My SBC Story

 

I grew up in the SBC (see my article on the entire struggle before reading this).  My personal experience was from a loving church that was conservative.  We didn’t have women deacons and the pastors were fairly conservative.  When I went to seminary it was at Southern (Louisville).  The SBC war had raged and this was the last days of it.  It was 1994 and the SBC was different and the CBF had started.  Southern had a new president, Al Mohler.  He was in line with the new powers.  Most of the faculty were pre-take over days.  During my one year there I was shocked.  The school decided that if any professor believed a woman could be a minister or a deacon they could not work there.  The school closed the social work program and said social work was incompatiable with the gospel.  Only professors who agreed with the new SBC were going to be hired.  New students who were much more in line with this were happy.  I was new but not in line with it.  I heard students blast women for being in seminary.  One told a woman student that her presence in seminary was ‘an affront to God.’  Students called their home churches in distress about the social work and trustees were called.  Al Mohler stood in the pulpit of the chapel and told us that we had no business calling anyone and our job was to study.  One older student stood up and said, “I’ve been a Baptist longer than you. I”m older than you President Mohler.  My tithes and offerings pay your salary and therefore I have a right to speak out.”  I decided to leave.  I vowed that if I had a daughter I would not want to be a part of a church that treated her less than a man. 

I left Southern and went to a new school, the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond.  When I left I continued to watch what happened at my old school.  I loved my time at BTSR and grew and matured in faith.  Most of my professors had left or been fired from southern baptist seminaries over similiar issues.  They were awesome, dedicated, and loving.  They weren’t perfect but they were Baptist and loved freedom.

I became involved in the CBF and love it.  I’m currently also involved in the BGAV (state convention) and our local association.  I’ve been involved in ABC life in a previous church.  I want to share Christ and help people find God’s love.  I want to be free as I do it and I want my church to be free to make her own decisions guided by the Holy Spirit. I want to support missionaries who are free to share God’s love and to be who they are called to be.  I want my church’s sons and daughters to be able to answer the call and to go and share the good news.  I want to do what Jesus asked me to do.  I want to be free to do it.  I don’t want to fight tired battles or throw jabs at the other side. I share my story so you know where I’m coming from.  My heroes in Baptist life would be those men and women who love Jesus and preach the gospel.  We’ve a story to tell to the nations–let’s do it!

There is much more I could say but it doesn’t need to be said. 

Next I’m going to write about Baptism!

Derik

The Southern Baptist Convention Controversy

I must give a warning and a confession.  I am not a fan of the current Southern Baptist Convention leadership.  I admit it and so like all histories this is shaped by my own pain and struggle.  So here goes!

First a quick explanation is needed. 

SBC– Southern Baptist Covention

CBF- Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

ABC- American Baptist Churches, USA

Here we go!
The SBC divided from the now ABC over slavery in the 1800s (see another blog).  The ABC would have struggles in the early 20th century but the SBC did not have much of that struggle.  The issues then were over modernity and science/faith issues, etc.  Fundamentalism began to become an issue in many denominations.  Fundamentalism is a view that holds to basic traditional Christian views but takes a very conservative interpretation over specific issues and often becomes militant about it.  I’ll say more about it later.  The SBC was never ‘liberal’ and has always been a fairly conservative denomination.  Because Baptists are diverse there are folks who hold to a host of interpretations and so all stripes of Baptists could be found but by in large the denomiation was a farily evangalical/conservative one overall.  In fact before the battles began the president of the SBC was often conservative (WA Criswell was one of the leaders in the take over and he was president before the struggle was in the horizion).

In 1979 a movement began that would consume the SBC until 1990 and to some degree still does.  Paige Patterson (now president of the Southwestern Baptist seminary) and Judge Paul Pressler had met and realized there was a flaw in the SBC system.  The president of the SBC was elected at the annual convention and usually was reelected to serve one more term.  The president appointed the committee that chose people for positions in the denomination.  They both figured that if they could win a string of elections for a set amount of time and that each man elected worked in aggreement they could stack the deck and capture the SBC and shut out folks they did not think were conservative enough.  And so for the first time the election process became super political.  The SBC had had struggles before but nothing like this.  During the 1980s this happened each year and the election was usually not overwhelming.  In time those who did not agree with this agenda opposed them and tried to win the election and often came close but didn’t.  The take over group called themselves conservatives and said this was a conservative resurgence.  They called the folks who were working and serving in the SBC liberals.  Those who were involved in SBC were not liberal when you define liberal in the broadest sense.  They did not reject the Bible.  They did not reject the diety of Christ.  They were fairly conservative (granted you can find examples of folks that maybe weren’t conservative but this would not be the majority at all).  They called themselves moderates.  They called the others fundamentalists.

When 1990 came it was basically over on the national level.  An entire take over of every committee was done.  People who had served for many years were fired or forced out.  People were shut out.  Churches that didn’t fit the bill could come and give money but no one would serve in any way. 

The way the SBC is set up the state conventions are independent and independent from them are associations.  The battle raged in state conventions.  Most state conventions went into the take over hands.  Texas and Virginia did not.  To this day they are not in the hands of the take over.  The take over group formed their own state conventions in TX and VA.  Both states have both state coventions partnering now with the SBC.  Other states have tried to be neutral but it hasn’t worked much.  Battles rage in MO and NC to this day.  In fact MO formed another state convention for moderates and it was rejected!  Associations have had many battles as well.  Colleges have left the SBC completely.  The six seminaries that the SBC owns battled heavy and schools like Southern and Southeastern had almost complete faculty turn overs! 

In 1990 the CBF was formed.  The CBF is not near the size of the SBC.  The SBC has 35,000 churches and the CBF 1800.  Before the CBF the Alliance of Baptists was created during the struggle but it now has 100 churches and is more to the left than the CBF.  The CBF is more central.  The SBC is far right (leadership wise).  The CBF partners with publishing houses, new seminaries, and has a mission program.  Traditional state conventions like VA and TX partner with the SBC and CBF and let local churches decided.  The CBF endorses many chaplains and is starting new churches. 

Baptist churches are basically independent.  They come together to work with whom they like and therefore can belong to more than one group.  A Baptist church can be both CBF and SBC.  Or one could be ABC and CBF and SBC!!  So many churches give to both rather than split the church.  Many Baptists have stayed out of the battle and are uninformed or simply worry about the missionaries and don’t want to cut funds.

What were the charges given during the struggle?  Two big issues came up–

*The Bible.  The take over group said the Baptists who were serving and leading the convention didn’t belive the Bible.  The word ‘inerrancy’ was used.  They said they believed in the inerrant word of God and moderates didn’t.  The problem is they were talking interpretation.  Both sides believe the Bible!!  It is that we don’t agree with some issues in the Bible.  We see some things differently.  The take over group would say that they believe the Bible is without error but quietly added that meant in the original copies.  We don’t have the original copies so that is a moot issue. 

*Women.  The SBC does not believe women should be deacons or pastors and if someone does then they believe they should not be in leadership.  The CBF says churches have a right to decide this and many CBF churches are not against women in leadership.  The SBC states the man is the head of the house and that the wife should ‘graciously submit’ to her husband.  The CBF disagrees.  In 1984 the SBC passed a resolution that said:

          ” WHEREAS, While Paul commends women and men alike in other roles of ministry and service      (Titus 2:1-10), he excludes women from pastoral leadership (1 Tim. 2:12) to preserve a submission God requires because the man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall (1 Tim. 2:13ff);”

The Baptist Faith and Message was rewritten a few years ago and reads:
           “A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

Some of the changes in SBC life that have bothered many Baptists seems to be more involvement in national politics that seem to be a little too close for comfort.  Missionaries were forced out for not signing the Baptist Faith and Message (which was never done before).  The BFM has been rewritten to fit the new direction and some missionaries just couldn’t sign a ‘creed.’

Basically the SBC has become more and more strong to the extreme right.  Church freedom seems to be violated more and more.  If a Baptist church wants to choose a woman as deacon it is not the business of anyone else! 

And so Baptists have divided.  This is not a new thing because Baptist tend to divide.  The new SBC is fighting over many things even now.  Those who are still in the SBC leadership are struggling.  For years the president has been determined by a few and this has been challenged in recent years.  Younger SBCers want a voice.  Calvinism is a battle again!  Whether a Christian can drink alcohol is an issue within those left in the SBC!  They are fighting over personalities and so on. 

The CBF is not perfect but it has tried to be a home for Baptists to do mission work and not be controlled. 

The Alliance of Baptists is much smaller and is welcoming and affirming of homosexuals and therefore this has made it more to the left. 

The CBF will not hire or call a missionary who is homosexual.

Therefore I describe the SBC has far right, the CBF as middle (evangelical), and the Alliance has more to the left.  Many of you will argue with me over my labels I’m sure!
Does all of this matter?  If you are Baptist it does.  You need to be in a place where your money is going in a place that wants your voice!  If you are left out and not wanted why belong?  We need to find a place we can serve and get the good news of Jesus Christ to the world.  What we do says what we believe.  I don’t want to spend my time fighting so I’m glad we have alternatives to the SBC.  I am a part of the CBF and proud to be.  I’m glad I can work and serve God.  I’m not afraid to work with SBC folks!  On the local level most SBC churches are kind, gracious, and usually not informed about the main issues at stake!  (Sounds arrogant but I believe it.)  In VA all stripes of Baptist work together in the BGAV (State Convention).  The far right folks pulled out years ago.  We have SBC and CBF churches working together though in VA.  The BWA (Baptist World Alliance) tried to include all Baptists but the SBC left because the CBF was accepted!

I realize some read this and shake their heads and say why belong to any denomination.  Again I believe it is important to link up with other Christians to do what one church can’t.  I also believe our traditions have much to offer.  Yet we have to be in a organization that allows us to serve God and one that we can do so with integrity and not spend our time fighting but doing ministry.

Here is a link you might want to go to and read:

http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mbn/sbc_changes.htm

Blessings,
Derik

 

The Baptist Story

The Protestant Reformation in the 1500s changed the world.  Martin Luther and other reformers made sweeping changes that impacted history.  The desire to stress that salvation is faith alone and moving away from the Catholic church created many new traditions that exist to this day.  Presbyterians, Reformed Churches, Lutherans and others were born from this movement.  Along with reformers there were radical reformers (Anabaptists) who rejected infant baptism, supported believer’s baptism, and wanted the separation to be greater.

After the church in England broke away later there were many who felt the separation didn’t go far enough.  So in the 1600s Baptists were born in England.  There are Anabaptist influences of course and Baptists owe much to those radical reformers. 

Two major groups popped up in England independent of one another.

*The General Baptists:  They believed in a ‘general’ atonement and rejected Calvinism (a theology that stressed God’s sovereign will, predestination, and not a great deal of free will-born out of the writings of John Calvin).  This group came about in 1608-1609.  They were founded by John Smyth and another major leader was Thomas Helwys.  They were known for spantaneous worship- prayer, singing, and preaching.  They sang Scripture and were leery of hymns.  Baptism was for believers only.  They had deacons and pastors.  They were open to women as deacons and pastors and had them.  They believed you could reject your salvation and lose it.  They disappeared almost completely in the 1700s over doctrinal issues.

*Particular Baptists:  Born in the 1630s.  Although the second to exist they did not break off the first but came up independently.  They believed in a ‘particular’ atonement (Calvinist-some are chosen to be saved and some not).  They came from that separtist movement that was so strong in the 1630s.  They toow ere spontaneous in worship but did have some structure.  They eventually accepted hymns and led the way.  Baptism was also for believers.  They grew very strong in the 1700s.  They had deacons and pastors and these were men only.  They were against women serving in those roles.  They did not believe you could lose your salvation.

Both groups practiced communion and baptism.  Both groups were strong on freedom.  They both rejected creeds (man made statement one must sign to belong) but did accept confessions (General statements of belief but not forced).

As Baptists came to America they evolved into two main traditions in this country.  In the 1700s the First Baptist church in America was established in Rhode Island.  Roger Williams was a leader who led this (he also started Rhode Island) and was a big supporter of freedom.  He would leave the Baptist faith eventually. 

The Great Awakening (a revival movement) would bring about these two traditions more fully.

*Separate Baptists:  They were very evangelistic (winning souls).  They were known as “Sandy Creek” because the movement began in Sandy Creek, NC.  They spread into VA, NC, and GA.  They weren’t focused on history and how it had been done before.  They were leery of educated clergy.  The main goal to them was evangelism and they were very revivalistic.  Therefore they were not very calvinistic.  They loved revival meetings.  They were emotional and their churches grew.  Missions was important to them.

*Regular Baptists:  They were more formal and traditional.  They were more structured and much less emotional.  They were not fans of revival movements.  FBC of Charleston, SC was the home church of this movement.  Education was valued with the clergy.  They were calvinistic.

As churches grew and people moved from place to place many churches would become a mixture of these two movements.  Many Baptists can look at their local church today and find mixture of the two movements.  Baptists two are a blend of these two traditions.  Some may lean to one side more but traces of each can often be found. 

As Baptists spread in this country and churches grew they became to connect mainly over the issue of missions.  Baptists would want to form associations to work together.  The “Triennal Convention” was formed in 1814 to be a place where Baptists could partner together for the sake of mission work (to sponser, fund, and do missions).  They met every three years (hence the name) and were very diverse.  In 1844 this fell apart into north and south over slavery.  Should a slave owner be allowed to be a missionary?  The north said no and the south said yes.  Back in FBC, Charleston SC the Southern Baptist Convention would be born and they supported slavery.  The Northern Baptist Covention was formed and they did not (they would become the American Baptist Churches, USA today).  They never reuinted.  Many denominations split like this and many came back together (not Baptists). 

Through the years Baptists would divide and split over theology, personality, etc.  Many new denominations would form and there are dozens of Baptist denominations.  Some are based on ethinic backgrounds or geography but more and more it is over splits and divisions.  Most Baptists are mission minded but not all.  This too was once an issue and divided churches.

The largest denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and in 1979 it began a battle that raged for many years.  The next blog will address this battle.

So today there are Independent Baptists, SBC, ABC, CBF, NBC, and on and on the list goes. 

Baptists have much in common (see my overview) but we are diverse and that diversity creates many unique groups.  Sometimes Baptists work together.  The Baptist World Alliance is one way many Baptists worldwide come together despite their differences. The BWA was started by the SBC but the SBC recently left.  That too is another story.

So this is a general overview and I realize it leaves out much but it shows the Baptist journey to the US.  There are many Baptist worldwide and I’m sorry I haven’t given much attention to them and they are equally important.  But this should give a quick snapshot of who we are if you live in North America.

Blessings,
Derik

Baptists- A Quick Overview

Baptists come in many shapes and sizes.  Baptists are very diverse.  Some Baptists shout, some are more solemn, and most fall somewhere in the middle.  Some Baptist preachers wear suits, others robes, and some casual clothes.  Some Baptists sing praise songs and others hymns.  There are Baptist churches that clap and raise hands and there are others that frown at such things.  In some Baptist churches women are silent and do not speak or even teach Sunday School.  In some Baptist churches women are very involved in the life of the church and are often the strength of the congregation.  In some they even preach!  Baptists are diverse and yet there are some things that are similiar.

Baptists historically have 2 offices- Pastor and Deacon.  Pastors are the ones who lead the church, preach, baptize, and usually are paid.  Deacons are lay folks (no clergy) who serve in the church in leadership roles.  In some churches deacons make major decisions and in others they are servant who do ministry roles.  These two offices are usually ordained.  This means they have been through a service of prayer and commitment and the word ‘ordained’ means ’set aside.’  Often hands are laid on their shoulders or head and prayers are said.  Some Baptists (a few) are adding ‘elders’ who serve in a leadership role.  As churches grow larger other ministers (music, youth, education, etc) are added. 

Baptists have 2 Ordinances– Catholics talk about 7 Sacraments.  Baptist have 2 and they are called ordinances.  They are not seen as giving grace but more of a memorial-to symbolize something else.  The two are Baptism and Lord’s Supper/Communion.  Baptism is by immersion (completely put under water) and is called “BELIEVER’S BAPTISM” and this means no infants.  A person must accept Christ by their own decision and then are baptized.  Baptism is not part of salvation and not necessary for salvation.  Baptism is done as a symbol of the decision to follow Christ and entrance into the church.  Lord’s Supper/Communion is taking the bread and cup.  Baptists usually don’t drink from one cup but many cups (started for health reasons long ago) and usually pass the plate to them (sometimes they come forward).  Baptists generally don’t do it at every service (always exceptions) and set the frequency.  Christ is not literally or spiritually present but this is a memorial/symbol of Jesus’ death (body and blood of Christ).  Usually deacons and pastor serve it.

Baptists are local focused.  Baptist churches are totally free of control from other churches and denominations.  The local church owns it’s own property, makes it’s own decisions, and no one controls it from outside.  They pay their own bills, etc.  Some denominations own the land of local churches but not in Baptist circles.  Baptists historically unite over missions, resources, and education.

Baptists are freedom folks.  Walter Shurden talks about the 4 Fragile Freedoms and this is a good summary of what drives Baptists.

*Bible Freedom– historically Baptists do not have creeds to sign or recite but focus on the Bible alone.  Baptists promote Bible study and reading.  Many Baptists do have a Constitution and By Laws in their church as guiding documents but they change and are not set in stone forever.  Baptists often have ‘confessions’ that state beliefs but try to keep them from becoming controlling.

*Individual Freedom– Priesthood of the Believer is a term that stresses that a person is able to have access to God without aid of a priest and that he or she is equal before God.  People are responsible to answer to God and serve God.

*Religious Freedom– Baptists have historically fought for church/state separation and do not support a church state connection.  Baptists desire for all to have a right to believe or not believe.  Baptists have stressed this throughout history.

*Church Freedom– Each church is free and can cooperate with denominations but not be controlled by them. 

Basic Christian Beliefs–  Baptists like many other churches hold to basic universial historic Christian beliefs.  Baptists believe salvation is through Jesus only and each person needs Christ.  Jesus lived, died, and rose again.  Baptists believe in the power of prayer, the Bible as the word of God, the need for the church, and the need to share the good news of Jesus.  Baptists are Trinity folks and believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Baptists like other denominations argue about the details but do hold to basic Christian concepts.

In future blogs I will go over the history (were we came from) and the fights we’ve fought.  Plus I’m going to address baptism and the Lord’s Supper at some length.

Derik

Do Denominations Matter?

First I have to say that I am a Baptist.  Having said that I don’t think that Baptists have all the answers and that we are the one true church.  Believe it or not there were a group of Baptists (Landmark movement) who thought that and believed only Baptist preachers should speak in Baptist churches, no other baptism was valid, and communion was not to be shared with other churches much less other denominations.  I am not a Landmarkist.  However I also do not think that denominations serve no purpose and do not matter.  As a Baptist pastor I teach classes on Baptist Heritage in the churches I serve.  I believe Methodists should teach about their tradition as well.  I believe all traditions should do this.

I do believe that when we get to heaven all that matters is that you know Christ and denominations at that point will not matter.  There is an old joke about a man who dies and goes to heaven.  Saint Peter takes him for a walk and he sees all denominations praising God.  He walks by one room and sees some quiet stern looking people sitting there.  “Who are they?”  “Shhh,” said Peter, “That’s the Baptists and they think they are the only ones here.”

Some say we live in a post-denomination age and that denominations are dying and it doesn’t matter.  I disagree. I believe denominations do matter and I don’t think God minds.  God created diversity (check out a rainbow) and made us diverse.  Denominations have theological differences and so we can’t all merge into one super church (nor is anyone advocating this).  Some might think churches can just be Christian and local churches can shape themselves how they need too.  That isn’t a bad idea but denominations still serve a major purpose.  When I see Methodist, Presbyterian, etc it can serve as a helpful way for me to know what that church is and while I realize they are still different I can know a sense of what I’m visiting.  Basically when I see a church sign I should know how that church “does church.” 

Let me give an example.  I know Methodists are sent their pastors.  Baptists choose their pastor and everyone votes.  I like the Baptist way but that doesn’t make Methodists wrong it just means we are different.  I know I can choose the one that best fits how I can best serve God.  Even in a tradition such as Baptist I know not every church will meet my needs or ‘click’ with me and I might visit several before I find a church home but knowing the tradition helps. 

Theology is also important.  Presbyterians come from a Calvinist tradition and Methodists from a more free will one.  Catholic theology is not the same as Protestant.  Some practice infant baptism and some don’t and that is important to know. 

I’m a Baptist and I like the Baptist way.  It isn’t for everyone but it is for many.  I like the way we ‘do’ church and I like the basic tradition.  So in the next few blogs I’m going to tell the Baptist story, share who we are, and discuss some things that are helpful to us.

As you read this if you are not Baptist take heart.  I’m not declaring my superority over you!  I respect you and hey I read from all Christian traditions and often visit them.  We are friends in Christ.  Baptists, Methodists and others come together and work on common interests and projects all the time and we should. 

I realize the heart of any church is the local body.  It’s where ‘the action happens.’  And yet we connect outside ourselves to do what one can’t do.  How we do it and with who says much about that local body.

So join me as I explore–being Baptist!  Does it matter? You bet!

Derik

1000 Hits and Counting

This blog site has passed the 1000 visitor mark!  I appreciate those of you who are visiting and hope that the blogs stimulate some thought and conversation in your life.  I started this site to create a forum to address topics in a way that can’t be done in a sermon or church newsletter.  By posting articles you can have time to read, ponder, and reply.  Don’t forget that you can subscribe to these blogs on this site and you will get them as they are written sent to your inbox.  Also feel free to reply to any blog if you have a comment, additional information, or a question.  I hope you will visit the links on this site to find some great sites that will help you in your Christian journey.  You can visit our church web site as well and if you live in the Madison Heights area please come and worship with us.  We have sermons on our church site and I’m looking into expanding to pod casts to have additional resources outside of the sermons.

Thanks again and share the word to your friends about this site!  If you have topics of interests just let me know!

Blessings,

Derik

What About the Violence in the Old Testament?

Often when folks critize the Bible or the Christian faith they will point to the violence found in the Old Testament.  Christians read those same passages and become uneasy.  Jesus spoke about love and being peace makers but when you read the Old Testament you see the Hebrews waging war and sometimes wiping out entire cities (and this means more than soliders were dying).  Last blog I talked about our struggle with war and violence and I realize that the church is not in the same situation as the Hebrews and we live under the New Covenant.  Yet some folks read these passages found in books like Joshua and Judges and other places and have many questions.  How are we to understand these passages?

In the OT there are many wars and the text states that God commanded or assisted in many of them (Exodus 17, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20, Johsua, Judges, etc).  Sometimes God forbides war but often the people of God (Hebrews) are fighting on the side of God.  Even Ecclesiastes talks about a time for war (3).  In the NT we find Jesus and Paul speaking out against violence (Matthew 5, Luke 6, Matthew 26, Romans 12).  Tertullian (early Christian thinker) would talk about how God once allowed war but then forbade it and he called for Christians to not serve in the military.  Paul does talk about how leaders punish by the sword (Romans 13:1-4).  In my last blog I talked about how many Christians struggle over military service, war, violence, etc.  

Some time back I read a book “Show Them No Mercy” by C.S. Cowles, Eugene H. Merrill, Daniel L. Gard, and Dr. Tremper Longman III that deals with these very questions.  I’ll do my best to sum up the four views found in this work but I encourage you to read this book for yourself.  “Show Them No Mercy” is one of those books that has multiple views presented so that the reader can see various opinons about particular contoversial issues.  I personally love that approach and there are many various books that do this on a huge range of issues.  The basic issue in this book is how do we relate the peace we are called to by Jesus with the violence of the OT together?  Is the Bible inconsistent?  Does Jesus call us to peace while in the OT God approves of war?  Let me list the four views the book covers.

*Radical Discontinuity.  In this view all texts are true but says that today we are to live under the criteria of Jesus and the NT is the covenant we now live under.  We can learn from the OT but we must live with the tension between the OT and NT and not focus on it so much.  We are now in a new age (NT).  Some say this view doesn’t deal with the OT and seems to devalue the OT and puts the OT and NT up against one another.

*Moderate Discontinuity.  This view doesn’t separate the OT and NT.  God is the same in both OT and NT.  The violence of the OT was unique to the time, place, and circumstances.  It is not to be carried on in the church age (no more holy wars)..  This view tries to understand the violence more as a result of sin, protection of Israel, and necessary for Israel’s survival.  This view says the violence was necessary, showed God was sovereign, part of the salvation strategy, and also showed the glory and power of God. 

*Eschatological Continuity.  This view sees the OT wars as a typology that points to end times (eschatology) concerns.  This views points to a eschatological reality.  Those who hold to this focus on that and do not try and explain the violence found in the OT.  The holy war shifts from the literal to a future war between God and evil.  The OT was physical warfare while the NT is spiritual warfare.

*Spiritual Continuity.  Holy War talked about HEREM (giving over the conquered items and people to God).  They were banned and destroyed.  This view moves the OT physical violence to a spiritual one we wage today.

If you want to explore texts in the OT and NT that deal with this tension then here are some to check out.

OT:  Duet 7:1-2, 20:16-17, 20:16-18, 32:39, Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28, 40, 11:1, 20-21

NT:  Matthew 5:43-44, 5:45-48, Luke 6:27-36, 9:51-56

So what are we to do?  When the Hebrews went into the land to claim it as God gave it to them there were many wars fought and people died.  The ancient world in the OT was a violent place.  Yet when we come into the NT we find Jesus calling us to be peacemakers and rather than a political kingdom Jesus has come to bring something new and better.  There are many ways to wrestle with these issues.  You’ll have to wrestle with them and do some prayer and research.  Still I would hope that most Christians would not want to go on ‘holy wars.’  The progresson in the Bible shows a movement to the coming of Christ and in that coming something better has come.  I’m not pitting the OT and NT against one another.  I love both.  Early Gnostics would talk about the God of the OT and the God of the NT and have great distaste for the OT God.  I totally disagree with that.  I believe God was working with a fallen world then and now.  God was at work shaping and forming and helping a people come together from which the solution to the fallen world would come, Jesus Christ.  With the coming of Christ the stage is set as God continues to work to bring about something even better that will be fulfilled one day when Christ returns.  Until that day we will struggle, questions, and wrestle but we can know that God is love and God desires for us to seek the way of love in this age.

The issues I raised in the last blog should make us squirm a bit as we try and figure out how we will live in this world and yet belong to another world.

Blessings,

Derik