of fire-hoses being blasted into the faces of those who marched, Billie clubs be ran across their faces and backs, dogs attacking them, people yelling “nigger go home” and my grandmother being relegated to the worst of conditions (school, public restrooms, and eating establishments) no right to vote, being considered less than human and then I think about the theologians that I esteem from her era. I then say to myself “would I want to go to any of their churches or sit in their ministries or listen to them expound scripture in one voice and live the exact opposite to the “Gospel” they preach so passionately about?
I am sure someone knows, but I don’t so I wonder. Of the dead theologians that I esteem, what was their take on the issue of racism that has plagued this nation so greatly? I wonder if they would be a voice against abortion, but silent on the Civil Rights movement? Did the great theologians of the Great Awakening care about slaves? I don’t know, if anyone has some “balanced” books I would love to read them. I can honestly see why my grandmother would rather go to a black church that could relate to her versus go to a church that hated her. I also wonder what did the great theologians think about 1 John in light of the heinous and blatant lack of regard for blacks? Many fought for theological truth, while ignoring practical truth.
With the taste of the Civil Rights movement still lingers in the mouth of anyone 50 or older and still recovering from the psychological issues that came from them, I now believe I have been unfair in my assessment of many blacks who would rather sit in a theologically unsound church to feel “accepted”. My grandmother had no choice, and the voice of the church then was freedom from tyranny of racism. I think many young black and reformed guys forget what happened less than 50 years ago. I think many from my grandmother and even mothers generation forgave but can’t forget. So they would rather sit in the little black (or big black) baptist church because this is where they were loved and respected.
As I hear so many times “Sunday is the most segregated day” (especially in the south) we must not forget, that it wasn’t our choice! We were forced to segregate because whites would rather get preaching from a dog than worship with a “colored”. The ball was never in our courts to begin with. We were the victim and not the perpetrator. So here is the question.
1. Would you esteem many of the theologians that many Reformed Blacks esteem if you were born during the era in which they preached.
2. If you were to dig many of them up (hypothetically) and revive them what do you think they would say today?
3. Do many of the older generation have a legitimate reason to want to stay in the church that did so much for them, it was their only safe haven?
Just some questions to consider or answer if you so please. God bless.
Lionel, I totally understand (and agree) your frustrations. I have dealt with them myself. I have come to different conclusions as well. For me, one individual I had the biggest problem with was George Whitefield. He owned slaves and passed them on after his death. That bothers me. However, although Whitefield was an honored Christian preacher, he was still human. He still had his faults. Do I wish he had done better? Yes! But I wish the same for myself. This is important because things like this help to keep us from elevating men higher than we ought to. Furthermore, regardless who preaches the Gospel, it is the Gospel that holds the glory of God. It will never lose its power so whomever hears it, if they have ears to hear they will hear it. That is why we can have Christians in many of these churches that preach the prosperity gospel or 7th day adventist jargon.
.
As for question number 3. Let me just say that personally, many black folk have done me wrong just as much as whites have (if not more!). So it doesn’t bother me to be in any church or group setting. But for others, they may need that identity of comfortability. Let them stay if the Word is preached. If it is not, then the individual has to come to grips with what is more important: the faithfulness of the Word being preached or the familiarity of where we come from. I know its hard to let go sometimes, yet sometimes letting go is the only way we truly get to grow up. We don’t have to forget where we came from either. Like the color of our skins- some things we can never be forgetten or gotten rid of.
Lastly, perspective. We have to maintain perspective. We are not slaves any longer (though we are to Christ). We cannot continue to pick scabs but actually let them heal. Sometimes only time can do that. Whites have done us wrong, there is no doubt. But so have blacks. We should much rather desire to walk with a white Christian brother than a black idolater who merely has a form of godliness (not out of the color of skin- but in reverence to the Lord). Our ancestors fought diligently so that “we” could be seen as equals. While there is nothing wrong with a totally black congregation, there is nothing wrong with a chinese one either. The problem comes in when we feel we “have to” stay in any of these settings. We must maintain that the Word is above all colors, creeds, people, whatever. We have to press on. We have to preach the gospel in the beauty of His holiness. We have to honor Christ above our personal feelings. We have to walk in the steps of Christ and remember that even after he told his disciples that He had come to the house of Israel, He still healed the syro-phoenecian woman’s child. I hope I have helped some. Great post, I think many can benefit from it. Peace
Thanks for the comments brother. Let me throw another question out there.
1. Would you sit under a pastor who was homosexual, if he were sound on every other point of scripture?
2. Would you recommend a theological work of a man who was solid biblically but was a pedophile all of his life?
Does the same logic apply that they are still human and if that is the case shouldn’t we excuse other areas of immorality for pastors today as long as they are biblically sound? This is what I am wrestling through.
Let me also ask these questions for anyone who this.
1. Why should we widely accept their body of work over others who lived a life of heinous sin?
2. Are we guilty of ignoring their lives versus their doctrine?
If I may say,
Perhaps something that you may wish to consider is the issue of “SOCIABLY ACCEPTABLE” sins.
In a permissive society, it is easy for Christians to overlook or tolerate some immoral behaviors more than others (i.e. greed, drunkeness, gossip/slander, etc) while remaining outraged at others (homosexuality, racisim, theivery, etc)…and even more crazy seeing that what goes in the category of sins which are sociably acceptable may end up changing in different times/eras.
That’s the problem with identifying/coming against sin without looking to God’s Word to see his heart and what he feels on it. You end up justifying one sin while calling out another and thinking you’re in the clear (i.e. “Hey, I’m speaking the truth and it needs to be heard” yet blatalantly ignoring other things that God says need to be heard as well since both are dangerous, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Proverbs 6:16-19, etc.)
Just as we cannot condone or participate in sin in any way, we cannot be selective about what we condemn or excuse, and that’s the thing that’s dangerous. In the process of calling out and doing so much good (as those from the Great Awakening did or others like them today), one can easily get to the point where they no longer are ruthless on other sins as well that are causing the overall problem.
It’s like dealing with a man who has AIDS and the various symptoms that come about from it. Some symptoms may be more visible and require more attention than others, while others may need some notice…..but as long as there’s strong effort to deal with ALL OF THEM, you’re in good shape.
Focusing on one symptom of the problem and then ignoring the others but being PROUD that you’re adressing one issue very strongly does the patient NO GOOD……AND JUST AS DAMAGING IS TO IGNORE THE ROOT CAUSE/DISEASE ITSELF…. much as it was with many from the SLAVERY ERA, in which they dealt with one Evil (theological truth) and yet so often ignored the other issues
Aint nothin’ new under the sun, Brah………(Ecclesiastes 1:9)
I guess I’m a bit more skeptical/less willing to “romantize” the past when it comes to many of the theologians that many of us have esteemed from back in the day……men like C.S. Lewis, Arther Pink, Calvin, and so many others…..because the reality of the situation is that though they were godly in many areas, they were still men….and not above mistakes or even BLATANT sins.
It’s as if we’ve had adopted the mentality that the men from those days were literally INCAPABLE of committing grevious sins against the Lord and having any form of unrighteousness in their lives, but that’s the reality we live in. Like the kings in the Bible, many of them are willing to be agressive toward sin in one area and yet on other areas that are JUST AS GREVIOUS they keep quiet because hey……they were ALREADY DOING ALOT OF GOOD THINGS and THAT SHOULD’ve BE ENOUGH.
As I’m discovering, when there’s sin/issues in my personal life that I’m don’t wish to deal with because it’d cause me to have to make many uncomfortable adjustments, I tend to look for another wrong/issue in the life of another to deal with…….which in the process will make me feel less uncomfortable with myself and even encouraged because I’m dealing with another issue…….
That, IMHO, could be equated to a good degree with the attitude of the Pharisees…..who had many theological things in place, but it was never PRACTICAL FOR THEM. They were obediant to many points in the law and even went to the point where they added on things, yet they were DISOBEDIAN IN THEIR GENERAL BEHAVIOR…….and the weighter matters on issue such as JUSTICE, MERCY, and LOVE WERE IGNORED ALTOGETHER due to all of the other righteous actions they were seeking to adress (Matthew 23):
Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Matthew 23:23
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
I remember having a discussion on another website on what things were ESSENTIAL TO THE FAITH…..and most of the answers given were things regarding DOCTRINE/THEOLOGICAL TRUTH.
When I brought up behavior as an essential, it didn’t appear to be taken seriously. That surprised me, seeing that the Word of God makes clear that without emphazing that as well, you only have HALF OF THE EQUATION for dealing with issues in tact…….much as it was for many situations back in the Great Awakening and the Civil Rights Era.
Both are needed……but unless that’s the case, then we’re lost.
God’s Word makes clear that we’re to weigh all things fairly/justly:
Proverbs 11:1
The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight.
Proverbs 11:1-3 (in Context) Proverbs 11 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 20:23
The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him.
That said, I think that many of us will have to square with some significant things……that REGARDLESS of HOW MUCH GOOD MAY’VE COME about from the actions of those men in our libraries and how much these men had sound doctrine, GOD WAS JUST AS DISPLEASED AS HE IS WITH THOSE TODAY WHO’VE GONE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AND EVEN MAY BE PREACHING UNSOUND TEACHINGS but doing GOOD THINGS/EMPHASING MORAL BEHAVIORS
Leviticus 19:15
” ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Proverbs 14:31
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
Proverbs 21:13
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.
Proverbs 22:2
Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.
Proverbs 28:9
If anyone turns a deaf ear to the law, even his prayers are detestable.
James 1:22-27
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
To take it even a step further, the same thing that the Reformers did, I wonder if perhaps we’re still doing the SAME THINGS today….simply from a different angle.
Luke 14:7-11
7When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8″When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’
Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. 11For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
12Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Question: How often have any of us speaking against Prosperity teachers (with valid reasons, of course) done what this passage is describing? DID IT HAPPEN AT THANKSGIVING DINNER? How about planning for this UPCOMING CHRISTMAS (at your house, )?
You rarely hear about events like this taking place (except at a shelter, though even there it generally the case that EVERYONE’S ON THE SAME LEVEL…..& rarely would you see this happening at a CHURCH SOCIAL.
In all honesty, if a poor man walked into a church during a church social at most modern day churches, that man would probably be passed up, escorted OFF THE PREMISES for fear that “He might steal something or just wants to get a hand-out” or avoided because of stereotypes (i.e “He may be dirty so don’t get too close…..”, or “He looks scary…”)
How many would go up, give the man a hug, and give him the SEAT OF HONOR? More often than not, he would not be placed besides those within the middle class but at the end of the table…..and probably most people wouldn’t have any compassion on his situation. They would talk amongst themselves regarding life and theological issues……& even perhaps the FOLLY SEEN ON TBN as a DISGRACE TO THE GOSPEL (ironic ISN’T IT, )
Moreover, most people would never stop to consider that many people who were at the poverty line were once MIDDLE CLASS THEMSELVES. I remember having a conversation with someone who was homeless and it was amazing to hear their stories.
I had NO IDEA that this man was once a PASTOR, Married, and in ministry…..but his wife became involved in sin, kicked him out the house, and he was struggling looking for a job. And yet most people driving by would never even talk to him but dare speak out against the SINS IN THE MODERN CHURCH!!!!!!!
The point it this: ARE YOUR STANDARDS TRULY IN LINE WITH GOD’S????
As another wisely said, “That description fits the large majority of Americans who attend churches. Even if they aren’t wearing “fine clothes,” it is only because they chose to leave their fine clothes at home. Once again we are faced with the fact that by biblical standards we are rich, even though we may not be by American standards.
The sin James addresses here is the sin of showing partiality. When a rich person receives favored treatment over a poor person, the second greatest commandment is broken (see 2:8). One is not loving his neighbor as himself. He is not treating the poor person as he wants to be treated.
James questions why such partiality would be shown. Why would we automatically honor a rich man and dishonor a poor man, both of whom we know nothing about, when we know what God esteems and despises? We know that God loves the poor, having special compassion for them, choosing them to be “rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (2:5).
Indeed, God has chosen “the base things of the world and the despised…the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are” (1 Cor. 1:28). In contrast, the rich are often guilty of sins that arouse God’s anger, not the least of which is their explointing the poor, whom He loves so much, in order to enrich themselves. They also often blaspheme God’s name (see 2:6-8). Thus how foolish it is to honor automatically a rich man and dishonor a poor man based on no other criteria than their apparent wealth or poverty. If we are to err in the matter, better to err by honoring the poor over the rich.
In most instances, the rich man is likely to be far from God, while the poor man is more likely to respond to God’s love. Not knowing what is in the heart of either, however, we should honor them both with good seats when they visit our gathering……… The only reason that someone would show partiality to the rich is because of an evil motive, probably the hope of personal gain (see 2:4). As Solomon astutely observed, “Wealth adds many friends….and every man is a friend to him who gives gifts” (Proverbs 19:4, Proverbs 19:6). This phenomenon can be easily observed in American churches, where pastors often yield to the temptation of showing favoritism to those with the most wealth.”http://www.shepherdserve.org/ttne/ttne_09.htm
As it was with the Reformers and being silent on Racism/Slavery, I could rail all day about whaT Copeland or Creflo is doing, saying they’re exploting/dishonoring the poor…..& yet if I’m choosing the more sociallbly acceptable sin of showing FAVORTISM in wanting to associate moreso with people on MY ECONOMIC LEVEL, I’M JUST AS GUILTY:
James 2
Favoritism Forbidden
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,”[b] also said, “Do not murder.”[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
Hey brother G! Great thoughts and much more engaging than I was ready for. Let me now ask then these questions as I did earlier.
1. Why do we reject the doctrine of immoral men today but give dead preachers a free pass. We expose Jamal Bryant, Creflo Dollar, Rod Parsley, John Hagee, Joyce Meyer for their immorality as it relates to the love of money. I now have to ask ins’t false teaching just as sinful as devaluing of a human life. What if the Piper or MacArthur were polygamist would we still esteem them in the same light we do Whitfield and others?
2. What if a great theologian was a practicing homosexual? Would we say well he still brings the gospel so would we overlook it. What if he died would we accept his teaching 10, 15, 100 years later and overlook the fact that he was a practicing homosexual?
I am saying I believe there is a double standard. If we reject one why not the other?
If interested, it’d probably be best for saints to study the OT (specifically, the Books of I-II Kings and Chronicles), as it was just as messy as the political landscape is today/IN TIMES PAST (such as in the Great Awakening)….and QUITE REMINISIENT .
Remember Jehu (II Kings 9-10 )?
I’ve always found it funny the man was raised up by the Lord to call out/repay the wickedness of Ahab/destroy his evil influence…..and yet so much error was BLATANTLY tolerated in his side of the street.
Minus the fact that the man went FAR beyond the Lord’s command with his senseless slaughter/bloodbath (which he was denounced for later by the prophet Hosea, Hosea 1:4-5)The man eliminated one form of idolatry, Baal worship, only to uphold another by continuing to worship the golden calves Jeroboam had set up which CAUSED THE FALL OF ISRAEL TO BEGIN WITH:
I Kings 12:25-33
1 Kings 13-14
II Chronicles 13
When studying the actions of Jehu, one quickly realizes that his motives were also political (if not morseo) than spiritual.
If he had destroyed the golden calves, his people would’ve traveled to the temple in Jerusalem, in the rival southern kingdom, and worshipped there (which is why Jeroboam set them up in the first place).
Baal worship was associated with the dynasty of Ahab, so it was politically ADVANTAGEOUS to destroy Baal. The golden calves, on the other hand, had a longer history in the northern kingdom and were validated by ALL POLITICAL FACTIONS.Baal Worship was anti-GOD (IN THE OBVIOUS SENSE), BUT THe golden calves were thought by many to be the visible representations of God himself, even though God’s law clearly stated that such worship was idolatrous (Exodus 20:3-6)( Exodus 32)
As the Word shows, Jehu was devoted to God only to the point that obediance served his own interests….and like Jehu, the same is happening today when men in the name of GODLINESS are denouncing the sins of others/rallying the church for certain causes while excusing sin in their own lives or going against MANY OF THE STANDARDS IN GOD’S WORD THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD ARE ALL ABOUT.
Consequently, you’re often left wondering why there is still mess taking place in the camp……
The same thing happened with King Jehosophat:
2 Chronicles 17
Jehosaphat was a righteous man after God’s heart, & he did much to reform the nation from where it once was. The people of Judah were Biblically illiterate, never taking the time to listen to and discuss God’s law and understand how it could change them. Jehosophat realized that knowing God’s commands was the first step to getting people to live as they should, so he initiated a nationwide religious education program
However, despite all of the good that Jehosaphat accomplished & how deeply he was committed to God, he permitted much sin to happen on HIS WATCH AS WELL.
At one point, he allied himself with the infamous King AHAB, in a bid to “strengthen the nation”. He solidified this alliance by arranging for his son to marry Athaliah, the daughter of wicked King Ahab of Israel, and then made a military alliance with him……..with Jehoshaphet’s popularity/power making him ATTRACTIVE to the cunning/opportunistic Ahab (II Chronicles 18)
Though Jehosaphat had believed he was doing a “good thing” AND HAD MANY GOOD THINGS to help elsewhere, the effects of his alliance were devastating due to Jehoshaphat incurred God’s Wrath (II Chronicles 19:2), and it was through ATHALIAH that Judah was exposed to the EVIL PRACTICES OF ISRAEL, FOR SHE HELPED PROPAGATE BAAL WORSHIP IN JUDAG & THIS EVENTUALLY LED TO THE SOUTHERN KINGDOM’S DECLINE/downfall (II Kings 8:18-29)…and also, When Jehosophat died and Attialiah’s son, as well as her husband perished (II Kings 9-10), Athaliah became Queen, she seized the throne and almost WIPED OUT ALL THE DESCENDANTS OF DAVID (II Chronicles 22:10-12).
The same scenario isn’t an ISOLATED ONE. Anyone who’s honestly studying throughout the books of I-II Kings and I-II Chronicles will quickly find that out…..
It happened with Jehosaphat’s father before him, II Chronicles 15, before his confidence in God began to slip & he began to rely on human means via alliances with PAGAN NATIONS…II Chronicles 16, rather than turning to the God who helped him earlier, II Chronicles 14…….)
It happened with nearly all of the Kings after Jehoshaphat in Judah…..
Even with King Hezekiah ( II Kings 18-20), the man was regarded as someone who had a close relationship with the Lord…..and kick this, HE WAS A REFORMER!!!!!!
The man boldly went itn and cleaned house, having altars, idols and temples completely destroyed…..however, despite all of that and the many great things he witnessed in his lifetime, he still tolerated many GREVIOUS WRONGS which served to hinder generations after him (i.e rashly showing his wealth to the Bablylonian envoys and placing Judah on Bablylon’s “NATIONS TO CONQUER” list, etc).
The list could go on, but I bring all of that up because I thought it’d be relevant to the situation.
Regarding Bro Lionel’s Question, I think that it really serves as a CHECK FOR ALL OF US. I think for those who are often contending on the issue of doctrines/theological truths and referencing the Past, it should alarm us all that perhaps our standards are in many ways HEINOUS to the Lord and our LOGIC FLAWED………
Would I attend a church that had correct doctrine and yet tolerated things that EVERYBODY SEEMS FINE WITH SUCH AS GOSSIP— Or would I attend a church that tolerated things such as a lack of compassion, graciousness, and love for others simply because they had doctrine CORRECT? Or that rarely gave to provide for the needs of others?
Would I attend a church that has promoted the idolatry of FAVORTISM?
1 Cor. 1:10-31
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose. For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul?
Let’s call a spade a spade:
1 Thessalonians 5:13
Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other.
When I as a Christian take pride in the fact that study the teachings of people like John Piper and that I highly esteem him and yet I’m constantly boasting of how solid they are….and yet I look down upon others not holding to where they stand, that may be me commiting a sin of FAVORTISM…
And the same thing when people are proud that they as individuals or their church follows CALVIN….or ARMIUS, George WHITFIELD, John Owen, John Bunyan, Oswald Chambers…AND THEY KNOW ALL OF THEIR ARGUMENTS and yet are more loyal to studying them than CHRIST/HIS WORD AND SPREADING THE GOSPEL….would I attend a church like that and be COOL? Or would I be cool attending a church where they put down other believers who are dilligently seeking to spread the work of the Kingdom of God and be faithful to the Gospel simply because they do not belong to the same camp (i.e. “I’m a Cessationist, you’re a Charismatic….I’m Baptist, you’re Pentacostal, I’m Prebysterian, you’re Methodist….& therefore I wouldn’t reference you as someone I could learn from or who is actually aiding the Body, etc)?
Again, would I be cool with GOING to a church that maintains what’s basically a Exclusivism (those who think themselves superior to all other believers because they follow Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ. or some other teacher)?
For even if the sin doesn’t seem as OBVIOUS/UGLY as other sins such as being a pedophile or child molester, it’s still UGLY TO THE LORD……..and it makes no difference to exchange one form of idolatry/sin for another…..
Dog, my bad….
My last post I posted before I saw your most recent one. Anyhow, though, I do appreciate you bringing this post up.
I guess my question is where do we draw the line? Once again who gets a pass and for what reason? Or who and what do we speak out against?
As I wrestled through my post on Dr. Tony Evans, I thought to myself, if some of the theologians were alive today that I esteem, would I blog against them? Those I esteem and recommend their writings I would blog against today. Luther had some horrible teachings but I would recommend his writings. Calvin had a man burned at the stake but I would recommend his Institutes and even go by the title “Calvinisitc”.
There is the little guy who is whispering in my ear saying, I have chose which sins to speak out against and that sin is mostly “unorthodoxy”. Finally I say again, if I would not read a book by a homosexual pastor from Covenant Seminary regardless of the truth (I would write him off immediately because of his sin) I am saying maybe I should do the same for many of the Reformers who were pro-slavery and pro-Jim Crow.
Or I am asking am I being hyprocrital if I don’t measure with the same standard? If I ignore or give a pass because it was “just the times” why not do the same for sexual immorality?
Finally Gabriel brought up some good points as it relates to these sins:
Gossip
Mercy less
Favoritism (huge in so-called biblically sound churches)
Respect of Person (we accept a truth of MacArthur over someone less Seminary astute)
Lack of Compassion
Divisiveness
Still curious.
Brothers, I think that we must not exalt any man- past or present. I don’t believe dead theologians should get a pass- but true biblical teaching (whether or not who preached it) should. For example, if there was a gay theologian who taught that Christ died for our sins. Is he right or wrong? Of course he is right, but his application is faulty in his own life. His wrong reflects man’s sinfulness- not the inability of the Lord to take it away. There are many faithless men who have translated different versions of the bible. Does it make the bible wrong? No, not by any means. It is only wrong if that individual perverted it in some manner. I guess I have to go with that old saying, “chew up the meat, spit out the bones”. We don’t have to honor any dead men, but the bible is preached by truly sound individuals who have sinned but don’t stay in it. We only need to follow someone who IS following Christ, not following one minute and sinning the next. And no, we don’t ignore their lives. We allow for God’s mercy, but we press on for the truth. It is would be negligent on our part as preachers to overlook someone’s sinfulness just because we liked a message. We can talk about their sermon and also show their shortcomings in an effort to expose sin and hopefullly guide others in what to and what not to do.
Whats good Cherome? Thanks for the comments brother. I see what you are saying, but do see what I am asking? For instance I go to some websites (blogs) and they have pictues of Edwards, Calvin, Luther, Pink and other guys all over their blogs. They esteem these men greatly. Many blacks have bought into this also. I go to sites and they have quotes (as I did) and links and recommendations of these men, but on the same blog they are blasting other men that had grevious sin in their lives like racism. I am saying I don’t think we are critical enough (especially black reformed guys) or we don’t ditch out the criticism equally at least.
Would it be fair to wonder if perhaps the Great men of the past that we so exalt and who yet tolerated such horrible sins were perhaps NOT SAVED? That may seem extreme, but then again, as the Word makes clear, how can I say I love God who I have not seen and yet I do not love my Brother who I see everyday?
And seeing that Jesus wasn’t one to be flippant when He seemed to indicate that love for Him was also PRACTICAL as much as it was THEOLOGICAL (i.e. loving our neighbor as we love ourselves, doing to others AS WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE DONE TO OURSELVES), if individuals were not about the things he said were actually as if they were being done to him (such as helping the helpless, providing for the needs of believers, kindness, etc), then if men from back in the day were silent on things such as racism and slavery, would that not go AGAINST WHAT CHRIST SAID?
If they were not about meeting the needs of people in their own backyards or being indiscriminate toward all who cried out for justice, then would that not be something to consider seriously?
Matthew 7:21-27
Matthew 25:31-46
Luke 6:31
Luke 10:25-37
Colossians 3
I John 3:16-24
I John 4
The list of Scriptures could go on
It reminded me of stories from the early church where believers were beaten down/persecuted, and yet the babies that were being thrown out on the streets (another version of abortion) were being taken in by the Christians. THere was not just an emphasis on false teaching/doctrinal truth…..but TRUE LOVE AND COMPASSION THAT MOVED THEM TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THOSE WHO COULD NOT DO SO FOR THEMSELVES…..
Honestly, where it concerns not loving others practically and looking out for our neighbors, it seems very similar to the situation in Revelation 2, WHERE THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS WAS COMMENDED ON THEIR HEART FOR DOCTRINAL TRUTH and yet PRACTICALLY THERE WAS NO LOVE IN THEIR HEARTS…..and Christ had just as much STERN WARNING/REBUKE FOR THEM as He did with Churches that were APOSTATE.
My bad if anything I said in the last post wasn’t well-founded. I don’t wish to run the risk of gossip and misrepresenting the people in this discussion (such as Whitfield and others), so I’m going to have to do more research on the actions they did.
However, I’d be very much interested to hear people’s thoughts. For as Bro Lionel said, if someone gave an accurate message and yet wasn’t living it out themselves or tolerating GROSS SINS but I passed them off because of how “good” they were in other areas , then would that not be a problem??? (which actually may open the conversation to another issue and whether or not many Christians have adopted the “pure in the eyes of God by Merit of the amount of GOODNESS they’ve done” mentality……something which Jesus heavily condemened with the Pharisees in Luke 18,who used an evaluation based on his deeds rather than being fair in his assesment)>
Wow, a lot has been said so far, so I will try to stick to some of the questions.
“Why do we reject the doctrine of immoral men today but give dead preachers a free pass?”
Because their sin have stopped and we has time to evaluated there body of work (teaching) in light of time and scripture.
“We expose Jamal Bryant, Creflo Dollar, Rod Parsley, John Hagee, Joyce Meyer for their immorality as it relates to the love of money. I now have to ask isn’t false teaching just as sinful as devaluing of a human life? “
I think that both are wrong (sinful) but it seems that false teaching is the greater sin, because it relates to teaching that can affect a person eternal destiny. I’m not saying that devaluing human life is not sinful, but James 3 tells us that “Teacher has a sticker Judgment” I think that is because we are speaking for God.
“What if the Piper or MacArthur were polygamist would we still esteem them in the same light we do Whitfield and others?”
It depends I guess, If I just found out about it now, while they are still alive, I would speak against the sin, And I would do this because if I did not I would be condoning the sin, We are to correct brother who is in error with love, but if they are dead, I would still speak against the sin but with the understanding that God still uses sinful men (like me) For his purpose.
“What if a great theologian was a practicing homosexual? Would we say well he still brings the gospel so would we overlook it? What if he died would we accept his teaching 10, 15, 100 years later and overlook the fact that he was a practicing homosexual?”
I would not overlook the sin, but i would recognize that God’s truth is God’s truth. So if there was value in it, I would read it, keeping in mind that our great God uses sinner (his children) to do his work.
“I am saying I believe there is a double standard. If we reject one why not the other?”
I see what u are saying and it is very difficult for me also, believe me when I tell u. But for me the issue is they are not my contemporaries. As we see in the Bible verses that brother G has shared. God has allowed us to still be blessed by men who committed great sins.
Another ex is King David. He Committed adultery, then had the husband killed. He allowed his daughters rapist to go without punishment (David was a bad father). But God called him “A man after his own heart”. I and many others have learned a lot from David’s failures and success.
Samson choose sex over obeying God’s Word to him, But God still used him.
So many biblical heroes did some sinful things, but we still learn great lesson from them, I think we can and are learning great lesson from these dead sinful men of God.
I think if u could talk to them now they would say in tears (or i hope that they would say) “He saved a WRETCH LIKE ME!”
As always Great Post!
Also, if I may say, the ramifications of this discussion are more far-reaching than most people realize.
One of the things that has always frustrated me when it comes to many “discernment ministries” is what appears to be, as Brother Lionel is arguing, a BLANTANT Double-Standard. For example, they’ll say that EVERYTHING WITHIN WOF IS A HERESY OR THAT EVERYONE WITHIN IS OFF….and yet when it comes to the people many of them love (such as Calvin or Luther, etc), they’ll defend them to the core..
This mentality has taken a MYRIAD OF FORMS, such as in people saying that they may be involved with certain teachings within WOF but that there are others which they heavily denounce.
For example, One individual had this to say against the Movement:
As Chad Marinelli has written a book purporting to touch on the issue of God’s soveriegnty, I wonder this: does the book actually deal with the WORD OF FAITH view of Theology Proper?
Do you believe that when God created Adam, he created him as ‘the god of this world?’
Do you believe that Adam committed High Treason (whatever that is supposed to be) – and consequently God was ‘on the outside looking in’ and ‘needed an avenue to get back into the earth?’
Do you believe that if a man had NOT let God back INTO the earth that God would have been completely shut out?
Do you believe that the only way God can do something for man is if a man asks Him?
If you do not answer yes to most or all of these questions, you are defending a straw man view of WOF theology proper.
M
Now, when people for WOF came out & spoke, they had this to say:
“So is the definition of WoF that which is held by a few T.V. Preachers, or is it the definition held and practiced in tens of thousands of WoF – oriented Churches around the world – who aren’t on TV???? Is it Copeland’s definition that’s globally “official””
In response, this individual had this to say in response:
Here we go again. Which is really Word Faith, those who wrote the books and have the TV ministries (Kenyon, Hagin, Copeland and their spawned children ministries who are supposedly the ones with REVELATION KNOWLEDGE) or those who pick and choose which doctrines they want to exercise?
It’s a package deal. If someone only buys in to part of the theology, they are still all wrong. A consistent hermaneutic cannot allow a partial buy to these doctrines. Hence, heterodox…
The man whose book was in question, Brother Chad Marnelli, said this:
Your paradigm is wrong Joseph. The BAJ and JDS doctrines, or the Copeland little God’s doctrines, can be separated entirely from Positive confession and God’s expectations of faith. The primary link all Word of Faith adherents have is the doctrine of faith (hence the name – Word of Faith).
EW Kenyon differed from Hagin and the others on certain pneumatology issues. Hagin Junior doesn’t teach BAJ at all. I myself don’t teach BAJ or that Jesus suffered in Hell. So it’s hard to bucket it into a denomination.
Chad
I then spoke up and said I agreed. There are many things I believe regarding REFORMED THEOLOGY, and many other things from people such as Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon, Luther, or solid theologians from back in the day. However, there are points they have in their theologies that I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH……..yet I do not consider myself to necessarily believe EVERYTHING THEY BELIEVE/PREACH due to believing in many things they teach or because of what I believe may have a great deal of formulation in them. There’s room to differ…..
Heaven help us if I not being within WOF discovered that any of those men taught theologies that were CLEARLY in ERROR OR AGAINST SCRIPTURE, or else I’d have to throw out EVERYTHING VALID they once said and discount it for nothing despite my trying to adress their error/bring clarity back to what the Word of God has said.
I thought there was always a bit of a double-standard in all of us on the forums. For example, whether WORD OF FAITH or NOT, all of us in my opinion benefit off of the events of Martin’s Luther’s Reformation. Without it, many of the demoniations we have nowadays–including those for people not with WOF–would not exist.
Yet for those holding to the mentality that “If you believe part of what someone founding a belief system believes, then you accept ALL OF IT”, I’ve often found it humorous that many of us who are Protestants will often glorify Luther & yet never consider that he was one who apparently in SERIOUS ERROR. Specifically, it was in regards to his views on the JEWS and how they were not God’s Chosen People, should be vilified, and the homes destroyed.
According to an excerpt,
Quote:
(On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ) — reprinted five times within his lifetime — both written in 1543, three years before his death.[76] He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were “the devil’s people.” They were “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[77] The synagogue was a “defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut …”[78] and Jews were full of the “devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine.”[79] He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews’ property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these “poisonous envenomed worms” be forced into labor or expelled “for all time.”[80] He also seemed to sanction their murder,[81] writing “We are at fault in not slaying them.”[82]
To investigate the full article, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
To me, I find it inconsistent in many against WOF when they continually refer to those who claim to speak in the name of it on TBN as THE IMAGE OF THE ESSENTIALS OF WOF, then say that those claiming WOF are naive to say that they do not represent what WOF is about and that there are differences/room to “pick & choose”……and yet never seem to acknowledge that perhaps they do the EXACY SAME THING when it comes to Martin Luther.
Unless someone here in either camp is willing to admit that Martin Luther was DEAD ON in his statements against the Jews or that the information presented in the articles/others like it is flawed/incomplete and therefore there is no argument, all of us I believe are guilty of not following an “ALL OR NOTHING” Package DEAL with Doctrine at some point……..and thankfully so.
Not being willing to be a fair judge and critisize thing EQUALLY has been something that I realized hindered so much evangelistic effort when it came to discussion…..because people were not willing to acknowledge things as the Word said and instead did so only to their own interests. They’d ask questions with assumptions and yet never bothered to hear those of others. They be quick to spot out the error in groups majorily seen in the public, yet in their own ranks they’d be quiet because hey, they’re not as VOCAL/FLAYMBOYANT or as UNSOUND AS THE TBN Folks….and they’d throw all kinds of labels onto people as a whole when they themselves wouldn’t appreciate that if people in their ranks were to act CRAZY
.
It was nothing more than what Jesus Described:
Matthew 7
Judging Others
1″Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
Luke 6
For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
39He also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
41″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Can you imagine walking around with a 20-foot pole and literally busting folks in a head and yet saying “Hey, Brah, you gots something wrong with ya over here, and I’M QUALIFIED TO HELP YOU GET IT OUT”???? But that’s exactly what’s happening all the time……people adressing the sins of others and yet overlooking their own sins that God calls just as detestable and using another standard they wouldn’t use on themselves…… It’s Hyprocrisy…….
Dog, I SO APOLOGIZE. I don’t want to clog your blog and I wish there were some way to get back comments after posting so I could SHORTEN THEM DRASTICALLY.
I still wonder what God would say to many of the churches alive today and where we’d stand in the process. If the standard is the WORD OF GOD (as we often quote when it comes to theological issues/false teachings, as well as immoral behaviors, etc), then can we truly call ourselves faithful when we don’t “call a spade a spade”/a rose a rose” on the actions of the men of our past.
It’s as if we can discuss that here, be shocked/unsettled, and yet go about reading them and hearing others praising them while not doing anything……
Lionel, I understand where you are coming from. You feel cornered because on the one hand some great men have sinned in areas that we believe they should have been able to overcome vs preachers in their sins today who know that they are wrong, yet continue in their error. Not an easy task, but you must speak on what is right and condemn what is wrong. We can and must evaluate the life of men past. Yes, some people are going to elevate these men far past the point of honor due. That’s the way it is. You nor I need to follow them in that area. Can we recognize the truth of God in these dead fellows? Yes. Can we recognize where they erred? Yes. Do we point it out? When we need to. And I only say when we need to because we can get carried away with their sin and lose the people’s focus on the Word as we preach. But be righteous in the blood of the Lamb. Let’s not fall into the errors of others, but walk in truth. John MacArthur once said that no preacher is perfect- not even him. He said that he knows that there is something in his preaching that is not right, he just didn’t know where (I personally believe it is the ‘dispensationalist’ approach- but that’s just me lol). Let’s use the discernment God has given us to recognize what we need to- right and wrong and pray that God leads us in the way we esteem men past and present.
Hey Cherome,
I agree wholeheartedly. I also agree on that Dispy stuff, but that is for later LOL! I have had fun with the conversation and have learned a bunch from our dialouge. God bless and thanks for the friendly convo!
Hold up……
Cherome and Julian are the same person? Sweet……
Thanks alot for writing the post, Brah. It was a real blessing (shortest thing I’ve written, lol)……and an eye-opener.
Much love, Brah. Peace…..
Just wanted to say that I was really blessed by the dialogue. I have recently begun studying reformed doctrine, and I have to admit that I was a little taken aback by the glory that was heaped on many teachers of the word by many of the reformed traditions on their blogs, articles and statements in general. It is really reasuring to hear geniune thought and dialogue put into this issue that I feel was becoming a bit of a hinderance to my study as I was feeling a bit for lack of better words “turned off” by it.
Thank you very much for your sincerity and honest desire to follow whole truth.
Hey Detroit,
I appreciate the kind words! I know many who are taken back by the fact that these men who are some of the most gifted bible communicators could also have no regard for human life. I don’t mind esteeming them as great bible expositors but I do have a problem calling them great men I should model my life after. I think some of these men have become folk heros and would be crushed today. This is just my take. As Cherome stated very clearly, they did bring the truth and God used them mightly to be able to convey it so clearly and with much passion. I am just concerned that they have become heros when maybe they shouldn’t be.
Lionel I love you bro, but my name is spelled, “Chermone.” That’s why I don’t give out my real name and go by my rap moniker “JulianKandy” lol. It tends to be easier when I get to explain it. Alright man, you are going to have to owe me lunch or something when I get to TX lol
As I white person, I appreciate the above discussion, though I am troubled by possibly seeing some esteemed figures of the past in a new light. I am surprised at the Whitefield reference, as I had been under the impression that he did make some comments against slavery.
One of the difficult things, as a Christian, about slavery, is that it did exist in both the Old and New Testments, and, interestingly, the institution itself was not openly condemned nor was any direct attempt made to abolish it, even by those respected figures in the Bible.
Rather, Jesus, Paul, etc. spoke to the heart, for the purpose of salvation. Rather than attacking the institution itself, teaching was offered to live as a Christian, whether one be a slave, or one who held slaves.
Having said that, I think what happened to black slaves differs greatly from slavery in the Bible. It was by far more cruel, dehumanizing, etc. When it comes to this slavery, obviously the principles of the Bible do cry out against it.
As far as segregation on Sunday morning, while some of it may be due to racism and intolerance (I by the way, visited a black church in the inner city, together with a Korean and black friend of mine, and felt that I was on the receiving end of some subtle racism), some of it may also be due to deeply rooted preferences (musical, stylistic, etc.) that were formed in us at a very early age, often having to do with how we were raised. This “programming,” to some degree may incline me strongly toward a Sunday morning envirnoment that I feel more comfortable in (music, even preaching style, etc.). To a certain degree, we can rise above this, through maturity and love, and environments may be created where we can cooperatively worship and serve the Lord, but this forces us to die to self to some degree in that, if we had our preference, things would be done a little differently.
Hey Brother Mark,
I believe it is true that you received subtle or maybe even obvious hints of racism if you went into a black church. It is sad that we can’t get pass this issue and maturity and leadership plays a big part in all of this. I also agree with your position on slavery within biblical times, and also agree that what was face here was much worse. I think I wrestle with the fact that most of those who owned slaves during the 1st century were non christians while most who owned slaves in America were professing Christians, they huge gap is the fact that Christianity was not a national religion as it is today so there could be some wiggle room there (the fact that nominal christianity has been rampant since people first stepped foot on american soil).
I also think that it is preference, but we created this site in hopes that we can help get Christians pass preferences and into to truth. Great music, racial comfort and even preaching style (not truth) are all below the top 10 reasons to join a church. We encourage people to go to a “white church” (if such a thing exists) if there are no churches who are proclaiming the gospel that you are “comfortable” with. Biblical faithfulness is the priority not worship music (half of the stuff sang in black churches are man centered and even heretical at times).
I appreciate the comment brother. God bless and take care.
You’ve raised some interesting questions, Lionel. Thanks for provoking my thinking, esp. regarding some of my heroes of the past.
I think it’s probable that every generation in the church buys into what is culturally acceptable. Then future generations look back and say, “What were they thinking!?”
The racist sins of my near ancestors bothers me greatly, and it sickens me to see the way slaves and negroes were treated in our country (and continue to be treated today, albeit more subtly), and my hope is that if I had in the dark days of American history, when negroes were seen as sub-human, that I would have spoken out against it.
But I don’t know. I wish I could be definitive, but I just don’t know what I would have done.
Scary thought.
Hey b and r,
I’ll be honest and say that I have always had a problem with anything that Johnathan Edwards had to say because he owned slaves. But I know that a lot of reformed thinkers believe that is writings on Christianity should be food for thought.
Thus, I steer clear of known slave holders because I do not believe that anyone who owned slaves were saved because they usurped the authority of God.
With that being said, I agree that there is a double standard which I guess is cool for some cause I have learned that his is what a lot of “church folk” do.
But as for me, I will not buy, borrow, read of even discuss the works of known racists and slaveholders because I believe that there are countless other points of references out there.
Thanks for sharing, I’ve felt this way for a longgggggggggg time…
Follow up link to previous post:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28199710%293%3A54%3A4%3C823%3AJEOSAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&size=SMALL&origin=JSTOR-reducePage
https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9411&L=sedit-l&D=0&P=1794&D=1
3. Edwards and Slavery:
A question that is frequently posed to members of the Edition is whether Edwards was for or against slavery. While abolition was to become important for his disciples (particularly for his son, Jonathan, Jr.) within the New Divinity movement, slavery did not appear to be an issue for Edwards; he never preached on slavery, nor does it arise in any of
his published works. He owned slaves and accepted the institution of slavery as part of the natural order. There are several documents indicating his ownership of slaves, among which is this bill of sale for a slave: TO HAVE & TO HOLD the said Negro girl named Venus unto the said Jonathan Edwards his heirs Execrs & Assigns and to his & their own
proper Use & behoof for Ever AND I the said Richard Perkins do hereby for my Self my heirs Execrs & Admrs covenant promise & agree to & with the said Jonathan Edwards his heirs Execrs Admrs & Assigns by these presents That I the said Richard Perkins at the ensealing & delivery hereof have in my own Name good Right, full Power & lawfull Authority to
bargain sell & deliver the said Negro Girl named Venus unto the [said Jonathan Edwards] in manner & form aforesaid And shall & will warrant & defend the said Negro Girle named Venus unto the said Jonathan Edwards his heirs Execrs Admrs & Assigns against the lawfull Challenge & Demand
of all manner of Persons whatsoever Claiming or to claim by from or under me or otherwise howsoever
IN WITNESS whereof I the said Richard Perkins have hereunto set my hand & Seal the Seventh day of June in the Fourth Year of the Reign of our Soveraign Lord George the Second by the
grace of God of Great Britain France & Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c Anno Dm 1731 Richd Perkins
And from the prestigiuos Yale University:
http://www.yale.edu/opa/ybc/v25.n25.news.12.html
It is also noteworthy that, at a time when few questioned the ethics of slavery, Edwards — who owned slaves and whose receipt for the purchase of a slave named Venus is among his papers at the Beinecke — condemned the buying of more slaves from Africa. The letter draft in which he stated this controversial view was an exciting discovery for Mr. Minkema, who literally put together like a puzzle fragmented pieces of the document.
Enough already…
Sorry-typo-the above quotes are from “Righter”
LOL
1. Would you esteem many of the theologians that many Reformed Blacks esteem if you were born during the era in which they preached.
Righter: Absolutely not
2. If you were to dig many of them up (hypothetically) and revive them what do you think they would say today?
“You mean to tell me that ya’ll let those “N-word” go free???”
3. Do many of the older generation have a legitimate reason to want to stay in the church that did so much for them, it was their only safe haven?
Righter:
Most certainly and for the reasons you outlined above. Where else were they going to worship but the Black church? Truthfully speaking, the churches in America became divided because of racism, we couldn’t go to white churches.
So what you have is offspring who were brought up in the Black church because of family tradition. Some of the older generation, and I guess that’s me too because I am 46, do not want to deal with possible racial issues in the church. I think I read a post by someone who posted to Tyris’ board a while back that said that if we are willing to put up with racism in the workplace we should be willing to put up with racism for Jesus!
Give me a break! No one should tolerate racism anywhere!
Thanks for the honest Pastor Lance. Who knows, thank God that neither of us were born during that era.
LOL Righter,
I think this is what I am trying convey in the post. Many of the “black churches” were established during slavery and Jim Crow. After fighting for equality for over 400 years then finally being liberated in the late 60’s early 70’s from Jim Crow laws the black church lost it’s voice but not it’s face. Traditionally the church was the cornerstone of civilization for many blacks. It was our safe haven , the place where we could be important. So as I stated my grandmother still has the taste in her mouth at age 82. She wouldn’t dare step foot in one of these churches because those who profess to love Christ was busy hanging her cousins (she was born and raised in Mississippi).
Once again I think the “late byegones be bygons” may not work for a few more years due to the stench that slavery and racism left in the nostrils of so many. I just think we may should be a bit more critical of who we esteem and not let doctrine be the mark of holiness but let holiness be the mark of holiness.
I think a little humility might be good in seeking to answer this question. If we use the logic that we should never follow someone who had major errors on certain issues, whom would we have to imitate (as Paul and author of Hebrews exhort us to do)?
Take David, for example. He was a polygamist. He’d have made a great Mormon, yet he was “a man after God’s own heart.” How can that be?
And what about us? Did Jesus not say, “You cannot serve both God and money”? Yet here we Americans are, the richest people in the world, hoarding our stuff, while so many go to bed and to the grave, bloated in starvation.
Could someone in a third world country not legitimately say that we are not true followers of Christ, since we drive multiple vehicles, live in comfortable homes and suffer from an epidemic of obesity, while so many others suffer from starvation?
Let us be careful about judging the faith of others, because they erred greatly in an area or two.
For maybe we, too, are erring greatly in something that may be significantly offensive to brothers and sisters in another culture or another era.
Hey Pastor Lance,
I agree sir. We are to use humility. I by no means am questioning the salvation of any of my forefathers in the faith, regardless of their sin. Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Whitfield, Newton (though he repented), and others all had shady areas, that by no means calls them into question or their usefulness by God to do great things for this great Faith.
However, I rarely see criticism in those areas. There are more blogs and books being written and published by our white brethern esteeming thes men as almost to idolize them. That is where I have the problem. If we are going to talk about them lets deal with areas of sin also, so that we get a fair assessment. But as I stated, I am pretty sure I will see all of these brothers in heaven without a question.
If I may say,
Brother Lance brought up a good point when he stated ”
Could someone in a third world country not legitimately say that we are not true followers of Christ, since we drive multiple vehicles, live in comfortable homes and suffer from an epidemic of obesity, while so many others suffer from starvation?
Proverbs 30:7-9
7 “Two things I ask of you, O LORD;
do not refuse me before I die:
8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.
9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the LORD ?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.
How often do any of us ever stop to consider that perhaps we who often speak out agains those seeking riches may be doing the same things ourselves.
For example, compared to the rest of the world, we who live in America even by MIDDLE-CLASS Standards are considered RICH…..and for those in other countries, when they look at us pursuing things many of us would quickly defend against giving up in exchange for increasing our ability to be financial givers to the Body of Christ (”Excelling in the grace of giving”) (i.e. our clothes, media/tv and cable, going out to eat, etc), they may consider that to be hyprocrisy.
This is something I’ve recently been convicted on, for though MANY PROSPERITY TEACHERS ARE CLEARLY IN THE WRONG FOR SOME OF THE THINGS THEY TEACH ON PROSPERITY, perhaps many of us are doing the same thing……simply on a different wavelength.
When discussing the issue elsewhere, someone shared this with me:
I brought up the Scripture regarding “Not wanting either POVERTY or RICHES” as an ideal…..and someone had this to say in response:
I think personally that the “poverty mentality” has been part and parcel of fundamental Christendom for a LONG time. You can hear it in hundreds of southern gospel hymns – “Cabin in the corner of Gloryland”, “Mansion over the hilltop”, “This ‘ol house”, and of course the famous picture of the pathetic desperate Christian clinging desperately to the “solid rock” in the midst of a storm-swept sea. It seems sometimes the most that a Christian should expect out of life is a merciful death. Many of the AoG churches that I went to in the years before the ’70s tended to WORSHIP subsistence living as a “holy” calling, and looked foreward to that big ‘ol “Pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye”.
Naturally when the LOVE of material gain is the motivation, then something’s out of order. I’m “filthy rich” compared to 90% of the world’s humanity – most U.S. citizens (including many under the “poverty level”) are, relatively speaking.
Could be that the OVER emphasis on “prosperity” is just an “introduction” to the simple fact that God gave PROVISION to folks in the OLD Covenant, and still does under the NEW Covenant. When a “truth” goes out of balance, it’s STILL a truth, and just has to be put in proper balance with all the other truths.
To that, I thought it was a very interesting observation. Someone else in response said how a lot of these songs were sung in churches that had southern slaves in them that were considered property, and would have had nothing except a bed role and a change of clothes in personal property. An ol’ cabin in the corner of Gloryland like the poor white share-cropper down at the end of the lane, probably looked like a pretty good mansion to get in glory-land. I suspect that ol’ house, an ol’ feather bed full of bed bugs and a wood cook stove was luxuries of great value to some.
That being the case, Then perhaps the conversation now becomes an issue of RELATIVISM…or more specifically, PERCEPTION…for as the old saying goes, “The Grass is Always greener on the other side”……and from a different angle, YOUR GRASS IS LOOKING GREEN TO SOMEBODY ELSE…….
As they also said in response, “Curious if the Plantation Owner, setting in his southern mansion sipping his evening bourbon and having his wife read him the scriptures felt like he was being blessed by God. Maybe like a rich wof preacher driving over to his private airport on his 10,000 arce “compound” so he can fly off to his favorite ski resort thinking, “Lord I will only use this air plane to further your word and for your glory.” His relativity was probably he didn’t feel as rich as Solomon and Abraham”
That makes me consider that Perhaps it could be said that riches actually change depending on time, situation, and experience. Whereas when living below the poverty line I considered Middle class to be very Rich, becoming Middle Class made me initially satisfied…..but eventually, when I saw others who simply had MORE THAN WHAT I HAD, I thought they were having WAY TOO MUCH….& CONSEQUENTLY there was either more of a desire to get what they had so that I could again be “RICH” or to get them on my level of what I percieved to be MEAGER/MODERATE
Reaally, I think there’s a bigger cycle that many may be missing……for to me it is simply of matter of the differing stages of COVETOUSNESS, GREED, and NEVER BEING SATISFIED that needs to be adressed…..because truth be told, IF the level of the middle class arose to the point where ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA OWNED JETS LIKE COPELAND or MANSIONS (with the class below us rising to our Previous Middle Class Level and a new class being designed for poverty) I guarantee you that somehow the value would go down and those who have the NEXT BEST THING (PERHAPS FLOATING HOUSES or LIVING ON THE MOON) would be seen as “RICH” by those of us who didn’t…..
Proverbs 27:20
Death and Destruction are never satisfied, and neither are the eyes of man.
Proverbs 30:15
“The leech has two daughters. ‘Give! Give!’ they cry. “There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, ‘Enough!’:
Ecclesiastes 5:10
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.
Truth be told, I plead guilty to the fact that COVETEOUSNESS/LUST of the EYES is something that I’m guilty of….and I think that many more Christians speaking out against PROSPERITY while not adjusting the level I’m at so that others can be on EQUAL GROUND are guilty of the same, which of course is an issue with God:
1 John 2:15-17
Do Not Love the World
15Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
Moreover, when reading the Word, I can’t help but get a check in my spirit when I see that NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HAVING ENOUGH/MY NEEDS MET (or confusing my needs with my WANTS AND TRYING TO DEFEND BOTH) AND not being concerned that others are on the same level is just as big of an issue to God as is saying “SOW INTO MY MINISTRY TO GET MORE!!!”
By definition, Greedy means “having a strong desire for food & drink” or inordinate desire for material possessions….. and by that definition, most of us fall way short of God’s Standards.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the GREEDY nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5-7
5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or GREEDY person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a]
6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.
As said before, what’s the defining line concerning riches? And are we guilty of actually doing the very same things we see others do on a more FLAMBOYANT/OUTRAGEOUS SCALE….simply from a differing angle? And if we are, what are we to do about it?
Hey Gabriel,
I think your use of the word Greedy is out of context. What is greedy to you may not be greedy to me. For example is Bill Gates or Oprah buying a Porsche greedy? It would depend on your income level first off. I think we have to be careful, because we can begin to sin if we use the term greedy legalistically. Someone in a third world country may consider someone who goes to college and pays $30K for an education greedy. A homeless man may see someone throw out food that went old and say they were greedy. See where I am taking this.
Your use of the term greedy has to be in context of what Paul is talking about. Many in the days of the Apostles had abundance and they would not be conisdered greedy. Furthermore, working hard, driving two vehichles, desiring the promotion, and storing up money for your children isn’t sin. Greed is a matterof the heart and not a matter of possessions, so I would be careful to not dance on the lines of legalism. Thanks for the post.
Hey Bro Lionel!!
Thanks for droppn’n me a line the other day on the phone. To clarify for everyone else, by no means am I trying to dance on legalism…..because as we discussed, greed is a matter of the heart as opposed to abundance alone. Otherwise, what to do with the MULTIPLE Passages on the issue of how riches/abundance is not neccessarily a bad thing (like with Solomon in the Book of Ecclesiastes, I Timothy 6 on the instructions for those who are rich, and many others on the issue of STEWARDSHIP)….
Some really enjoyable banter and repartee in the comments (in addition to a good post in its own right).
Just a quick hit …
I look at Christians during the era of (particularly) American slavery and wonder, “What were they smoking?!”
One of the things I used to share with the class when I was teaching church history at DTS was John Welsey’s indignation at the Colonialists who lamented a lack of freedom and being “enslaved” by King George III.
The ironic hypocrisy did not escape his notice or ire as the tried to get his generation to understand who was really “not free” and oppressed by tyranny.
One other quick hit …
I think Christians 100 years from now will look at us in the era of 46 million abortions during our watch and think, “What were they smoking?!”
Figured I’d give out this article on the issue (as it came to my mind today) so that people could see another side of the issue for themselves——as I brought up the issue of Edwards on slavery and someone responded saying that there’s no such proof on the issue.
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/mhr/4/minkema.html
Going along with that, thought I’d place out some information by another who actually WAS a slave and what his thoughts were on the issue—especially when it came to Christianity being used to justify the malicious treatment of slaves in the name of how “IT’S THE WAY GOD SET IT UP—SO HONOR YOUR MASTER..”
From Fredrick Douglass’s Auto-Biography “My Bondage and My FREEDOM”:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DouMybo.html
Giving out this as well, as it is one of the resources I studied on the issue of slavery seeing that there has been much debate on the issue of whether the kind of slavery discussed in the Bible’s the same kind that occured in the NEW WORLD and whether or not it can be justified biblically. Pray that it blesses someone out there:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html
The Other……