Author Archives: Keith Walters

Meaning versus Significance: Hermeneutics and Evangelical Political Activism

Posted on by
10

The presidential primaries are in full swing and so are the Evangelical political activists.  Yes, another post on politics . . . do not worry, there are nine months until November and I am already sick of it too.  My concern here is not to propose a full-blown theology of politics, but to briefly examine the hermeneutics behind the “political mandate,” namely the idea that Christians are required to be highly involved in the political process.

Hermeneutics 101

Before continuing a biblical hermeneutic must be established so that it can be contrasted with the hermeneutic of Evangelical political activism.  In the simplest of terms a biblical hermeneutic operates upon five key principles.  A common thread is woven throughout these principles, namely the importance of context.

Literal: Scripture must be interpreted literally.  Scripture is not a fairytale, it does not begin with “once upon a time,” it is history and future revealed authoritatively, inerrantly, and infallibly by the one who spoke the world into being.  The first step to understanding any passage in Scripture is to understand its literary context; as the Word of God it is unlike any other piece of literature known to man and as His Word it lays claims upon us that can be made by no other piece of literature.

Historical: Scripture must be interpreted within its historical and cultural setting.  God who exists outside of time has chosen to act and speak both within time and at particular times.  The paradox continues as one considers how the timeless Word of God is composed of words whose meanings are inextricably tied to the time and culture into which they were spoken.  The second step to understanding any passage in Scripture is to understand its historical context.

Grammatical: Scripture must be interpreted according to the rules of grammar.  Scripture is a series of words arranged into phrases and phrases arranged into sentences and sentences arranged into paragraphs etcetera.  Because the unified Word of God is comprised of the “words of God” one must understand the structural relationships that exist between these words.  The third step to understanding any passage in Scripture is to understand its grammatical context.

Contextual: Scripture must be interpreted within the context of the surrounding Scripture.  Because the multitudinous “words of God” comprise the unified Word of God one must be diligent to understand every particular passage as it both relates to and correlates with Scripture as a whole.  The fourth step to understanding any passage in Scripture is to understand its textual context.

Redemptive: Scripture must be interpreted as it properly relates to Christ.  Throughout the Gospels, most notable the road to Emmaus encounter, it is clear that both the Disciples and Jewish community as a whole suffered from a critical flaw in their understanding of Scripture, namely its relationship to the Messiah.  The fifth step to understanding any passage in Scripture is to understand its redemptive context.

Even beyond the aim of this post, I hope the outline above proves useful in your own study of Scripture.

Examining the Political Mandate

The aim of this post is to examine the hermeneutic of Evangelical political activism, namely as it pertains to the “political mandate.”  The “political mandate” is often justified or explained by the gross misuse of the metaphors of “salt and light” found in Matthew 5:13-16.  I am assuming that most of you can read and do so according to the basic rules of grammar so rather than go into a lengthy technical discussion of the relationship between these words I want to define them and then make several overarching observations.

Salt: This was an extremely valuable commodity; in ancient times it was referred to as divine, used to ratify covenants, and even used as money in some cultures.  The salt used in this region was from the Dead Sea and was often polluted with Gypsum a mineral that degrades the salts flavor and effectiveness as a preservative.  Various commentators have noted and argued for varying functions of salt: as a seasoning, as a preservative, as a chemical that induces thirst, and as an irritant to name a few.  Regardless of these particular functions salt was an extremely valuable commodity.

Light:  This word can function one of three ways: to describe the light itself, to describe an object emitting light, and to describe something that is illuminated.  Within Oriental, culture light was typically viewed as the means by which one sees in Greek culture, however, light was viewed as both the means and object of sight; a concept which has strong correlations to the idea of spiritual blindness.  Noting the three functions of light described redeemed man is certainly not the object by which blind men see this is an act of a sovereign God.  Redeemed individuals have been both illumined by Christ and reflect His radiance.  If taken in this sense the act of being illuminated is prerequisite to radiating light and thus the latter must be taken as the final function of the word; because Jesus Christ, the light of the world, has given us light to see we are thus fit vessels to radiate His glory.

In summary, those redeemed by God are to be particularly valuable to society and in so doing radiate the glory of Christ, so that fallen man, by both perceiving the value and its source, will glorify and worship God.  Neither the means nor the end of what Christ describes here is explicitly political.  Throughout the Gospels Christ continually refutes politicized interpretations of the Messiah.  The reaction of His Jewish hearers, who were fervently political, clearly did not interpret Jesus’ words as a political mandate as Scripture describes them as being amazed, rather than revolting against Rome.  Overall, the Sermon on the Mount has numerous references to political entities and yet the common response is submission and servitude rather than political engagement.  The early church did not interpret this text as a political mandate, nor did the apostles, who even under intense persecution did not take political action.  Furthermore, interpreting this text as a political mandate renders it irrelevant for most of the known world, as America is one of the few countries where the citizens play such a crucial role in politics and where Christianity is not persecuted by the government.  How is a Christian living in a Muslim country under Sharia law to fulfill this supposed political mandate?  Christian jihad?  Should American Evangelicals reinvent the Crusades and overthrow these governments so Muslim background believers can fulfill their political mandate via democratic process?

Addressing the Real Issue: Meaning versus Significance

The issue here is not one of meaning it is one of significance  “Significance is always ‘meaning-to,’ never ‘meaning-in.’  Significance always entails a relationship between what is in a man’s verbal meaning and what is outside it” (E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity In Interpretation [New Haven and London: Yale Varsity Press, 1967], 63).  More simply stated, meaning is fixed, Scripture objectively and eternally means what God intended it to mean.  Significance, however, addresses the relationship between that meaning and our present context.  The text means that “those redeemed by God are to be particularly valuable to society and in so doing radiate the glory of Christ, so that fallen man, by both perceiving the value and its source, will glorify and worship God.”  The significance of that meaning will depend upon the context in which you apply it.  The way one goes about being particularly valuable to society and radiating the glory of Christ, although regulated by certain biblical principles, depends largely upon the context in which one is ministering.  This means that there is no political mandate.  This does not mean that redeemed individuals cannot be involved in politics.  It means that redeemed individuals must discern whether political involvement is the best way to be particularly valuable to society and radiate the glory of Christ.  What about me and what about my context?  Judging our current cultural context and the lack of discernment and discretion shown in past events I do not feel that what I see among Evangelicals is either particularly valuable to society or particularly glorifying to God, but arguing that point will have to wait for another day.

Church Revitalization or Church Planting — Again

Posted on by
5

Research shows that 90% of SBC churches are plateaued or declining and only 2-3% (Aubrey Malphurs) or 3-5% (Ed Stetzer) will ever recover.  What does this tell us about how our resources and energy should be focused?  Where do you think our resources and energy is currently focused?

On a lighter note, was this extraterrestrial, supernatural, or just Elvis?  You make the call.

I will try to have my “2007 A Year in Books” posted sometime before 2009 but I am quite busy right now, so hopefully it will be up sometime in February.

My First Book: Well, Almost . . .

Posted on by
2

Many of you know that Nick Cooper and I have been teaching a Fuel Group at Ignite UK this semester on missions.  We finally have both the teacher’s manuscript and class handouts completed and posted on the web for download.  Before I post the links, I have to give an extra extra special thanks to my awesome wife who took the time to proofread all 150 pages of it both before each class and before its posting here.  I would also recommend checking out the Ignite UK Resources page, as all of our Fuel Groups for this semester will soon be up.

Sold Out: The Sufficiency and Supremacy of Christ in Missions (Class Handout)

Sold Out: The Sufficiency and Supremacy of Christ in Missions (Teacher’s Manuscript)

Rick Warren on Missions

Posted on by
16

In my last post, I gave you the following quote from an individual whose identity I did not reveal at that time.

These problems, and the answers, are not new.  But the way we intend to tackle them using the small groups of local churches in large numbers is revolutionary.

The bottom line is that we intend to reinvent mission strategy in the 21st century.  This will be a new Reformation.  The First Reformation returned us to the message of the original church.  It was a reformation of doctrine – what the church BELIEVES.  This Second Reformation will return us to the mission of the original church.  It will be a reformation of purpose- what the church DOES in the world.

In the first century, mission strategy was always congregationally based.  The first missionaries were sent, supported, and accountable to local churches.  The church at Antioch was the first to do this.  There were no mission societies, mission boards, or parachurch organizations.  Local churches accepted the responsibility for Jesus’ Great Commission and his Great Commandment, and the growth of the church worldwide was explosive.

Today, most local churches are sidelined and uninvolved when it comes to missions.  The message from most mission and parachurch organizations to the local church is essentially “Pray, pay, and get out of the way.”  But in the 21st century . . . [We] intend to help thousands of other local churches move back to the frontline in missions, in compassion, and in providing the social services that historically the church provided.  I believe the proper role for all the great parachurch and relief organizations is to serve local churches in a supportive role, offering their expertise and knowledge, but allowing the local churches around the world to be central focus and the distribution centers.

I deeply believe that any organization that marginalized or minimizes the local congregation’s responsibility to “Go”, or bypasses the local church’s moral authority to fulfill the Great Commission,  is out of sync with the strategy God intended, and modeled in the book of Acts.

Rick Warren said that as he described the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, the specific quote is available here.  After the above quote Warren goes on to say, “We intend to leverage the attention that the Purpose Driven Life has garnered to bring about a whole new way of thinking and acting in the church about our responsibility in the world.  This is a stewardship we must be faithful to fulfill- with humility, generosity, and integrity.”

I think he has spoken with profound insight.  These parachurch organizations and mission societies/boards are, as he puts it, “out of sync with the strategy God intended.”  They are robbing the church of her responsibility.  Local churches must fulfill their responsibility and bearing the burden of fulfilling the Great Commission.  As a Southern Baptist, I am familiar with the structures within the Southern Baptist Convention and the typical mindset of “We gave to the cooperative program and are therefore fulfilling our responsibility to ‘go make disciples’” just does not cut it.  That is an unacceptable and unbiblical attitude.

Such a strategy also necessitates that churches be involved in the task of raising up, sending out, and empowering their best leaders.  The typical corporate ladder mindset of most American pastors is horrifically unbiblical.  Rather than our most skilled pastors continually seeking bigger churches and higher salaries, which is often a detriment to those churches, these pastors should employ their skill where it is needed most, the hard places and pioneer areas.  Sadly, I do not expect this to be the case as most pastors in America are more concerned with building their empire than God’s kingdom.

What do you all think?  Has the church lost her mission?  Do we need a second reformation that recovers what the church does?  Before we can do that I think we need a second reformation that recovers what the church is, but that is for another post.

2007-12-10 The Brief

Posted on by
3

Culture:

Last week I posted on the The Golden Compass and I plan to see the film sometime this week.  Why would I want to see a film that aims to destroy the church?  First, I think there is much we can learn from this film.  Much of what the film hates about “Christianity” is something we should hate.  In the film, the Magisterium, the ruling authority in the Catholic Church, represents “Christianity” as a whole.  While this attack is clearly directed at “Christianity” as a whole, I do not think his terminology here is accidental.  Much of what the world perceives as “Christianity” is not; it is a stagnant cultural force, an institution, which exists to enforce nonsensical cultural forms on others.  I think the same can be said about much of society, what they perceive to be “Christianity” is not and we should rally to put that stagnant, dead, deceptive, manmade “Christianity” to death.  We do that by submitting to the Lordship of Christ and living as the people of God and incarnating the gospel in our culture as servants of those in culture.  Second, I wholeheartedly agree with Al Mohler, “This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews.”  I have had two conversations this week, one about this film and one about another film, which deeply convicted me because I was unable to engage them in the battle of ideas because I had not seen the films.  As Christians we should not be retreating.  We must see these films, discern their true meanings, and then engage in the battle of ideas.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.  We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4-5).

Since the last post on this topic, Al Mohler has done a phenomenal post on the film entitled The Golden Compass — A Briefing for Concerned Christians.

Blogsphere:

Nick Cooper has returned to the blogsphere with his slick new blog Moderate Obscurity.

Justin Tapp has two great posts up on the translation of Scripture: Psalm 1:6 and John 10 and the Jews.  I have commented on the latter post; however, I hope that some of you with an understanding of Hebrew will comment on the first post.

Vintage Faith: While this is not a blog, it is on the internet and there is a blog on the site.  I have recently found Dan Kimball’s website Vintage Faith . . . exploring the emerging church and vintage Christianity.  The website has many great resources that need to be read with discernment.  Yes, that was an oxymoron.  Here is what I mean.  Dan is painting a picture of what he feels the future of the church needs to look like if it is to impact post-christian America.  Much of this picture is extremely helpful and much is not.  His criticisms of stagnant cultural and institutional “Christianity” are very helpful; however, his proposed solutions are not always helpful.  Far too many have reacted in extreme ways against the Emerging and Emergent Church and in so doing have robbed themselves of many fantastic resources to aid them in ministering to the emerging American culture.

I think an example will illustrate this quite well.  For many Karl Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy are viewed as liberal theology.  However, Barth served to buttress the faith against the assault of liberal theologians like Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, and Adolf Harnack.  During this time, the main battle was between Liberalism and Fundamentalism while Barth’s Neo-Orthodoxy appeared and combated Liberalism it was also attacked by Fundamentalists.  Looking back it is clear that Barth had numerous critiques of Liberalism which would have greatly benefited Fundamentalists had they taken the time to understand him.  We need to learn from our mistakes and listen to and learn from the Emerging and Emergent Church and move forward to reach these emerging cultures as better-informed and better-prepared followers of Christ.

With that said, Karl Barth is not for everyone and Dan Kimball is not for everyone.  The key is in the word “discernment.”  Honestly, most people are not very discerning and for that reason, I hesitated to post this.  However, for those discerning individuals who do not want to buy his books but would appreciate his insight check the site out.

Unexpected Insights:

These problems, and the answers, are not new.  But the way we intend to tackle them using the small groups of local churches in large numbers is revolutionary.

The bottom line is that we intend to reinvent mission strategy in the 21st century. This will be a new Reformation.  The First Reformation returned us to the message of the original church.  It was a reformation of doctrine – what the church BELIEVES. This Second Reformation will return us to the mission of the original church. It will be a reformation of purpose- what the church DOES in the world.

In the first century, mission strategy was always congregationally based.  The first missionaries were sent, supported, and accountable to local churches.  The church at Antioch was the first to do this.  There were no mission societies, mission boards, or parachurch organizations.  Local churches accepted the responsibility for Jesus’ Great Commission and his Great Commandment, and the growth of the church worldwide was explosive.

Today, most local churches are sidelined and uninvolved when it comes to missions.  The message from most mission and parachurch organizations to the local church is essentially “Pray, pay, and get out of the way.”  But in the 21st century . . . [We] intend to help thousands of other local churches move back to the frontline in missions, in compassion, and in providing the social services that historically the church provided.  I believe the proper role for all the great parachurch and relief organizations is to serve local churches in a supportive role, offering their expertise and knowledge, but allowing the local churches around the world to be central focus and the distribution centers.

I deeply believe that any organization that marginalized or minimizes the local congregation’s responsibility to “Go”, or bypasses the local church’s moral authority to fulfill the Great Commission,  is out of sync with the strategy God intended, and modeled in the book of Acts.

I was quite surprised when I found out who said those words.  I will do another post on this in the coming week and will announce the author then.  In the mean time, I would urge you to resist the urge to “Google” the above quote and simply discuss it.