Where are you from? 

Born in Baytown, Texas (July 7^th, 1951) in the “Lilly Duke” Hospital in the old part of town, just off Texas Avenue.

Where’d you grow up?

I grew up in Cove, Texas,  a (once) small community just south of I-10, off FM 565. I lived on Maley Road, which was about half way down the scenic “Gou Hole Road.” During the time of my youth, Maley Road was almost entirely populated by family from both sides of my grandparents, and back then “Clarks” & “Maleys” were about all you would find down this old shell road. (I used to climb up on my roof before catching the school bus to get a closer shot at low flying geese on mornings when hard “Blue Northers” were blowing frigid 25-30 mph. north winds.)

Note: “Gou Hole Road” got its name from a fishing hole in the bayou at the end of the old road where you could catch copious amounts of “Gasper Gou”, a freshwater fish native to the area.

How long have you lived in our community?

With the exception of a short 7 month transfer to Louisiana, I have lived my entire 60 years here.

What’s your family like?

We are a very loving, hugging and compassionate family with a love of music and a healthy appreciation for good humor. My wife has been singing since she was 3 yrs. old when her dad encouraged her to sing in church. She has an angelic voice and is a beautiful person inside and out, with an incredible giving spirit. I met her at a family “Guitar Picking” when she was 6 and I was 13. We have been happily married for 33 years. Our children are musical, and we all sing together with that special “family harmony.” I am blessed that all my children love the Lord and serve him in various capacities.

What do you do for a living? 

I work at Enterprise Products Company as a Senior Process Safety Management Specialist, and primarily develop and maintain regulatory policies and procedures for the company. I have been with Enterprise for almost 24 yrs.

When did you trust in Jesus as your Savior? 

My family attended the “Church of Christ” and some of my earliest memories are sitting in church with momma in that cold, wooden building, listening to my Uncle Bill preaching and the congregation singing hymns with no instrumental accompaniment. I accepted Christ at 13, at that old Cove Church of Christ.

Where were you baptized? 

I was baptized the first time at the Mont Belvieu Church of Christ by a revival preacher at age 13. I recommitted my life to Christ after Kelly and I were married, and was baptized again by Bobby Smith in the old First Baptist Church of Mont Belvieu, when it was still located in “downtown” Mont Belvieu.

What’s your favorite hymn and why?

My favorite is “Jesus, there’s just something about that name,” written by Bill Gaither.  My family sings it a cappella, and I just love the simple but powerful message.

Do you have a favorite book or passage of the Bible? What is it and why? 

I love Psalms and Proverbs, and try to seek guidance from their praise and life instructions daily. This seems to give me a good start for facing the day.

When did you become a deacon? How has God used that ministry to grow you as a Christian? 

I became a Deacon November 14^th of 2010. Since that time I have more closely realized the importance of emulating Christ in the way I live, trying to be a better testament to those I work with and an example to my family. (Walk the talk). I am also in the Word much more than ever before, trying to let God’s message speak to my spirit on a daily basis.  I am still growing and trying to understand all of the responsibilities associated with being a deacon.

What is your favorite thing about the church family?

The “family” aspect is what is so great about having people for support and fellowship that share your Christian convictions. Requesting and providing prayer with fellow believers is a real comforting part of being in a Christian “family.”

Among those doctrines that have always been important to the Baptist people is “the priesthood of all believers.” In a previous post, I mentioned Martin Luther, and one of the things he said was that “a layman with a Bible in his hands is more powerful than a pope without.” He also said, when asked if he would recant his teaching, that his “conscience is captive to the Word of God; here I am stand.”  These statements reflect the Reformation idea of the believer-priest.

Some churches still have a priesthood today: the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the Orthodox Church. Most Protestant churches, however, do not have a priesthood because of their understanding of the Bible’s teaching.

A priest is, by definition, one who stands as a representative of another. You can actually trace the meaning of the word “priest” back to a word that mean a bridge-builder. In the Old Testament, God chose a special priesthood to represent the nation of Israel before Him; this was the tribe of Levi, through the line of Aaron. These men represented the entire nation as they performed ritual sacrifices and offerings. The culmination of this representation took place once a year on the Day of Atonement in the inner-most room of the temple, called the Holy of Holies, and involved only the High Priest. It was a most sacred moment when that High Priest would penetrate the thick veil that separated the people from the place of God’s dwelling.

In the New Testament, we read that when Jesus was on the Cross and died for the sins of the world, this veil that symbolized the separation of God and His people was ripped in two from top to bottom. The book of Hebrews speaks extensively on the priestly work of Christ. It says that He offered a sacrifice that fulfilled the symbolism behind the OT sacrificial system, once sacrifice for all people, for all time. And now, because of what Jesus has done, there is no need for a human priest to stand and represent people before God. Christ is our High Priest, and He is all we need to enter the holy place (come into God’s presence).  (Hebrews 10:11-14, 19-22; 1 Timothy 2:5-6)

With Christ as our High Priest, we are all priests unto God. And we no longer approach God by offering sacrifices, but we approach through the finished work of Christ’s sacrifice. This means that together believers are those people described in 1 Peter 2:9. As a royal priesthood, we continue to offer sacrifices (of praise and thanksgiving and self) and witness to and build bridges between God and man.

The implication of this belief is that all believers have equal access to God, especially as we are gathered together in Christ’s name. This also means that all Christians are called to the ministry.

Some misunderstandings have result from this doctrine in the history of the Baptist people, however.  Some have said, “Since I am my own priest, I can do what I want,” or “Because I’m my own priest, I can interpret the Bible to mean whatever I want it to say, and no one can tell me otherwise.” It has been used to propagate an unbiblical individualism.  Really, though, the doctrine emphasizes the corporate nature of the church as a body. Baptist historian and theologian Timothy George states that the priesthood of all believers means:

…in the community of saints, God has so tempered the body that we are all priest to each other. We stand before God and intercede for one another, we proclaim God’s Word to one another and celebrate His presence among us in worship, praise, and fellowship. Moreover, our priestly ministry does not terminate upon ourselves. It propels us into the world in service and witness. It constrains us to “shew forth the praises of him who has called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

Out of this belief in the priesthood of all believers comes the Baptist idea of church polity. Baptists are congregational in their governance and organization. This practice goes all the way back to John Smyth, often referred to as the first Baptist pastor, when his church authorized him to baptism himself by a vote of the congregation. This was radical for that day when people were used to absolute rulers in both the church and the state.

The intention of congregational polity is that the congregation govern itself under the lordship of Jesus Christ and the leadership of the Holy Spirit, under the delegated authority of officers, and with no governing ecclesial bodies exerting authority over the local church. All members are to participate in the decision-making process. This appears to be a democratic process, and it is only insofar as every member potentially has an equal voice in decision-making. But we are not a democracy in that we would say we are ruled by the majority of members. Baptists must always remember that we have a King; His name is Jesus. And this means that we do not come together to cast a vote for what we think is best.  Instead, we come together to discern what Christ desires of us.

In the next post, we’ll continue looking at Baptist polity, its biblical basis, and historical development.

Tell us a little about yourself and your history.

I was born in Port Arthur, Texas, at Saint Mary’s Hospital. I lived and was raised in Nederland, Texas until I graduated from high school and went to college. I moved to Mont Belvieu in 1992 to continue my coaching career at Barbers Hill ISD after several coaching stops along the way. I have resided in Mont Belvieu for 20 years.

I will be married to my wife Cindy for 37 years this May. We have three children: one daughter Brooke (recently married), and two sons, Jay and Reagan (both single), all who have graduated from college. Cindy is a recently retired administrator from Barbers Hill ISD and is a practicing attorney for her own law firm.

I have been a coach for 38 years. My experience as a coach ranges from starting out as a junior high school coach to coaching at the collegiate level. Recently, I have accepted a new challenge and have become the Head Football Coach at C.E. King High School in Sheldon ISD.

When did you trust in Jesus as your Savior?

I ask Christ into to my heart at the age of 10. I was baptized at Nederland Baptist Church, in Nederland, Texas. Years later I doubted my salvation and recommitted my life to Christ and was again baptized at First Baptist Church in Hawkins, Texas.

What is your favorite hymn?

My favorite Hymn is the “The Old Rugged Cross.” There are many hymns and songs that I like and could consider my favorites, but if I had to choose one hymn, thatis my choice. The reason it is a favorite song of mine is because of the message of the words. When I hear the words:

On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suffering and shame,
And I love that old cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain.

…they provide me a picture of the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation.

Also, mentioned in the song in one verse is the line, “Till my trophies at last I lay down; I will cling to the old rugged cross, and exchange it someday for a crown.” Having worked most of my life in the arena of competitive sports, the word trophies is very familiar to me as coach and a former athlete. One day those corruptible trophies will mean nothing as we who have accepted Christ, who died on a cross for us, will allow us one day to receive the greatest incorruptible trophy – the crown of eternal life. What a special gift!

What is your favorite book or passage of the Bible?

As far as the Bible is concerned I am not sure I have a favorite passage or book. As I study each week for my Sunday school lesson or hear a sermon on a particular passage or book in the Bible, I am continually amazed at the relevance of scripture in our daily lives. It always seems to be talking to me. I do think the book of Philippians is a great guide on leadership. I have spent many hours in coaching clinics and administrative training seminars on leadership, but the best book for leadership is the book of Philippians. Also, all the scriptures on salvation are dear to me, especially John 3:16.

When did you become a deacon?

I became a deacon in 1997, if my memory serves me right; my wife always has to remind me of our wedding anniversary. I am not sure I fully know how God has used me in the deacon ministry. I am still learning each year. I do believe God has revealed to me or opened my eyes to the workings of our church and all of its important ministries and their functions. Being associated with such an outstanding group of men in our deacon body has enabled me to grow as a Christian man. I am a work in progress not only as a believer, but also as a deacon. My prayer each time we meet as a deacon body is, “God, don’t let me mess it up.”

What is your favorite thing about our church family?

To choose one favorite thing about our church family at First Baptist Church Mont Belvieu is not possible. There are a multitude of things about our church that makes my life and walk with Christ better. The church family and staff have always shown a genuine concern for my family and me. A biological fact which we as humans do not control is that we become older in age.  With me moving into the stages of varsity life (don’t like term Senior Citizens -makes me feel old) our church is continually becoming more important in my life. Also, being able to contribute a small part to our church family and receiving much more is a blessing I cannot repay.

In conclusion, as you can read I cannot identify one specific or favorite thing about the Bible, our church, or my tenure as a deacon. The totality of our church staff, our members, and God’s Word has been a tremendous blessing to me.  All of which I am truly grateful.

Thank you, Coach! You are a blessing to us, and we are grateful for you, as well!

My favorite part of the story of Martin Luther’s leadership of the Protestant Reformation is when he was standing trial for heresy. The Catholic leaders brought before him copies of the many tracts he had written and published and demanded that he recant his teachings that condemned the Roman church. Luther responded:

Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns or teeth. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason (I do not believe in the authority of either popes or councils by themselves, for it is plain that they have often erred and contradicted each other) in those Scriptures that I have presented, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

And amen! Luther’s words captured the fuel that sparked the fires of Reformation: a firm resolve to trust in the Bible. This conviction permeated the many movements that grew from those initial years of Protestantism. The Baptists were no exception. In my last post on Baptist identity, I quoted the from the first church covenant of the the first Baptist congregation. They promised to walk in all God’s ways, made known or to be made known. What they meant by this is that they would continue to search the Scriptures for direction in all that they did.

Thomas Helwys, who was the first Baptist pastor on English soil, in 1611 led his church in publishing a declaration of faith that said of the Bible: “That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction… that we ought to search them for they testify of Christ… And therefore to be used with all reverence, as containing the Holy Word of God, which only is our direction in all things whatsoever.”

This sentiment — this commitment to earnestly search the pages of the Bible for truth and instruction — led to many of the first Baptists taking various positions on doctrinal issues. Some congregations would issue a statement of faith taking one particular stand, only to issue a second a few years later taking a different stand. So, for example, Smyth’s followers first denied the doctrine of original sin (Short Confession of Faith, 1609). A couple years later, they affirmed it (English Declaration at Amsterdam, 1611). They believed at first that deacons could only be men or widows (Short Confession of Faith, 1609), but then changed to believe that women need not be widows to serve in the office of deacon (Propositions and Conclusions, 1612). Also, the very first Baptists were not baptized by immersion, but pouring! (Fascinating that we wouldn’t admit the first Baptists into our churches as members because of their baptisms. I’m not saying our position is wrong on immersion as the proper mode of baptism. Just pointing out that I find it interesting.)

The quickly evolving doctrinal positions reflect the renewed commitment to follow the Bible wherever it led. Having not been taught purely from the Scriptures, once they determined to base their beliefs not on church dogma but on the Bible, these men and women were in many ways starting from scratch. Within about a generation or two, however, the Baptists had for the most part developed their own unique doctrinal identity (more on that in a future post).

It is helpful to consider the alternatives to the Baptist position on the Bible. During the days of the Reformation, the primary alternative view was the Catholic view, which said that the Church is the source of authority. Rather than saying the churches are ever to submit themselves to the Bible, Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that it is the Church’s interpretation of the Bible that is supreme. Therefore individuals must not depart from the Church’s official teaching of Scripture; to do so would be heresy.

Another alternative that developed during the Reformation is the elevation of experience above the Bible. The Quakers were among the first to hold this view. The Quakers arrived on the scene in the mid-1600′s, speaking of their direct experiences with God and guidance from the divine “inner light.” In response to the Quakers, the Baptists articulated their fullest and most direct statement on Scripture’s authority to that point in the Second London Confession: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” This alternative source of authority remains present today among the mainline liberal Protestant denominations. They often add human reason to experience, saying that Scripture is only understood as man interprets it through human means and within human contexts. This has led some contemporary scholars to outright deny portions of the Bible merely because they don’t fit within their scheme of what the Bible ought to say.

But we take the Bible alone to be God’s inspired (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21), sufficient (2 Timothy 3:17), and forever remaining (1 Peter 1:25) Word to us.

The Baptist commitment to the Bible is one of the marks of our heritage. I can remember when I was in college a friend of mine who had been raised in another Christian denomination making the remark that it seemed like all her Baptist friends knew the Bible much better than she did. For this, we who were raised to go to the Scriptures as the final authority should count ourselves very blessed.

The Quad at Regents Park College, Oxford University

One of the most formative experiences I had while a student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was having the opportunity to travel to England one summer to study at Regents Park College, the only Baptist college of Oxford University. There I was introduced to the history and theology of the Baptists in a vibrant way. We had lectures there at the college on some days, and other days we would board a bus and travel across the country to visit historically significant sights for Baptists. It was a wonderful time. After that point, I continued taking classes on Baptist thought and experience whenever possible. The subject remains one of my favorites to study today. My hope is to pass on some of the passion I have for our Baptist identity.

To that end, I begin today with the story of Baptist origins…

Imagine living in a society in which you were automatically born into a position that would never change for all of your life. If you dad was a farmer, you would be a farmer. If your father was a carpenter, you would be one as well. Imagining living in a world in which you were told who you were, what you do. You have to obey the rules presented to you, and you have no say in making any of the rules. You are told what you believe, but never why. This was the world of Europe before the Reformation.

The church and the state were married institutions, united by various political arrangements usually devised for the gain of those in charge. If you were born in the land the land of a particular prince, you were his subject and were expected to be loyal to his sovereignty. You probably would have no education, and it is very unlikely that you would be able to read at all.

But in the sixteenth century, this all began to change. King Henry VIII, with the first Act of Supremacy, separated the Church of England from Rome. Under Henry, the Anglican church was essentially Catholic in its doctrine and practice, only divided because of the break from papal leadership. But that began to change when Henry’s son, Edward VI came to the throne. Despite Henry’s Catholicism, he’d had his son trained by the most Protestant of his cabinet, and so when Edward began to rule the influence of the Protestant movement grew considerably. In 1549, the Church of England adopted a new Book of Common Prayers that was much more Protestant in flavor than before.

The Anglican church began its doctrinal shift away from Rome and toward the Reformers of the time when those Protestant theologians who had been exiled from England during Henry VIII’s reign were allowed to come back. During their exile, many had come in contact with the European reformers such as Zwingli and Calvin. Returning to England, their influence led the Anglican church to adopt a new doctrinal standard with much of Calvin’s theology. Edward allowed clergy to marry and modified much of the Catholic practices. Additionally, a greater tolerance for religious diversity was cultivated.

So, while his father, Henry VIII, severed the church from Rome, it was Edward who made it Protestant. But Edward died early, and a struggle broke out over who would succeed him. Religion was one of the major factors in the struggle. Mary, Henry’s Catholic daughter, took the throne and began to dismantle the Protestant system set up by Edward and restore the Catholic system, including Roman allegiance. While many Protestants fled and subjected themselves to exile under Mary’s reign, some remained in the country and went underground. Mary was determined to thoroughly rid England of Protestantism, however, and earned for herself the nickname of “Bloody Mary” for her execution of Protestant church leaders. As in the times of the early church recorded in the book of Acts, the persecution did not squelch the faith of these believers, but instead the devotion to Protestantism grew.

So, by the time that Elizabeth Tudor assumed the throne, the shrewd and diplomatic Queen found herself needing to support the Protestants for political reasons. In 1559, Elizabeth issued the Act of Uniformity, creating a hybrid Catholic/Protestant religion for England in an attempt to end the vast swings that the nation had been through in its recent past. While this seemed to work at first, over time it disintegrated because of the unsettled extremists on either side of the religious spectrum.

Religious reform was occurring across the Western world during the 1500’s. Luther was making waves in Germany; Calvin in Switzerland; the Anabaptists in the Netherlands. The Bible was being translated into the languages of the people, and the printing press not only distributed copies of the Holy Scripture, but also of influential sermons and tracts by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation. On the continent of Europe, the changes were dramatic. For this reason, some English Protestants were unsatisfied with the very limited reformation of the church in England. They sought what they called a “pure church,” and were therefore nicknamed “Puritans.”

The Puritans did not want to leave the Church of England; they wanted to reform it. They wanted to see it come more in line with what they believed to be the biblical standard. Specifically, they wanted to simplify the worship patterns, abolish the episcopalian government and replace it with a presbyterian system, and adopt more of Calvin’s theology. Naturally, the church leaders—the bishops—did not like the idea of getting rid of the system of leadership. And among many of the common people of considerably less religious devotion, the ideas of the Puritan church seemed far too rigid and strict.

When some Puritan leaders began to see that they were not going to purify the Church of England, they decided to separate and form independent congregations where they could practice their religious as they believed the Bible instructed. These people became known as the “Separatists,” and a growing number of Separatist appeared in the second half of the sixteenth century. While some separated because of pragmatic reasons (lack of reform), another group began to see separation as a principle of great importance. These principled Separatists held the conviction that the church ought to be free of government connection. In no way, they believed, could the church be connected with the state and remain pure.

Why would they be searching for a “pure church,” and why couldn’t such a church exist with connections to the state? For centuries, with the connection between the Church and the State, national citizenship and church membership were essentially one and the same. Once born, a child would immediately be baptized into the Church. In calling themselves “Christians,” the vast majority of people were not as interested in a personal faith and belief as in a national identity. One was considered a Christian by birth, not by choice. When the Church seemingly “rediscovered” the truth of salvation by grace through personal faith, hundreds of thousands of people were saved as they trusted in Christ for forgiveness. This was a radical departure from a religious culture that emphasized submission to works commanded by the church, including buying indulgences for the pardon of sin.

So many small groups of born-again believers began to search for authentic biblical community. They recognized that they’d had an experience with Christ that made them “Christian” in an entirely different way than they’d been considered “Christian” before that experience. Additionally, they read Scriptures that seemed to command them to distance themselves from the church they had previously been a part of. One of these texts was 2 Corinthians 6:11-18.  In this letter, Paul is writing to a church filled with worldliness and division, making allowances for sin and godless behavior in their fellowship.  Consider this passage:

O Corinthians!  We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open.  You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.  Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open.  Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.  For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?  And what communion has light with darkness?  And what accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?  And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?

For you are the temple of the living God.  As God has said:  “I will dwell in them and walk among them.  I will be their God and they shall be my people.”  Therefore: “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord.  Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” “I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and my daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”

2 Corinthians 6:11-18

These small groups of believers, upon reading such commands, felt they had to separate themselves from a corrupt church.  They saw the Church of England and the way it counted all English citizens as members, no matter their confession or behavior, no matter if they be heathen or Christ-like. So, they did exactly as the Scripture commands. They separated themselves from the general public and established their own congregations which sought to be a pure Church. It is important to note that they did not become monastic to any degree. They still lived in the cities and shopped in the markets and ate in the pubs. They still did business with unbelievers and maintained friendships. They even welcomed people outside of their fellowship to come and participate in worship with them on Sundays. However, they were very careful to maintain an official church “membership” which was an accurate reflection of their stance on the nature of the church.

Most historians point to John Smyth and his congregation as being the very first “Baptist” church.  Smyth was educated at Cambridge to become a minister in the Church of England, and graduated with his Master of Arts degree in 1593.  At this point considered merely a Puritan, he was elected the lecturer (preacher) of the city of Lincoln on September 27, 1600, by a vote of eight to seven (sounds Baptist already!).  His tenure was short lived, however, because on October 13, 1602, the church voted to depose him from office for having “approved himself a factious man in this city by personal preaching, and that untruly against divers men of good place.” It seems he was dismissed for criticism of influential townsmen.

In 1606, Smyth joined a separatist congregation and almost immediately became their leader. This congregation was formed around a covenant which bound them to “walk in all of God’s ways made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavors, whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them.” Within a couple of years, Smyth and his congregation fled to Amsterdam because of religious persecution. There Smyth came to the conclusion that baptism should be for believers, not infants, based on his reading of Scripture and interaction with Anabaptists. So, in 1609, Smyth and his congregation underwent baptism as adults professing Christ as Lord.

But the whole purpose behind all of this was the search for a church considered “pure” by New Testament standards. Numerous historians have concluded that the story of the Baptist denomination begins with believers who were passionate about the purity of the church, men and women in search of a New Testament church and committed to that mission.R. Stanton Norman, director for the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry and professor of theology at New Orleans Baptists Seminary, has argued that to understand the history of the Baptist people, one must—at least in part—see their development “as the desire of a group of earnest believers to have a church that exists and functions in complete submission to the authority of the New Testament.” Baptists throughout history have maintained, based on their study of and desired obedience to New Testament teaching, that regeneration is required prior to entrance into the church. As one author expressed this view, “the true church is composed of true believers.”

So important was this concept of the “true church,” or “pure church,” that Smyth found himself excommunicated from the congregation  just two or three years after leading them in believer’s baptism. Smyth had become more influenced by the theology of the Mennonites than some in the congregation were comfortable with. So a majority of the congregation voted to revoke the membership of Smyth and those who had followed him into the doctrines of the Anabaptists. Then the congregation, now led by a man named Thomas Helwys, returned to England and established the first Baptist church on English soil in 1611.

This was a radical idea: the church is composed only of believers.  It is my belief that this one conviction is what sent the Baptist people on the journey that we find ourselves a part of today. The official term for this belief is “regenerate church membership,” which proclaims that only those who have been born again (regenerated by the Holy Spirit) have membership in the church.

Everything about Baptist identity grows from this starting point: the conviction that believers must always and only submit the Bible’s teaching, beginning with what the Bible says about who and what the church is. Being Baptist continues to mean agreement with the covenant of that first Baptist congregation, the oath to “walk in all of God’s ways made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavors, whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them.” The Baptist tradition is one that always submits tradition, practice, methodology, and doctrinal formation to the Bible’s critique, believing that God will continue his reforming work in His people.

Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old… A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light…

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook–even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretely united–united with each other and against earlier and later ages–by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century–the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”–lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H.G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill…

I think that is a great truth, a point we should all heed. Lewis is saying that we all have certain blind spots in common because we are all from the same period of history. Just as we look back on people in the past and think, “How did they universally accept x, y, and z as facts?” so people of future ages will look back on us and ask the same thing.

The remedy, Lewis proposes, is to read books not from our own cultural and historical vantage point (and since the books of the future are unavailable to us, that leaves us with the books of the past). To put it more generally, humility should lead to a respect of history.

This is something I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately. We all have the tendency to limit history to the confines of our own life. Some of us, with greater sense of family heritage, may extend the bounds of our historical perspective back a few generations to include what we were told by our parents or grandparents. Either way, we interpret the world and weigh things against the values of our perspective of history. But the problem we encounter is that our sense history is incomplete, sometimes to such a degree that it is just wrong.

Allow me to illustrate with a hot-button issue: church music. Often young people like the newer stuff and older people like the older stuff. Those who want to throw out the hymnal and have only songs that sound like they belong on a Top 40 radio station probably feel that way because that is the sound of music with which they are most familiar and comfortable. Old hymns sound foreign to them. And the same is true for the people who only want to sing the “old stuff.” They like it, not because it is old, but because it is familiar. They have a history with that style. If they really like some songs because they’re old, they’d prefer Gregorian chants over “Victory in Jesus.” We know that’s not the case, though.

We like what we know, what fits our understanding of history. So if our sense of history extents from only a few years before our birth to our present, that really limits what we’re open to, what we consider, what we believe and value and welcome.

Humility demands that we not accept “that’s the way I’ve always been taught” as an answer in matters of faith (or any area of life, actually). Humility demands that we do not reject something simply because we’ve never heard it. Imagine if people in the days of Martin Luther had refused to go along with him because the things he was saying didn’t match with what they’d been taught, what they’d grown up with. The Protestant Reformation would have never happened. We might all still have to learn Latin and go to seminary to become priests (sorry, ladies, you’re not welcome) just so we could read the Bible.

The Bible is the final authority in all maters of faith and practice. But, in humility, we should consider how the Bible has been read by Christians from many cultures through many different periods of history. We might be very surprised by the insights we find. I know I have. I’m not suggesting we go outside the boundaries of historic orthodoxy. I just suspect we may find much within those bounds that we’ve never considered before, much that can strengthen our faith and fan the flames of love we have for Jesus.

Here are some suggestions of some old books to get started:

• Confessions, by Saint Augustine (The first Christian autobiography)
• The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther (The most important work of the man who started the Reformation)
• Sermons on Ephesians, by John Calvin (A sample of sermons by the most influential pastor of the last half-millennium)
• The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen (A classic work by a Puritan leader)
• The Freedom of the Will, by Jonathan Edwards (Difficult, but brilliant work by the greatest thinker of the American continent, also the man whose preaching God used to being the Great Awakening)
• Daily Readings by George Whitefield (The outdoor preacher of England who was part of the Great Awakening)

Have you read through the Bible before? Research has shown that fewer than 10% of professing Christians have actually read through the whole Bible.

We have such a treasure — God’s very word to us! Perfect, inspired, truth without any mixture of error! Can I challenge you to make one of your 2012 goals reading through the entirety of Scripture? Don’t make it a law. Don’t make it a source of guilt. Just make it a discipline. My guess is that this discipline will turn into a desire, and then a delight.

There are many ways to read through God’s word in a year. Here’s a great blog post by Justin Taylor with several options. One of the methods, the M’Cheyne reading plan (which is divided between personal and family readings, and goes through the New Testament and Psalms twice and the Old Testament once) is available through The City’s “Growth” section.

This year I’m going to use the chronological plan. It takes you through things in the order they happened (did you know the OT books weren’t in chronological order?).

A couple of suggestions:

• Don’t be hard on yourself. If it takes you 13 months instead of 12, that’s still a great accomplishment.
• Be consistent about time and place of reading. Make it a habit. Also, I’d suggest doing the reading during the time of day when you’re at your best. That could be morning, lunchtime, evening, etc.
• Don’t expect to hear angels sing and have the skies open up with every reading. It’s like eating meals. Sure, some are spectacular and you’ll remember them forever. But most are simple, yet they sustain us day after day.
• Find a partner who you can read and discuss the Bible with. Perhaps you can bring together your Bible reading plan and One to One Bible Reading.

Will you take the challenge? Which plan will you use? Who is going to read with you?

The Washington Times article, dated May 24, 2011, is titled “Calvinist held key in blasphemy debate.” Reporter Mike Corder of the AP tells of a political debate that was held earlier this year in the Dutch Parliament about a 1932 law that bans “scorn against any religion.” Anyone convicted as a “scornful blasphemer” could serve up to three months in prison.

Not a single case has been prosecuted for breaking the law since 1966, and in that case the accused was acquitted. That case was against novelist Gerard Reve, who’d written a story about God taking the form of a donkey and the desire to have sexual relations with the animal-incarnation. If that’s not blasphemous, I’m not sure what is. The point is, the law has been on the books but not been enforced. So a group of progressives in the legislature set out to get rid of the law.

One senator, the lone elected member of the Calvinist Political Reform Party, is a swing vote that the majority voting block is dependent upon for getting legislation passed. Upon his protests, the effort to remove the blasphemy law from the books was quietly set aside. So the Netherlands, unarguably one of the most secular nations in the world, maintains its formalized “conviction that some things are holy” (the words of Kees van der Staaij, leader of the Calvinist Party that supports the law).

What do you think? Is this a triumph for the Church? Is this an effective method of combating secularization? Should we in the USA who lament our culture’s “slouching toward Gomorrah” model ourselves after the Dutch and craft similar legislation for our nation?

You may be surprised that I say no. No, this is not a Christian victory. No, this is not an effective strategy to combat increasing secular influence. And, God forbid the United States of America pass an anti-blasphemy law! I actually agree with the sentiment of those who sought to do away with the law. “We don’t think religious opinion should have more protection than nonreligious opinion,” said Boris van der Ham, who proposed the eliminating the law.

Allow me to state plainly my reason for this position:

The government should stay out of the business of religion. This does not mean that religion has no place in the public square. Prayers can be offered before our governing bodies begin their work if that’s what the governing body chooses to do. Individual members of government have the right to make decisions based on their own convictions of faith. But that does not mean that the government should mandate religious standards.

I don’t want our government defining blasphemy. The Dutch government certainly doesn’t do a good job of this. They apply this anti-blasphemy to any religion. Well, I don’t believe it is blasphemous to say that Mohammed was not a prophet and started a medieval cult. The Dutch government would, and they may fine me or lock me up for saying it.

One might say the law would be good if blasphemy is defined in the strictest Christian sense of the word. Which “Christian” understanding would that be? Roman Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Pentecostal?

The government should not be in the business of protecting a singular faith. Jesus, who was quite emphatic that his kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), doesn’t need the government’s help making disciples, and I don’t think he wants it, either. Not one time does the New Testament teach that Christians should respond to those who are hostile to the gospel by trying to lock them up. In fact, we have a very different command:

“Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. . . Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” (1 Peter 3:9, 13-16)

Baptists have a heritage of protecting religious liberty. Thomas Helwys was a Baptist pastor who died in prison for standing up to the religious commands imposed by King James I that went against his convictions. He was a Peter for his day, insisting that, “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29). Helwys did not demand this freedom only for Baptists. He said, “Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.”

Centuries later, here in the New World, a member of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was about to be exiled back to England for daring to defy the Puritan authorities. He fled in the winter of 1635-36, and soon founded Rhode Island. His name was Roger Williams, another Baptist. He expanded Helwys’ conviction, writing, “It is the will and command of God, that. . . a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Anti-christian consciences and worships, bee granted to all men in all Nations and Countries: and they are only to be fought against with the Sword which is onely (in Soule matters) able to conquer, to wit, the Sword of Gods Spirit, the Word of God” (original spelling and punctuation preserved).

I agree. When the church and state become bedfellows, the message of the church becomes impure. God established human governments in order to keep civil order, not spread the message of Jesus. That mission belongs exclusively to the church. But I think some Christians want an anti-blasphemy law because they’d rather someone else (the government) do what they (the church) are called to do: reconcile the world to God in Christ.

So I’d advise the Dutch to do away with their blasphemy restriction. After all, if it were strictly enforced and I were a Dutch pastor, I would not have had the freedom to write this post. One day Christ will rule as King, and it will be perfect and glorious and beautiful. But until then, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

It’s very same inclination that was present in the Garden of Eden. When asked if God had really told the man and woman they could not eat of any tree in the garden, the woman responded, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’” (Genesis 3:2-3, emphasis added).

That is, in fact, not what God said. God never said they could not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, only that they were not to eat from it (see Genesis 2:16-17). Whether Adam added to the prohibition when passing it on to Eve, or Eve added to it as she related it to serpent, we do not know. Either way we see that God’s word underwent human augmentation. An extra layer of prohibition, probably meant to safeguard against sin, was wedded to the original. We see how well that worked.

Jim Hamilton first pointed this out to me several years ago in a class I took in seminary. He referred to this as the first instance of legalism, defining legalism as an attempt to be more biblical than the Bible. The warning against extra-biblical imperatives has stuck with me and is currently being enlarged to include another, related issue: the impulse to be “against.”

Taking God’s word seriously is not a culturally popular position. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently suggested that anyone who questions evolution is “anti-science” and should not be given a voice in the public square. Our society is increasingly secular, with a diminishing literacy of all things biblical. Conservative evangelical Christians understandably feel the need to speak out against the direction our culture is headed.

We are against attempts to remove God from public discourse. We stand against those who would seek to impose a moral subjectivism that blurs the lines between right and wrong on issues such as the right to life or the definition of marriage. We are against the claims of liberal Christians who sideline the Bible’s authority in favor of human reasoning and tradition. And the list could go on. The world in which we find ourselves is full of things we should rightly be against, and we have had lots of practice developing our skills of standing “against” things. Consider the occasions when we most often see prominent evangelicals on national news programs. We are almost always invited to share our views when we are speaking out against something.

But this impulse is not just part of our national identity as conservative evangelicals; I see it (and feel it within myself) at a personal, relational level. Christians are notorious for posting complaints on Facebook or Twitter with links to articles that we find outrageous or that express our outrage on any given topic (guilty!). When we hear about anything new–perhaps something in the sciences or some government initiative–because we have trained ourselves to read and listen in a defensive posture, we insert into the mix our assumptions that this new thing is “bad” and “not Christian.” We immediately come out against it, slinging our Bible verses as we do.

I caught myself doing this last week. I’m reading a book about the role of the Bible in formulating Christian ethics. Having done some research on the authors, I quickly decided I was not going to agree with their positions. From the first page sought to refute their theses. Summoning my inner Nathanael, I asked myself, “Can anything good come out of Union Theological Seminary?” But the more I read, the more I realized that some of what the authors wrote was true, even convicting! And I had nearly missed it because of the impulse to be against them from the get-go.

So now I’m wondering this: If Christians are so good at expressing what we are against, why can’t we be equally as good at expressing what we are for? Ask the average Joe what Christians believe about how people should live, and my guess is that you get a list of “don’ts.” But we have lots of things we are for: equality for all people, because all are created in the image of God; peace and reconciliation; respect for authorities; care for all life; a paradigm of stewardship over all things; lifting up the poor; defending the defenseless; feeding the hungry; clothing the naked; taking the name of Jesus to all the nations…

What if we spent as much time playing offense as we do playing defense? What if we articulated our gospel-centered convictions for how the world ought to be as much as we spoke against how the world ought not be? Rather than waiting until the topic of gay marriage comes up at in the break room at work, what if we proactively talked about God’s vision for a family that lives out a picture of Christ and the church? Instead of simply coming out against government programs that perpetuate poverty while aiming to end it, what if we also came out for the church-based initiatives that are lifting people out of poverty?

What would this look like practically? Well, to be blunt, I think we would spend a lot less time being negative, complaining, pointing out faults, and lamenting the decline of the Christian West. We’d spend a lot more time celebrating justice, praising examples of sacrifice, and inviting others to join us in living out the Kingdom ethics that Jesus articulated in the Sermon on the Mount and Paul articulated in passages like Romans 12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and following. We’d make sure that the watching world knows as clearly what Jesus is for as much as they know what Jesus is against.

As Christians, our stance toward the world requires careful negotiation. Yes, the Bible clearly tells us that friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4). But the Bible also shows that God’s posture toward the world is one of sacrificial love and readiness to serve (John 3:16). I believe we can serve the world and God’s purposes much better by standing for the gospel as often as we stand against sin. Remember, moralism is ineffective and saves no one.

Let’s not get so caught up with what’s wrong that we lose our focus on what is right.

1. Be thankful. “Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Maybe your schedule is not perfect, student. Perhaps the teachers aren’t doing exactly the method of instruction you would prefer, parents. Be thankful. We are incredibly blessed to live in a nation that, according to the UN, has a 99% literacy rate. We are blessed to have access to science labs and football fields and musical instruments and art supplies and computer technology. These are luxuries that most of the world does not enjoy. It is an act of grace to be born in a nation and live in a community with so much abundance, and we should not mistake these gifts for entitlements.

2. Don’t complain or criticize. My parents set a great example for me on this front. I don’t really remember my parents ever criticizing one of my teachers or administrators or any school employee in front of me. I know there were times when they expressed some concerns, but that was always done to the teacher and without me. They recognized that teachers and principles are authorities in my life, people God had placed over me, and they helped me learn how to live under authority. Please, parents, I urge you not join in your child’s complaints about the science teacher being too hard or the history teacher being dumb. Instead, lead your child to obey God’s command to pray for those who are in authority over us, to desire their good. Our teachers, support staff, and administrators need and want our prayers, I assure you.

Paul writes, “Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world…” (Philippians 2:14-15) Don’t miss the beautiful truth here. When we can stop our complaining, we set ourselves apart from the rest of the world. We shine the light of Jesus in this dark world of need. Is that something worth compromising because you think a teacher gave an unfair grade? Probably not. Speaking of grades, though…

3. Focus on character more than grades. Students, you should do your very best on all your school work. “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). And, “whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward” (Colossians 3:23-24). Yes, you can do algebra to the glory of God. How? By doing your best. Learning MLA formatting for your research paper may seem pointless, but learning to follow instructions down to the level of fine details is invaluable. The great truth of that verse from Colossians, however, is that when we work for the Lord we are not working for a grade, but for the promised inheritance that is ours in Jesus!

Now parents, remember that your child doing her best does not necessarily mean that she will get an A. As you encourage your children to excel, encourage them along biblical principles. The Bible says nothing about GPAs and class rankings. The Bible does speak about working hard, but also serving others, building relationships, and learning to rest. Sometimes I think parents can push their child so hard to make the grade that it hurt the kid’s development as a disciple of Jesus. You want your child not only to learn a good work ethic, but you also want your child to learn when to put people ahead of tasks. And yes, teens have opportunities when this is appropriate. It is your responsibility, parents, to help them navigate these waters.

4. Open your mouth and talk about Jesus. St. Francis of Assisi has a brilliant quote that is completely wrong. He said, “Preach the gospel always, and when necessary use words.” I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had someone fall to their knees, repent of their sins, and trust in Jesus by looking at my lifestyle alone. Words are always, always, always necessary for people to come to know Jesus. “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).

Students, share your faith in Jesus. Talk about what you are learning from him. Tell people about your hope in him; do it with a smile. Trust me, students, there will come a time in life when you will not have the opportunities for sharing the gospel that you have today. Eight hours a day, five days a week for nine months you get to walk through life with the same group of people. Don’t let that pass you by without creating friendships and sharing the message of God’s love in Jesus Christ.

Parents, pray with your kid every day for God to give you both an opportunity at some point to talk about what Jesus has done on the cross, how he has been raised from the dead, how he reigns now as King of the universe and King of your life. Tell them about your struggles to share the gospel at work, and listen to their struggles to do the same thing at school. Encourage one another in this great task. In doing so, you start developing a relationship beyond parent-child; you start relating as brothers and sisters in Christ.

I pray this is a great school year. I pray that teachers, support staff, and administrators are given wisdom, discernment, and passion from God to do what they’ve been called to do. And I pray that Christian students and parents — and all the rest of us for that matter — will take the light of the gospel, the hope of Christ, with us from every home, into every classroom, down every hallway, through every office, to the ends of the earth!