(On February 22, Suzii Paynter - Director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission; and a member of the TBMaston Foundation Board of Trustees - testified before the Texas Senate Committee on Business and Commerce in support of Senate Bill 253, which would close the payday lending loophole.)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Testimony by Chad Chaddick on Payday Lending - February 22, 2011
(On February 22, Chad Chaddick - pastor of Northeast Baptist Church, San Antonio - testified before the Texas Senate Committee on Business and Commerce in support of Senate Bill 253, which would close the payday lending loophole.)
Questions Posed to the Senate Committee Considering SB 253 on Payday Lending
(On February 22, Chad Chaddick - pastor of Northeast Baptist Church, San Antonio - testified before the Texas Senate Committee on Business & Commerce in support of Senate Bill 253, which would close the payday lending loophole. The following is excerpted from a letter he sent to the committee the following day.)
Reflecting on the testimony and questions of yesterday, I wish to share two thoughts.
1. Regarding the protections extended to our military personnel, I find it interesting that not one person objected to these protections being extended to our soldiers. That the Department of Defense has found that such credit practices are “a threat to our national security” was accepted by all. Whether this acceptance was out of a sense of real patriotism or whether it was simply out of the desire to be seen as patriotic, such acceptance begs the question – if one mark of patriotism is that we protect our military from usurious practices by capping the interest and fees that can be charged them at 36%, is it not a matter of state pride that we would extend equal protections to all the citizens of our own state? To do otherwise is to establish a double standard by which we grant one class of people greater protection than another class of people.
2. Likewise, it is interesting to me that all present yesterday would accept the need to protect our military personnel from usurious lending, but none of us made the connection that protection is necessary only if there is a threat of real harm. If our military personnel need to be protected, it stands to reason that they need to be protected from something harmful. Yet what I heard yesterday both from industry lobbyists and from committee members was that payday lending practices are good, beneficial, and necessary. Indeed, the committee went out of its way to make the point that they wanted to ensure the continued prosperity of these businesses and their practices.
My question is, do you really want to ensure the continued prosperity of practices that we, in our patriotic pride, have all agreed are harmful? I do not deny that there is a need for some extension of credit to the working poor, but I would suggest that there are alternative ways to do so – ways that actually help the citizens of the state rather than harm them. In a government designed to be “for” the people, I would hope you agree.
I would urge your careful consideration of these matters as you hammer out final details of the bill.
Reasons for Christians to Oppose Payday Lending and Support Texas SB 253
(On February 22, Chad Chaddick - pastor of Northeast Baptist Church, San Antonio - testified before the Texas Senate Committee on Business & Commerce in support of Senate Bill 253, which would close the payday lending loophole. The following was part of the prepared remarks he presented to the committee.)
As a pastor, I've reflected on my own particular encounter with the payday loans, and with payday loans in general so that our church could understand our moral and theological motivation for opposing the continuation of these unregulated practices. There is, quite naturally I think, the sheer shock and outrage a person feels that any group could legally arrange or issue a line of credit with terms that amounted to upwards of 740% interest. My outrage only increased when I discovered that the only way someone could offer such a line of credit was to do so under the guise of a Credit Service Organization (CSO) which, by definition, exists to help people. It seems ludicrous to me that 740% interest could ever be considered “helpful.” As my own experience has proven, it is education and accountability that are truly helpful to families with damaged credit and few financial resources – NOT an available line of credit burdened with usurious interest.
As a pastor, I've reflected on my own particular encounter with the payday loans, and with payday loans in general so that our church could understand our moral and theological motivation for opposing the continuation of these unregulated practices. There is, quite naturally I think, the sheer shock and outrage a person feels that any group could legally arrange or issue a line of credit with terms that amounted to upwards of 740% interest. My outrage only increased when I discovered that the only way someone could offer such a line of credit was to do so under the guise of a Credit Service Organization (CSO) which, by definition, exists to help people. It seems ludicrous to me that 740% interest could ever be considered “helpful.” As my own experience has proven, it is education and accountability that are truly helpful to families with damaged credit and few financial resources – NOT an available line of credit burdened with usurious interest.
But I have discovered something else as I reflected on these types of loans. I have discovered that, the more I tell this story, the more 740% interest becomes just another number. It eventually loses all shock value and any moral connotation; to be honest, any argument that rests solely on its shock value is a very shallow argument. Several resources have helped me dig a deeper foundation for my own position on the issue. One is the Christian Scripture. Both Old Testament and New are clear that justice for the poor is an extremely meaningful issue to God. “Evil” is the name given in Scripture to “oppressing the poor” and “crushing the needy” (Amos 4:1). A line of credit carrying usurious interest targeting the financially fragile certainly qualifies as oppressing the poor and crushing the needy.
But a second resource in understanding this position is to follow the logical outcomes of viewing such practices as helpful and good. By such reasoning, we find ourselves in a surreal world of absurd values.
Consider this: if taking such a loan is helpful or good, then we must immediately admit that these CSOs are operating under an unfair market advantage, since our banks, credit unions, and other loan providers are unable to offer such good and helpful products. Were we to admit that such products are good for our citizens and for ourselves, then we must remove the constitutional limit of 10% interest and open the regulatory doors for our banks to offer such helpful products. After all, which of us, by this reasoning, would not want easier access to such a good thing? Just imagine the good that could be done if every bank and credit union could offer us 700% car and home loans! Indeed, the State of Texas is currently in a financially difficult situation. No doubt the state would benefit from taking loans from its citizens in the form of bonds guaranteed at 700%. As a civic duty, I would like to be the first to buy some.
But if this seems ridiculous, and it is, and if such bonds would obviously be bad for the state of Texas, and they are, then we must be ready to admit they are bad for individual citizens, too. Our citizens should be afforded some protection from such harmful practices.
Of course, one objection to regulating such practices is that the market within which they operate will condense and some people may lose jobs to keep the corporations profitable. Job loss is certainly not a good thing. But if the good of creating and maintaining jobs outweighs our consideration for the fairness of the practices those jobs support, then I fear that we find ourselves again in the position of the absurd. If we cannot regulate these practices because the creation and preservation of jobs is more important than protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens, then we must question some of our other existing regulations.
Consider, for instance, our strenuous regulation against the manufacture, transport, and sale of illicit drugs. Such regulation is clearly oppressive, and, no doubt, “hurts” those involved in such activities. If our consideration for job creation and preservation is our foremost concern, then we must face the fact that we are robbing drug dealers of their fairly-earned, market-driven livelihoods. Imagine how many jobs we could create with less strenuous regulation!
Consider also how the regulation of prostitution is hurting the bottom-lines of pimps throughout our state. The exploitation of women and the sex trade of underage girls aside, the state’s regulation of prostitution is hurting jobs. If job creation, growth, and preservation outweigh the moral nature of the practices those jobs support, then ultimately, we are robbed of any moral foothold to oppose such practices. There is no end to the types of practices we might unleash upon the citizens of our state if we followed such reasoning. It is absurd.
But clearly we are against these and other hurtful practices, and our citizens have been afforded some protection from them. If the shock of a 740% APR loan is not enough to bring payday and auto-title loans under existing regulation, then perhaps an appeal to moral conviction, consistent reasoning, justice may help. It is for these reasons that I support SB 253 to close the loophole that allows such usurious practices to continue in Texas.
An Experience with Payday Loans at Northeast Baptist Church in San Antonio
(On February 22, Chad Chaddick - pastor of Northeast Baptist Church, San Antonio - testified before the Texas Senate Committee on Business & Commerce in support of Senate Bill 253, which would close the payday lending loophole. The experience related here was part of the prepared remarks he presented to the committee.)
About a year ago, a couple joined our church. With six kids, a dependent mother-in-law, and one income, they were understandably financially fragile. The church gave them some financial assistance not long after they joined.
Six months later, they requested more financial assistance from the church. At present, the policies of our church provide that we do not require much from the individual church member-with-a-need other than to answer a few questions regarding the need and how it came to exist. If requests are made a second time, however, we require that those with the need meet with another member of our church who can assist them in developing a household budget and who can provide a measure of accountability with regard to living within that budget. The needy family in question willingly met with our Vice Chairman of Deacons and his wife.
In the course of developing the household budget, our deacon discovered that the family would be able to live within their means except for one item of debt that was dragging them down . . . . a $700 payday loan they had taken out roughly four months earlier to help with a rent payment on their home. The terms of the loan: $200 every two weeks was automatically deducted from the husband's paycheck. This $200 did not reduce the original amount of the loan. It merely allowed for the $700 principal to roll-over until the next pay-period. In the course of the four months the family had maintained this loan, they had rolled the principal over 9 times – at a cost of $1,800. (Had they continued to pay on the loan for a year, they would have paid $5,200, for an APR of over 740%!) Now, as they approached the church again for help, they needed help to pay their rent or face eviction.
The financial assistance that the church is able to provide for any family is limited. To help this particular family meet their financial obligations for the month and get them out from under the loan that would have kept them perpetually struggling (and us or others perpetually trying to help), we needed nearly $1,500. The loan accounted for half of that amount when the principal and associated fees were factored together. This certainly exceeded the usual amount the church was prepared to pay, but through the generosity of several church members, and even one non-church member, the money was raised.
It was then that we hit an unexpected speed bump – it took us three days to 1) determine exactly where the loan should be paid, and 2) discover a means acceptable to the company for paying off the loan (our offers of a check and an initial credit card were rejected). The system was certainly not set up to make it easy to pay off the loan. By the time we had located the company, talked with a representative who could authorize this pay-off, and agreed how the loan was to be paid, we had accrued nearly $100 worth of additional fees.
I am pleased to say that the family – being out from under the payday loan, and receiving some basic education on how to handle money and some accountability on their budget – has successfully lived within its means for the past three months.
About a year ago, a couple joined our church. With six kids, a dependent mother-in-law, and one income, they were understandably financially fragile. The church gave them some financial assistance not long after they joined.
Six months later, they requested more financial assistance from the church. At present, the policies of our church provide that we do not require much from the individual church member-with-a-need other than to answer a few questions regarding the need and how it came to exist. If requests are made a second time, however, we require that those with the need meet with another member of our church who can assist them in developing a household budget and who can provide a measure of accountability with regard to living within that budget. The needy family in question willingly met with our Vice Chairman of Deacons and his wife.
In the course of developing the household budget, our deacon discovered that the family would be able to live within their means except for one item of debt that was dragging them down . . . . a $700 payday loan they had taken out roughly four months earlier to help with a rent payment on their home. The terms of the loan: $200 every two weeks was automatically deducted from the husband's paycheck. This $200 did not reduce the original amount of the loan. It merely allowed for the $700 principal to roll-over until the next pay-period. In the course of the four months the family had maintained this loan, they had rolled the principal over 9 times – at a cost of $1,800. (Had they continued to pay on the loan for a year, they would have paid $5,200, for an APR of over 740%!) Now, as they approached the church again for help, they needed help to pay their rent or face eviction.
The financial assistance that the church is able to provide for any family is limited. To help this particular family meet their financial obligations for the month and get them out from under the loan that would have kept them perpetually struggling (and us or others perpetually trying to help), we needed nearly $1,500. The loan accounted for half of that amount when the principal and associated fees were factored together. This certainly exceeded the usual amount the church was prepared to pay, but through the generosity of several church members, and even one non-church member, the money was raised.
It was then that we hit an unexpected speed bump – it took us three days to 1) determine exactly where the loan should be paid, and 2) discover a means acceptable to the company for paying off the loan (our offers of a check and an initial credit card were rejected). The system was certainly not set up to make it easy to pay off the loan. By the time we had located the company, talked with a representative who could authorize this pay-off, and agreed how the loan was to be paid, we had accrued nearly $100 worth of additional fees.
I am pleased to say that the family – being out from under the payday loan, and receiving some basic education on how to handle money and some accountability on their budget – has successfully lived within its means for the past three months.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Francis Wayland: The First Baptist Ethicist
Francis Wayland (1796-1865), a Baptist minister who served as President of Brown University from 1827-1855, was the first Baptist ethicist and was America’s foremost ethicist during the pre-civil war era. His popular Elements of Moral Science, first published in 1835, sold more than 100,000 copies before the end of the 19th century and yet another reprint was issued as recently as April 2010.
D.H. Meyer in his 1972 book The Instructed Conscience suggested that Wayland offered the first serious attempt by an American intellectual to answer Ralph Waldo Emerson’s call for a public ethic to guide the “liberated conscience” of American society. Emerson was looking for “some kind of formal consensus on the fundamental principles of morality, agreement on the meaning of basic moral terms, and the formation of a reasonably coherent code of moral maxims.” Wayland’s book provided the basic form and common point of reference for a series of philosophically varied proposals with similar moral outcomes by American academic moralists and intellectuals. Chief among them were Mark Hopkins and Asa Mahan, both Congregationalists, Francis Bowen, a Unitarian, Archibald Alexander and James McCosh, both Presbyterians. Most of them were college Presidents like Wayland. Some of them were clergymen like Wayland. All of them were trying to provide a resource for the kind of moral leadership Americans felt the young nation needed. Most of their works were texts for senior level capstone courses that were expected to provide the highpoint and culmination of a good college education.
Wayland’s ethics were exhortative rather than analytical. Though he was concerned with the epistemology of morals and how to recognize a moral obligation, his primary concern was to instruct the conscience rather than to stimulate the intellect. The innovation in his method was to teach moral philosophy as a “science” related to religion but distinct from theology. That is why people of varied theological positions could find it appealing.
Modern ethicists would classify Wayland’s ethic as intuitionist and deontological, as opposed to teleological. His thinking was shaped primarily by the apologetic method of Joseph Butler, whose sermons on conscience comprise one of the highest achievements of rationalist Christian moralism, and Dugald Stewart, the most influential moralist of the Scottish “common sense” school of philosophy.
Contemporary ethical theory faces challenges that are both deeper and broader than those that Wayland faced. In relation to ethics, science no longer enjoys the confidence it did in his day. Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche and the results of very diverse and ever expanding fields of scientific research have made any kind of “formal consensus” on the principles of morality elusive for our day. Yet, the need for some such consensus is greater today than it was then.
The way forward does not lie in a revival of the methods of the past, but the concerns and aspirations of the past can provide an ideal and inspiration for the future. We need to renew a practical concern for the study and teaching of philosophical and theological ethics in our institutions of higher learning. While Logsdon and McAfee seminaries have been setting the pace among us in ethical instruction, some other moderate Baptist seminaries do not even require a basic course in ethics as a requirement for obtaining a degree. All of our colleges and seminaries need to resume their role as leaders in the teaching of ethics and they ought to be encouraging the brightest minds among us to take up the challenge of forming a cross-disciplinary consensus on ethics and morality. Baptists today are as capable of being trend setters in this area as were Baptists in the 19th century.
If the labors of our scholars are to bear fruit beyond the world of academia, then we will also have to cultivate other means for promoting conscience formation in our homes and churches. That is why it is vital to provide ongoing support for agencies like the Baptist Center for Ethics and the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, for foundations like the T.B. Maston Foundation, and for publications like Christian Ethics Today .
This entry is cross-posted from the Mainstream Baptist weblog.
D.H. Meyer in his 1972 book The Instructed Conscience suggested that Wayland offered the first serious attempt by an American intellectual to answer Ralph Waldo Emerson’s call for a public ethic to guide the “liberated conscience” of American society. Emerson was looking for “some kind of formal consensus on the fundamental principles of morality, agreement on the meaning of basic moral terms, and the formation of a reasonably coherent code of moral maxims.” Wayland’s book provided the basic form and common point of reference for a series of philosophically varied proposals with similar moral outcomes by American academic moralists and intellectuals. Chief among them were Mark Hopkins and Asa Mahan, both Congregationalists, Francis Bowen, a Unitarian, Archibald Alexander and James McCosh, both Presbyterians. Most of them were college Presidents like Wayland. Some of them were clergymen like Wayland. All of them were trying to provide a resource for the kind of moral leadership Americans felt the young nation needed. Most of their works were texts for senior level capstone courses that were expected to provide the highpoint and culmination of a good college education.
Wayland’s ethics were exhortative rather than analytical. Though he was concerned with the epistemology of morals and how to recognize a moral obligation, his primary concern was to instruct the conscience rather than to stimulate the intellect. The innovation in his method was to teach moral philosophy as a “science” related to religion but distinct from theology. That is why people of varied theological positions could find it appealing.
Modern ethicists would classify Wayland’s ethic as intuitionist and deontological, as opposed to teleological. His thinking was shaped primarily by the apologetic method of Joseph Butler, whose sermons on conscience comprise one of the highest achievements of rationalist Christian moralism, and Dugald Stewart, the most influential moralist of the Scottish “common sense” school of philosophy.
Contemporary ethical theory faces challenges that are both deeper and broader than those that Wayland faced. In relation to ethics, science no longer enjoys the confidence it did in his day. Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche and the results of very diverse and ever expanding fields of scientific research have made any kind of “formal consensus” on the principles of morality elusive for our day. Yet, the need for some such consensus is greater today than it was then.
The way forward does not lie in a revival of the methods of the past, but the concerns and aspirations of the past can provide an ideal and inspiration for the future. We need to renew a practical concern for the study and teaching of philosophical and theological ethics in our institutions of higher learning. While Logsdon and McAfee seminaries have been setting the pace among us in ethical instruction, some other moderate Baptist seminaries do not even require a basic course in ethics as a requirement for obtaining a degree. All of our colleges and seminaries need to resume their role as leaders in the teaching of ethics and they ought to be encouraging the brightest minds among us to take up the challenge of forming a cross-disciplinary consensus on ethics and morality. Baptists today are as capable of being trend setters in this area as were Baptists in the 19th century.
If the labors of our scholars are to bear fruit beyond the world of academia, then we will also have to cultivate other means for promoting conscience formation in our homes and churches. That is why it is vital to provide ongoing support for agencies like the Baptist Center for Ethics and the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, for foundations like the T.B. Maston Foundation, and for publications like Christian Ethics Today .
This entry is cross-posted from the Mainstream Baptist weblog.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Taking Responsibility for Our Words and Attitudes
The unspeakable tragedy in Arizona on Saturday was not just an assault on democracy. It was an assault on our humanity. Many seem to have lost the ability - if they ever had it - to discuss differences with reason rather than hostility . . . and to accept our differences by understanding rather than demanding.
I commend to you the editorial that Robert Parham posted today on ethicsdaily.com, entitled "Turn Down the Rhetoric, Turn Off the Political Talk-Radio and Cable TV." Those who have encouraged this culture of hatred and violence must take responsibility for the deeds that result from it. Amen, Robert.
I commend to you the editorial that Robert Parham posted today on ethicsdaily.com, entitled "Turn Down the Rhetoric, Turn Off the Political Talk-Radio and Cable TV." Those who have encouraged this culture of hatred and violence must take responsibility for the deeds that result from it. Amen, Robert.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
A Maston Remembrance
Dr. Maston had been retired for seventeen years by the time I arrived on the campus of Southwestern Seminary in 1980. He was still an active presence on the campus, however, as he worked in his office day by day. When I took my first course in Christian Ethics with Dr. Guy Greenfield, we were assigned two Maston texts--Biblical Ethics and Why Live the Christian Life?--for reading.
It was about then that I realized I had already come under the influence of Dr. Maston, even before I had gotten to Fort Worth. I had become a Christian my first year in college and a youth minister quickly put into my hands a little book published by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention entitled God's Will and Your Life by T. B. Maston. I was challenged by reading chapters such as "His Will Applies to All" and "His Will is Always Best." That little book played an important role in my search for God's direction in my life and likely contributed to me ending up in Dr. Greenfield's class in Christian Ethics at Southwestern Seminary.
By that semester I had already sensed that I was to continue on in school for doctoral work to prepare for a ministry in teaching. But in what field? I vividly remember sitting in Roberts Library with a classmate who held up Dr. Maston's Why Live the Christian Life? and said, "You know, this is where it all comes together." Indeed, that is where it all came together for me and I knew that the field of Christian Ethics was to demand my attention and commitment from then on.
Dr. Maston died two years before I began my own teaching ministry. Today, thirty-five years after I was first introduced to his wisdom, I teach Christian Ethics at East Texas Baptist University in Marshall, Texas. I am still persuaded that the concerns and issues raised by Dr. Maston are "where it all comes together," still persuaded that "His Will Applies to All," and "His Will is Always Best." Those simple assertions are enough to answer the question "Why live the Christian life?"
It was about then that I realized I had already come under the influence of Dr. Maston, even before I had gotten to Fort Worth. I had become a Christian my first year in college and a youth minister quickly put into my hands a little book published by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention entitled God's Will and Your Life by T. B. Maston. I was challenged by reading chapters such as "His Will Applies to All" and "His Will is Always Best." That little book played an important role in my search for God's direction in my life and likely contributed to me ending up in Dr. Greenfield's class in Christian Ethics at Southwestern Seminary.
By that semester I had already sensed that I was to continue on in school for doctoral work to prepare for a ministry in teaching. But in what field? I vividly remember sitting in Roberts Library with a classmate who held up Dr. Maston's Why Live the Christian Life? and said, "You know, this is where it all comes together." Indeed, that is where it all came together for me and I knew that the field of Christian Ethics was to demand my attention and commitment from then on.
Dr. Maston died two years before I began my own teaching ministry. Today, thirty-five years after I was first introduced to his wisdom, I teach Christian Ethics at East Texas Baptist University in Marshall, Texas. I am still persuaded that the concerns and issues raised by Dr. Maston are "where it all comes together," still persuaded that "His Will Applies to All," and "His Will is Always Best." Those simple assertions are enough to answer the question "Why live the Christian life?"
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Seeking - and Giving - Refuge: University Hills Baptist Church of Denver
| The Denver Post reports that the doors have been slammed shut on a Denver church that has a long history of faithful ministry to a southeast Denver community. In fact, they were slammed shut on the church's own members. In the business world, this would be called a hostile takeover. |
Now, I have to admit to some bias here. My wife and I spent several years, early in our marriage, as part of the fellowship of University Hills Baptist Church. In fact, Joanna was baptized there in 1981, while she was carrying our first child; the pastor then, Davis Cooper, joked that it was the first "infant baptism" that he had ever performed. We left in 1985 but returned for the 1987 dedication of the church's new sanctuary.
When Joanna and I were there, from 1979-1985, University Hills was one of the leading churches in Denver - a vibrant faith community, a loving fellowship of believers. So I was stunned to read the Denver Post account. It tells of an ambitious young pastor who - impatient over the prospect of growing a church in a community that had grown old - led the church to "merge" with one in a younger community, 15 miles away in the suburbs. Then, according to the article, he abruptly abandoned those faithful University Hills members.
If you read the Denver Post article, you will likely be stunned by the depth and ramifications of this betrayal: broken promises; a merger vote riddled with irregularities; the new congregation's seizure of church property from those whose money had paid for it; and the new congregation's eviction of the University Hills fellowship from its longtime home, apparently for the purpose of selling the property to help pay off its own considerable debt.
Now the University Hills "remnant" is suing its former pastor and his new congregation, alleging fraud and seeking compensation for what has been taken from them.
So there are a lot of issues here. Some might cite the Apostle Paul's admonition, in 1 Corinthians 6, against Christians suing fellow Christians. But ethics - even Christian ethics - are rarely tied in one neat little bundle. Christian ethics often deal with competing principles and priorities. After all, Christ urged us to stand for justice against the oppressor, and to call to account those who exercise power over others. So, to sue or not to sue? That is just one of the questions here.
But what does this have to do with you and me? Well, I don't think any Christian can afford to ignore a situation like this. Hurting, dysfunctional churches are becoming the rule rather than the exception these days. As Christians, we need to stand up for what is right and seek healing and restoration for all concerned - and repentance, too, where it's needed.
God is healing these folks. Their story isn't over. As the article relates, having moved to rented space in a recreation center, the University Hills congregation has found a new mission field and a new ministry to dozens of refugees and immigrants whom they have welcomed into their fellowship. Funny how that works . . . the University Hills congregation is ministering to kindred spirits, for they themselves are displaced refugees and immigrants. Blessed be the ties that bind our hearts in Christian love. And thanks be to our God, who blesses our brokenness beyond anything we can imagine.
So what are your thoughts on this situation? For that matter, have you experienced something similar, and how was it handled? What do Christian ethics have to say about what was done here? Is it acceptable for Christians to sue fellow Christians who have wronged them?
While you're thinking about all of that, be sure to pray for these folks in Denver as they celebrate Christmas in a new place and as they minister faithfully to a new community of believers. Giving refuge . . . even as they seek it for themselves.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
So Who's the Real Grinch?
The Dallas Morning News recently reported that Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, has created a Web site - grinchalert.com - that "outs" businesses that don't fully acknowledge the religious aspect of Christmas.
So what message is Dr. Jeffress sending? Well, maybe my "receiver" is out of whack, but here are the three messages - all of them disturbing - that I hear in his campaign to identify businesses as either "naughty" or "nice." One is that we honor Christ by bringing economic pain and suffering on those who - in our view - don't honor Him. Another is that Christ is all about the economy and commerce rather than personal relationship.
But the message that rings loudest - and that most disturbs me - is that following Christ is something to be coerced, brought about through threatening and taunting and shaming rather than through sharing one's personal faith experience.
Dr. Jeffress boasted that he is "bringing the Gospel into Christmas." Pardon me, Dr. Jeffress, but God already brought the Gospel - the Good News - into Christmas 2000 years ago. And Christmas should be good news to a wounded and hurting world. But it seems to me that Dr. Jeffress is the grinch who has robbed Christmas of its good news for some this year.
That's how I see it, anyway. What are your thoughts?
So what message is Dr. Jeffress sending? Well, maybe my "receiver" is out of whack, but here are the three messages - all of them disturbing - that I hear in his campaign to identify businesses as either "naughty" or "nice." One is that we honor Christ by bringing economic pain and suffering on those who - in our view - don't honor Him. Another is that Christ is all about the economy and commerce rather than personal relationship.
But the message that rings loudest - and that most disturbs me - is that following Christ is something to be coerced, brought about through threatening and taunting and shaming rather than through sharing one's personal faith experience.
Dr. Jeffress boasted that he is "bringing the Gospel into Christmas." Pardon me, Dr. Jeffress, but God already brought the Gospel - the Good News - into Christmas 2000 years ago. And Christmas should be good news to a wounded and hurting world. But it seems to me that Dr. Jeffress is the grinch who has robbed Christmas of its good news for some this year.
That's how I see it, anyway. What are your thoughts?
He Went About Doing Good (by T. B. Maston)
(Published in the Baptist Standard, April 17, 1968, as part of the "Problems of the Christian Life" series of articles written by Dr. T. B. Maston; this article is as timely today as it was when Dr. Maston wrote it, as Christian denominations and institutions search for new ways to "move out of our church buildings and reach people where they are.")
This five-word biography of Jesus, "He went about doing good," was part of the sermon of Peter in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:38). This statement has deep meaning for followers of Christ.
Hoke Smith, an area representative of our Foreign Mission Board, recently said that the essence of missionary theory and practice could be reduced to a very concise formula: "To be like Jesus in attitudes, words, and deeds." This is not only the essence of missionary theory and practice, but it is also the essence of the Christian life.
If we are like Jesus, we will have a wayside ministry. He went about from place to place, and as He went He was helpful in His relation to suffering, sinning, seeking men and women. Jesus did not settle down in one spot and invite the people to come to Him. He went out where they were.
Our contemporary institutionalized concept of Christian work tends to localize and circumscribe our ministry for Him. We must move out of our church buildings and reach people where they are, or we will not reach the vast majority.
This does not mean that there will be no need for our buildings. We will still need them for worship and fellowship. But that worship and fellowship should be primarily preparatory. Also, we should seek to discover new approaches and techniques to transport some of that fellowship out where the people are.
Let us never forget that as Jesus went from place to place He ministered to the needs of the people.
What was the secret to the kind of life Jesus lived? Peter says that He went about doing good "for God was with him." Here was the source of His power. It was also the reason or the motive for the kind of life He lived.
At least His life was a natural expression of an inner desire. He could have used His miraculous power to perform miracles even more spectacular than most of those He performed. They would have been proof to the people that He was the Messiah, that He was the Son of God.
Why did He use His power so exclusively to relieve human needs? Approximately two-thirds of His recorded miracles were healing miracles. All others, with the possible exception of one or two, were miracles to relieve some human need. Why? He had a deep concern for people.
The more vital our relation is to Him, the deeper will be our desire to go about doing good. Also, the only source of the power that will enable us to have an effective wayside ministry is the power that comes from a vital relationship to Him.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Welcome!
Welcome to Weighty Matters, the blog of the TBMaston Foundation. Or, as I like to call it, a "blog-a-logue," because it's intended to promote serious dialogue on current ethical issues.
For over 30 years, the TBMaston Foundation has worked to carry out its mission, as stated on our Web site, to "promote the legacy of Dr. T. B. Maston, a lifelong advocate for the deeper understanding and wider application of the life and ethical teaching of Jesus Christ." To learn more about Dr. Maston and the Foundation, please go to our Web site.
Last week, we published the first issue of the Foundation's e-newsletter. If you are not yet receiving it, you can subscribe from the home page of our Web site or by clicking here.
We anticipate a vigorous dialogue on Weighty Matters, discussing the issues of the day and how applied biblical Christian ethics can shed light on them. Some of our authors actually studied under Dr. Maston, who taught Christian Ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for over 40 years, retiring in 1965. Other authors knew him well or have studied his writings. Several serve on the Foundation's Board of Trustees.
I will be moderating the blog and occasionally posing questions for our authors - and our readers - to discuss.
Throughout their lives, Dr. Maston and his wife, Essie Mae McDonald Maston, lived out the ethics that he taught - ethics that profoundly reflected the presence of the living Christ in their lives. Dr. Maston prophetically challenged Baptists - actually, all Christians, for that matter - to live out the ethics that Christ lived and taught. His stand against segregation and racial inequality, for example, at a time that lynchings were still common in some parts of our country, brought him hate mail by the bushel. But he faithfully and courageously stood fast in the face of the threats that came his way.
The TBMaston Foundation exists to promote Dr. Maston's legacy and to honor Jesus Christ. One of Dr. Maston's favorite verses of Scripture, which is quoted on the masthead of the Foundation's Web site, says it all: "Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did" (1 John 2:6).
We welcome you to join the conversation. As you read the posts on this blog, please join us by posting comments that further a vigorous dialogue on these issues.
For over 30 years, the TBMaston Foundation has worked to carry out its mission, as stated on our Web site, to "promote the legacy of Dr. T. B. Maston, a lifelong advocate for the deeper understanding and wider application of the life and ethical teaching of Jesus Christ." To learn more about Dr. Maston and the Foundation, please go to our Web site.
Last week, we published the first issue of the Foundation's e-newsletter. If you are not yet receiving it, you can subscribe from the home page of our Web site or by clicking here.
We anticipate a vigorous dialogue on Weighty Matters, discussing the issues of the day and how applied biblical Christian ethics can shed light on them. Some of our authors actually studied under Dr. Maston, who taught Christian Ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for over 40 years, retiring in 1965. Other authors knew him well or have studied his writings. Several serve on the Foundation's Board of Trustees.
I will be moderating the blog and occasionally posing questions for our authors - and our readers - to discuss.
Throughout their lives, Dr. Maston and his wife, Essie Mae McDonald Maston, lived out the ethics that he taught - ethics that profoundly reflected the presence of the living Christ in their lives. Dr. Maston prophetically challenged Baptists - actually, all Christians, for that matter - to live out the ethics that Christ lived and taught. His stand against segregation and racial inequality, for example, at a time that lynchings were still common in some parts of our country, brought him hate mail by the bushel. But he faithfully and courageously stood fast in the face of the threats that came his way.
The TBMaston Foundation exists to promote Dr. Maston's legacy and to honor Jesus Christ. One of Dr. Maston's favorite verses of Scripture, which is quoted on the masthead of the Foundation's Web site, says it all: "Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did" (1 John 2:6).
We welcome you to join the conversation. As you read the posts on this blog, please join us by posting comments that further a vigorous dialogue on these issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)