Christians Need to Have Conversations About Race, But CRT Is Not the Path to Follow

As Christians, and particularly as leaders, we are called upon to talk about topics that are polarizing and difficult. Race is one of those topics. A recent study by LifeWay Research shows that pastors are more hesitant to talk about race and racial reconciliation today than they were in 2016. At the pace division is growing in America, my guess is even this survey, conducted in September 2020, is dated.

There is little room for conversation and deep discussion on issues of race in American culture as a whole or even within the church. We are all too fearful of being branded a racist for simply trying to understand a complex topic from another’s perspective.

At the center of much of the controversy within our culture and specifically within the Southern Baptist Convention is the issue of Critical Race Theory (CRT).

Prior to 2019, most Southern Baptists and Americans had never heard of Critical Race Theory. In June 2019, during the SBC Annual Meeting in Birmingham, AL, SBC Messengers approved Resolution 9, “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.” Again, I argue that many SBC Messengers voted on this resolution without fully understanding or appreciating the premise from which Critical Race Theory originates. There is even disagreement within the Resolution Committee over the intent and purpose of the resolution.

Clearly, much has been written about CRT in the months following the adoption of Resolution 9. Unfortunately, all the conversation in the form of news articles, podcasts, blogs, etc., has provided little clarity on the issue.

The purpose of this article is not to debate the pros and cons of Critical Race Theory, but to argue that as Southern Baptists, we need to find a way to have deep, meaningful conversations on the issues of race and racial injustice without invoking the tenants and historical baggage encapsulated in Critical Race Theory.

Two Clicks to Understanding Critical Race Theory

Let me take you on a brief web excursion to demonstrate my point. Let’s assume I am Cindy Christian sitting in my Southern Baptist Church on a Sunday morning and the topic of Critical Race Theory is brought up. I haven’t a clue what this means except to acknowledge that smart people on both sides of the issue seem to have very different opinions.

Knowing little about the issue, I do what everyone else does when confronted by a topic I know nothing about: I google it. I type the words “Critical Race Theory” into my trusted Google search box, and the top entry on the first page is an article from Wikipedia on the topic, so I click on the link and read the first paragraph:

Critical race theory (CRT) is a framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power in the United States of America. It began as a movement in American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal theory on race issues.

As the word "critical" suggests, both theoretical frameworks are rooted in critical theory, a social philosophy which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.

It is loosely unified by two common themes:

First, that white supremacy exists and exhibits power maintained over time, and, in particular, that the law plays a role in this process.

Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.

Sounds decent enough, but what is “critical theory”? Not knowing, I click on the link to “critical theory.”

Critical theory (also capitalized as "Critical Theory" to distinguish the school of thought from a theory that is in some way "critical") is an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. With origins in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Maintaining that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation, critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."

In sociology and political philosophy, "Critical Theory" means the Western-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, developed in Germany in the 1930s and drawing on the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Though a "critical theory" or a "critical social theory" may have similar elements of thought, capitalizing Critical Theory as if it were a proper noun stresses the intellectual lineage specific to the Frankfurt School.

Modern critical theory has also been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, as well as second-generation Frankfurt School scholars, notably Jürgen Habermas. In Habermas's work, critical theory transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism and progressed closer to American pragmatism. Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much contemporary critical theory.

Ok, so I am two clicks into my research and here’s what I have learned about Critical Race Theory:

• it is rooted in Critical Theory

• it talks about white supremacy, racial emancipation and anti-subordination?

• Critical Theory comes from something called “the Frankfurt School” formed in 1930s Germany. (Layman’s understanding of history: nothing good came out of Germany in the 1930s.)

• it draws from the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.

• it has been influenced by two guys named Lukács and Gramsci, which Wikipedia tells me were both Marxist philosophers.

That is about as far as most people will go when they research Critical Race Theory. Tell me, how should the average Christian respond when they hear their pastor, denomination leader, or politicians talk favorably about Critical Race Theory? What is in that brief layman’s definition that would make the average person think, “that’s something we should depend upon to have meaningful, biblical conversations about race”?

This is my point: to espouse Critical Race Theory as the starting point for any conversation on race is to start the conversation on a losing premise from the beginning. The words point to a complex theory that carries with it tremendous historical, philosophical, theological, and theoretical baggage.

Brothers and sisters, we need to have conversations about race, but Critical Race Theory is not the proper instrument, tool, device, theory, construct, or any other descriptor we want to apply to make it sound acceptable. For the Christian, it is not. It is rooted in a worldview that is completely antithetical to a biblical worldview. (I would argue Marxism is Satanic in its origin, but that's for another article.)

To my fellow pastors and leaders who insist we use CRT as the basis for our discussions on race my question is simple: why? Why insist on using a theory that any grandma with a computer can learn in two clicks is Marxist in its premise and foundation? If your objective is to help increase understanding and clarity on issues of race, haven’t you lost the battle before you utter a single word?

Yes, we need to have deep, meaningful, biblical conversations about race and racial injustice in America. Yes, we need to acknowledge that culturally, there are differences of perspective on the issue of race. Yes, we need to acknowledge that Christian leaders in the past and the present hold to beliefs on race that are unbiblical.

We need to have these conversations, but we can’t as long as we are bickering over the issue of CRT. Let's denounce CRT as unbiblical (because it is); let’s begin with a biblical understanding that because of the gospel, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and because you are my brother and sister, I want to understand some of the cultural narratives that have impacted your life. I want to have these conversations because I love you as a brother or sister and I appreciate hearing your perspective and learning from you.

Don’t miss this opportunity to have these conversations.

Abortion debate: Whose rights take precedence?

The abortion debate has hinged on a crucial question: is the baby in the mother's womb a human being? The pro-life advocate says a human baby is a person and has a fundamental right to life, while the pro-abortion advocate argues that "the fetus" is not a human/person and therefore the woman's right to bodily autonomy is greater than a fetus' right to life.While the question of personhood is another false narrative created by the pro-abortion advocacy groups, I found this quote from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights incredibly ironic given the strong pro-abortion stand of the UN during the last 45 years. I quote from an article by Katherine Ranck via The Christian Post:

The Preamble of this declaration recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (Emphasis mine). The rights protected by this declaration, among many others, include the right to life, the right to freedom, protection against torture or cruel punishment, protection from discrimination, and the right to be recognized everywhere as a person. As members of the human race, the unborn deserve these same rights and protections. The final article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” Abortion is an act “aimed at the destruction of . . . the rights and freedoms” of the preborn child. The right to life, the right not to be discriminated against based on their size, development, location, or dependency, the right not to be tortured, and the right to personhood.This now begs the question, which right receives precedence? Many advocates for abortion claim that because of the nature between the woman and the child (fetus), they cannot both have equal moral and legal rights. Unless one holds to a Darwinian ethic of “survival of the fittest,” where the stronger have the right and obligation to overpower the weaker, ethics and our legal system call for a higher moral obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us. The Oxford Dictionary defines a vulnerable person as “[A person] in need of special care, support, or protection because of age, disability, or risk of abuse or neglect.” The United Nations has an entire section dedicated to the rights of children and the most vulnerable, being the disabled (children, women, migrants, the poor, minorities, etc.). The Preamble to the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 defines “child” as, “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” and notes that there needs to be “particular care” extended to the child “Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth’”

Abortion is not acting out of one’s own right to bodily autonomy. It is acting to take away the human rights of another person. This does not make the woman any less human. This does not take away a woman’s rights. It only forbids her from taking away the rights of another person. As members of the human family, the preborn have the right to live, to grow, to thrive. They have the right not to be poisoned or town limb from limb. The have the right to be protected. Our society and our nation have failed to ensure that ALL humans’ rights are protected. The most vulnerable of all humans have been disallowed their rights. Enough is enough. It is past time to demand that all humans, all members of the human family, are awarded the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Source: www.christianpost.com

What Do Seventh-day Adventists Believe?

The painting above is "The Divine Counselor" by well-known Seventh-day Adventist painter Harry Anderson.

Religion and American politics has always proven to be a complicated mix. Religious conservatives like to quote their heroes of the faith of the last 100 years. President’s like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush seem to lead the pack.

Yet, if one looks at the presidents of the 20th Century, many of those who were known to be devout men of faith were Democrats. Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman are prime examples. Within the last generation, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both identified themselves as Southern Baptists during their political careers and time in office.Like many other years, 2016 is shaping up to be another year when religion plays a role in selecting our next president, at least the GOP candidate. It seems to be to be a rite of passage for a candidate to express their faith in no uncertain terms. Even Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon, received the coveted endorsement of Evangelical America's patron saint, Billy Graham.

The Rise of Ben Carson

One candidate that continues to intrigue the GOP electorate is Dr. Ben Carson. The former neurosurgeon is the antithesis of the other standout candidate for 2016, Donald Trump. Where Trump is loud and in your face, Carson is quiet and humble. He is also a Seventh-day Adventist.Most of us can identify the key distinctive of Seventh-day Adventists—they keep the Sabbath on Saturday, hence the label that has come to define the group. Still, labels can be misleading, especially historic labels. Take Southern Baptists, for example; visit most Southern Baptists churches outside of the South and the State of Texas and you will find that they are neither Southern nor Baptist. Most would prefer to identify themselves as “non-denominational.” I digress.For purposes of reference, I started looking into what Seventh-Day Adventists believe and came across this article found within The School of Biblical Evangelism. It provides a good overview of the history, beliefs, and practices of Seventh-day Adventists.

Seventh-day Adventists

By Dr. James BjornstadSeventh-day Adventism originated during the great “Second Advent” wakening of the 19th century. In 1818 William Miller, a Baptist minister, read Daniel 8:14 and predicted Christ’s return in twenty-five years—between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844 (2300 years from 457 b.c.). Later his associates set the date for October 22, 1844. During the following years, from 1844–1847, three groups came together to form Seventh-day Adventism:

• Hiram Edson provided the doctrine of the Sanctuary and Christ’s final ministry in the Holy of Holies (the Investigative Judgment). On October 23, 1844, “Suddenly there burst upon his mind the thought that there were two phases to Christ’s ministry in the Heaven of Heavens, just as in the earthly sanctuary of old. Instead of our high priest coming out of the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month at the end of the twenty-three hundred days, He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary, and that He had a work to perform in the most holy before coming to this earth.”
• Joseph Bates provided the doctrine of seventh-day worship, the Sabbath.
• Ellen G. Harmon (White) provided the doctrine of the “Spirit of Prophecy.” Her visions and prophecies brought together the theological notions above to form a unique religious system.

Theology

Seventh-day Adventists are in basic agreement with historic, biblical Christianity in many areas: the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible; the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead (the Fatherhood of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the person and deity of the Holy Spirit); and that man was created in the image of God, but is in a fallen state of sin and in need of redemption. They teach that Jesus Christ was virgin-born; lived a sinless life; was crucified, dead, and buried; and rose bodily from the grave.On the other hand, Seventh-day Adventists also have a number of distinctive doctrines that are not in accord with historic Christianity.

The Role of Ellen G. White

Seventh-day Adventists claim that Ellen G. White “performed the work of a true prophet during the seventy years of her public ministry. As Samuel was a prophet, as Jeremiah was a prophet, as John the Baptist, we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the Church of Christ today” (The Advent). The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual states: “As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.” Mrs. White herself claimed, “When I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God.”However, there are some problems with Mrs. White’s “gift of prophecy.” Walter Rea, in his book The White Lie, documents extensive plagiarism. She was also frequently in error, as she herself admitted.

The Person of Jesus Christ

Seventh-day Adventism differs from historic Christian doctrine in some of its teachings regarding the person of Jesus Christ, such as the following:

• Some early Seventh-day Adventists contended that the Son was not fully equal to the Father, and that the former must have had a beginning in the remote past.
• The name Michael is applied not to a created angel but to the Son of God in His pre-incarnate state.
• When Christ became a man, He took upon Himself human flesh and a human nature, but no human soul as a distinct immaterial substance.

The Sleep of the Soul and the Destruction of the Wicked

In contrast to historic Christian teaching, Seventh-day Adventism holds that the soul represents the whole man and the whole man (the body) remains in the tomb until the resurrection morning. The soul cannot exist apart from the body, and there is no conscious existence after death. The righteous will be resurrected and caught up to meet the Lord at His return; the unrighteous will be resurrected after the millennium and then cast into the lake of fire where they will be annihilated.

The Sabbath and the Mark of the Beast

Seventh-day Adventists teach that the Seventh-day Sabbath (Friday evening until Saturday evening) was instituted by God, and that observance of this day is a test of one’s loyalty to Christ. A counterfeit Sabbath will be proclaimed during the Tribulation period. Those who worship on that day will receive the mark of the beast; those who remain faithful to God will continue to worship on the Sabbath.

The Heavenly Sanctuary, the Investigative Judgment, and the Scapegoat

Once again, we see a contrast to historic Christian doctrine in Seventh-day Adventist teachings:

• Jesus entered into the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 to begin a second phase of His ministry.
• The sins of believers have been transferred to, deposited or recorded in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and are now being dealt with in the Investigative Judgment. Those who have died are examined to determine if they are worthy of being part of the first resurrection. The living are also examined to determine those who are abiding and keeping God’s commandments. When the cases of all the righteous have been decided (the standard being the Ten Commandments), their sins will be blotted out and Jesus will return to this earth in all His glory.
• Azazel (the goat the high priest sent out into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement) designates Satan, and “Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked.”

Law, Grace, and Salvation

Finally, we see a difference in doctrine when we examine two perspectives of law, grace, and salvation. On the one hand we see justification by faith alone. Opposed to that we find justification by faith which is demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments. This view strongly advocates Sabbath-keeping and the Old Testament dietary laws, which is difficult to harmonize with Seventh-day Adventists’ assurance that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. For example, in Just What Do You Believe About Your Church, Fordyce Detamore wrote:

The best summary of the requirements for salvation is found in the counsel Jesus gave the rich young nobleman (Mt. 19:16–22), “If thou wilt enter into life, (1) keep the commandments … and (2) follow me.” There is no other hope of salvation. By the standard of God’s holy law we shall be judged in the day of reckoning. (pp. 32–34) As long as Isaiah 66:15–17 is in this book, how dare I tell you it doesn’t make any difference whether or not you eat swine’s flesh and other unclean foods?… It would be much easier for me to say, “Go ahead and eat as you please; you needn’t worry about those things anymore.” But God says those who are eating unclean things when He comes will be destroyed. Wouldn’t you rather I put it plainly so that you’ll not be deceived and be destroyed at our Lord’s coming? (pp. 22, 23)

Sharing the Truth with Seventh-day Adventists

Our concern is to be sure that individual Adventists are confronted with the one true gospel. If an Adventist will admit that Mrs. White was fallible, that no record in heaven could possibly bring a believer into condemnation, and that the works of the Law such as Sabbath-keeping are not necessary conditions of salvation, then other things being equal, he should be acknowledged as an evangelical.On the other hand, if the Adventist persists in defending Mrs. White’s infallibility, the Investigative Judgment, and the Old Testament dietary laws, he places himself under the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10) and is preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:8, 9). In response, to those who believe faith must be demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments:

1. Stress the biblical teaching that a man is justified by faith in Jesus apart from the deeds of the Law (Romans 3:28; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; 3:10–14).
2. Point out that the Law of Moses (the ceremonial and moral aspects) has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. By His perfect life He met all the requirements of the moral aspect of the Law; by His death He fulfilled all the ceremonial ordinances which prefigured His incarnation and sacrifice (Romans 5:10; Colossians 2:16, 17).
3. The law or commandment that Christians are called upon to follow is the law of love (e.g., Matthew 22:37–40; Romans 13:8–10).

To those who believe the Sabbath is binding on the Christian, you might point out that:

1. Constantine did not, as Adventists claim, change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. He enacted that the first day of the week should be a public holiday, but centuries before Constantine, Christians gathered together for worship on the first day of the week. Reference to worship on the first day of the week can be found in Acts 2:41; 20:6, 7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10, etc. (Also, both the Didache and Ignatius refer to Sunday as the “Lord’s Day” “Kuriake”.)In addition, references to worship on the first day of the week can be found in the writings of the early church fathers: Ignatius (110 a.d.); Justin Martyr (100–165 a.d.); Barnabas (120–150 a.d.); Irenaeus (178 a.d.); Bardaisan (154 a.d.); Tertullian (200 a.d.); Origen (225 a.d.); Cyprian (200–258 a.d.); Peter of Alexandria (300 a.d.); and Eusebius (315 a.d.).
2. There is no indication in the New Testament that the observance of the Sabbath was binding on Gentile believers. On the contrary, we find such words as these: “One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord” (Romans 14:5, 6). “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to … a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16).

Adapted from an article by the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (www.johnankerberg.org).[1]

---

1. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, The School of Biblical Evangelism: 101 Lessons: How to Share Your Faith Simply, Effectively, Biblically—the Way Jesus Did (Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 2004), 630–635.  ↩

Dealing With Difficult Issues: Hebrews 6

As a Bible teacher/preacher, you need to know how to answer difficult issues, questions, and passages within the Bible. In an effort to give insight into how to deal with difficult passages, I’m providing a look inside how I tackled a particularly difficult text—Hebrews 6.Without doubt, Hebrews 6 provides one of the greatest theological challenges for the Bible teacher to interpret. Charles Swindoll calls Hebrews 6 the “Rubik’s Cube of the Bible.” Many commentators choose to either skip Hebrews 6 altogether or provide a brief overview, leaving the difficult text for others to try and explain.In his introduction to Hebrews 6, J. Vernon McGee notes,

This chapter, by all odds, contains the most difficult passage in the Bible for an interpreter to handle, regardless of his theological position. Dr. R. W. Dale, one of the great minds in the earlier field of conservative scholarship, wrote: I know how this passage has made the heart of many a good man tremble. It rises up in the New Testament with a gloomy grandeur, stern, portentous, awful, sublime as Mount Sinai when the Lord descended upon it in fire, and threatening storm clouds were around Him, and thunderings and lightnings and unearthly voices told that He was there.

Every reverent person has come to this section with awe and wonder. And every sincere expositor has come to this passage with a sense of inadequacy, and certainly that is the way I approach it.[1]

Many have offered an explanation to Hebrews 6, but in the end, the best answer may be “I’m not completely sure, but here’s what I believe based on my understanding of what we do know about God’s character.”

Proceed with Caution

That statement drives my perspective on dealing with difficult, thorny theological issues. This is not to say that we should not struggle to find good answers to difficult questions, but it is more of a caution: I want to resist placing God in a box so that the mysteries of God make sense to my finite mind. I except that there are many aspects of God’s character and workings that are left shrouded in mystery, and to forge an answer that makes sense to me may, in the end, only diminish who God is in both my mind and the minds of those under my teaching.

My Perspective on Hebrews 6

After studying extensively the many theories of interpretation of Hebrews 6, here’s where I’ve landed: I believe the writer to the Hebrews is describing true Christians in verses 4 & 5. The words he uses are spoken with certainty:

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,

The Writer Is Referring to True Born-again Christians

While there is debate among commentators and even among our pastors at First Family, I believe the writer is referring to true, born-again Christians. Many argue, for example, that the writer is not referring to true believers, but only to those who have nibbled at Christianity. They point to the words “tasted” used in vs. 4 & 5 and suggest that these were people who never fully digested the gospel and/or the heavenly gift. The problem is that the same word (geuo) that is translated “tasted” in 4 & 5 is used in Hebrews 2:9 when the writer tells us the Lord Jesus tasted death for everyone. No one would argue that when Jesus tasted death, he only nibbled at death and never really died.

Likewise, the word translated “enlightened” (photizo) is the same word used in Heb. 10:32 where the writer declares, “But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings…” No one doubts that in this reference the writer is referring to believers and to their salvation experience.

If we approach this passage and try to prevent our theological leanings from influencing our interpretation of the Scripture, it is difficult not to accept that the writer is referring to fellow believers in vs. 4 & 5.

The Dilemma: Can True Believers “Lose Their Salvation”?

The dilemma comes in v. 6 when he notes that if they then have “fallen away,” it is impossible to restore them again to repentance. Read simply, it appears what the writer is saying is, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened (saved), and then turn away, to be restored again.”The problem with this simple explanation is that this is contradictory to many other passages that teach the eternal security of the believer. (See John 5:24; John 10:27–28; John 6:37–40; John 6:44–47; 1 Peter 3:2; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 John 2:19.) At First Family, we believe completely in the eternal security of the believer. We believe that when you are born into the family of God, there is nothing that can take you from Him, even your own rebellion.

I’ve often compared this to the physical relationship a parent has with a child. A son may wander far from his mother and father, but there is nothing that can erase the fact that he was born their son. He is part of their DNA. So it is with spiritual life.

My Resolution to the Problem

So what do we do with the difficult words of Hebrews 6? I rely on what the Bible tells me about the Lord Jesus and His Character.

In John 10:27–28, Jesus tell us,

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.”

Jesus gives us eternal life, and He states emphatically, that we “shall never perish.” Moreover, He assures us that no one can snatch us out of His hand. No one. Not Satan, not even our own foolish rebellion.

The Anchor Holds

I also take great comfort in how the writer ends this difficult passage in Hebrews 6. He reminds us that we have reason to hope. Why? Because the source of our Hope is none other than Jesus Christ. In Heb. 6:19–20 he states,

We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek

I love the word picture he uses here–the anchor of our soul. Jesus is sure and steadfast, even in the midst of the heaviest of life’s storms.I want to leave you this week with the words of one of my favorite songs, The Anchor Holds, by Ray Boltz. They capture perfectly the hope we have in Jesus in spite of how large the sea of life is and how little our boat feels at times.

The Anchor Holds

I have journeyed
Through the long, dark night
Out on the open sea
By faith alone
Sight unknown
And yet His eyes were watching me

Chorus

The anchor holds
Though the ship is battered
The anchor holds
Though the sails are torn
I have fallen on my knees
As I faced the raging seas
The anchor holds
In spite of the storm

I’ve had visions
I’ve had dreams
I’ve even held them in my hand
But I never knew
Those dreams would slip right through
Like they were only grains of sand

(Chorus)

I have been young
But I am older now
And there has been beauty
That these eyes have seen
But it was in the night
Through the storms of my life
Oh, that’s where God proved
His love to me

(Chorus)

——————————————

Notes:

[1]]J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (Hebrews 1–7), electronic ed., vol. 51 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 102.  ↩

Don’t Jump to Conclusions and Skip the Truth

by Chris Eller | July 3, 2010 | Commentary

A couple of weeks ago I had several come up to me following a Wednesday evening class and report on the arrest of four Christians handing out gospel tracts at a recent Arab International Festival in Dearborn, MI.

My first reaction was, “Wow, we’ve crossed a Rubicon here.”

Muslims historically have won their battles through fear and intimidation of their opponents, and the incident in Dearborn seemed like a perfect illustration of how radical Islam is affecting America.

Christian news agencies were quick to jump on the story as revealed here, here, and here. (A Google News search show 86 articles on the topic.)

In the days that followed, Christians were quick to begin calling the event an outrage and a clear violation of the constitutional rights of the Christians involved. The blogosphere lit up with articles describing “creeping Sharia law,” and “Dearbornistan.”

Even Michael Youssef, a man I greatly respect, jumped into the debate:

Every freedom-loving person should be extremely alarmed at the dreadful trend of silencing Christians from the streets of London to the streets of Dearborn, Michigan. In both places, Christians were arrested and imprisoned for preaching the Gospel on public streets...in what Muslims considered to be Islamic territories.

When four young Christian men were recently arrested and imprisoned in Dearborn, Michigan for witnessing to their faith at an Islamic festival, it was hailed as a victory in some Islamic circles-Sharia law has come to America.

Never mind the first amendment...this is the beginning of its demise by overwhelming Islamic ideology that is @#!*% bent on silencing Christians and Jews from speaking of their faith. [1]

Don’t Jump to Conclusions

In a July 2, 2010 article on Baptist Press, Kelly Boggs provides some interesting background on the event:

While the arrest of the four men is troublesome, I have received ample information that makes it clear the Gospel is not being muzzled by anyone in the city of Dearborn. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be true.

For instance, at this year's Arab International Festival several Christian ministries had booth space in an area designated for literature distribution. Among those with a presence at the festival was well-known Christian author and apologist Josh McDowell and the Baptist State Convention of Michigan.
McDowell gave away copies of several of his books including "More Than A Carpenter" and "The Witness," an Arabic murder mystery novel. His ministry distributed thousands of books and McDowell interacted with festival goers while autographing books.

The Baptist State Convention of Michigan also distributed materials during the festival. "Our teams had a strong presence and had no issues at all," wrote Carlos Liese, language ministry leader with the Michigan convention, in an e-mail. "Our volunteers had many conversations about Christ with participants, passed out 2000 'Jesus Film' DVDs and 500 copies of the Gospel of John and Romans in Arabic."[2]

The Verdict

Where does this leave us? It is indeed troubling that four Christians were arrested for distributing literature at an Arab cultural festival. It is equally troubling that the First Amendment appears to be so anemic in contemporary America.

Still, Christians must be careful that we do not herald every incident that appears to be a violation of rights to be clear “signs of the end times.” Christians lose credibility in the eyes of the public when they follow the voices of extreme right over the cliff.

Lesson: Stop, investigate, then decided. Do your research. The Internet is full of half-baked stories predicting the apocalypse. Don’t fall prey to these cooked-up schemes and charges. Do your homework.

Notes

[1] Youssef. M. (June 28, 2010).  “A Wake Up Call”  Retrieved from http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/christianity/2010/06/a-wake-up-call-28/ on July 3, 2010.

[2] Boggs, K. (July 2, 2010). “First-Person: Finding the truth about the Arab festival.” Retrieved from http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=33285 on July 3, 2010.