Fairview Baptist Church

http://fairviewsherman.com Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:13:11 +0000 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:13:11 +0000 hourly 1 3600 SnapPages.com Religious Liberty (Part 4) http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/29/religious-liberty-part-4 Wed, 29 May 2024 19:19:51 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/29/religious-liberty-part-4

Religious Liberty (Part 4)

This is part four of a series of articles addressing the Baptist distinctive of religious liberty. In the last two articles, we have explored how the Baptist distinctive of religious liberty became an American ideal, preserved in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, we considered Thomas Jefferson’s contribution to religious liberty with his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. A contribution that has had positive and negative consequences. This article moves the conversation into the 20th century and introduces the contributions of notable Baptist pastors George Truett and W.A. Criswell to the conversation.

George Truett and W.A. Criswell

George Truett was the distinguished pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas for nearly 50 years. On May 16, 1920, Dr. Truett stood on the East Steps of the National Capitol in Washington, D.C., and delivered a speech entitled Baptists and Religious Liberty. With WWI in the rearview, Truett addressed a fundamental truth for Baptists. Truett constructed a history of religious liberty in America, going back to Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, but he also engaged men like Roger Williams, Henry Dunster, and other Baptists who stood for religious liberty in America’s early years. Truett developed this speech from Isaiah 51:1-2 “Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.” The premise of Truett’s speech is to “look backward as well as forward.”

In his speech, Truett claims the supreme contribution of the New World is the contribution of religious liberty. He asserts religious liberty is “the chiefest contribution that America has thus far made to civilization.” He continues, “God wants free worshipers and no other kind.” Truett then goes on to say Baptists are not inherently better than other denominations because of their affirmation of religious liberty and its compatriot, “civil liberty,” but “our fundamental essential principals have made our Baptist people… to be the unyielding protagonists of religious liberty, not only for themselves but for everybody else as well.”

One of the most prominent voices within the Southern Baptist Convention during the 20th century, if not the most, was Dr. W. A. Criswell. Criswell also led from the influential pulpit of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas. Succeeding Dr. George W. Truett in 1944, Criswell pastored FBC Dallas until his retirement in 1995. In 1964, Criswell preached a series of sermons celebrating the “sesquicentennial celebration of the organized life, the community of effort of all of our churches for worldwide missionary purposes.” This series was preached over a number of months, concluding on July 5, 1964, in honor of the anniversary of the death of Dr. Truett. The series emphasized Baptist history from the New Testament to the present day. In a sermon entitled Freedom Written in Blood, preached on May 31, 1964, using Isaiah 51:1 as his text, Criswell picks up from where he left off the previous Sunday, where he addressed British Baptists, John Bunyan and John Milton. The subject of the present sermon was none other than Roger Williams. In Freedom Written in Blood, Criswell tells the story of a Quaker family that was punished for their faith in Massachusetts. The penalty was a steep fine that required the selling of the children into slavery to a sea captain. When the captain saw the tears of the children and the parents, he released the children and went on his way. Criswell then records that this family then made their way to the haven of the “Baptist state colony of Rhode Island.” Criswell states, “Anytime you think that they came to America for religious liberty, they never thought of it until those Baptist forefathers of ours (pulling from previous sermons preached during the sesquicentennial celebration) laid down their lives for it.”

Continuing his claim that religious liberty in America was a Baptist ideal, Criswell continues to share stories of Baptist leaders such as Obadiah Holmes, who was stripped and beaten in Boston for refusing to sprinkle infants. Criswell then turns to Henry Dunster, then president of Harvard College. Dunster was in the crowd that watched Holmes’s cruel beating. Criswell shares that after returning to his library, he picked up his Bible and began reading. “The first president of Harvard College stood up and publicly announced, “I have become a Baptist. I believe in the Word exactly as it is written. And on a confession of faith, I want to be baptized.” Dunster’s Baptist testimony led to his being stripped of his position and forced to leave his home. Criswell makes two resounding points in this sermon. First, religious liberty is a Baptist idea. Second, Baptists in America were persecuted for their Baptist faith.

The concluding sermon in this series, preached on July 5, 1964, was entitled Baptist and the American Constitution. Using the same Isaiah text, Criswell walked from Roger Williams and the Rhode Island colony to Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association before concluding with what he believed to be the “chipping away of the wall of separation between church and state.” In this sermon, Criswell connected the influence of Roger Williams to Isaac Backus and John Leeland, concluding, “That hated and despised doctrine of soul liberty, for which our Baptist forefather had given their lives, had finally become the chief cornerstone of the greatest document of government any nation had ever produced.”

Like Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, the Danbury Baptists, and others, Truett and Criswell held firm to the Baptist distinctive of soul liberty, the idea that every man should have the right to worship his god as he sees fit. In the concluding article, we will consider contemporary applications of religious liberty, including real challenges to how we understand the application of religious liberty to religions other than our own.

Bibliography

“Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7 - REMEMBERING ROGER WILLIAMS.” Accessed January 16, 2024. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2011-pt7/html/CRECB-2011-pt7-Pg10387-2.htm.

“Founders Online: To Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Association, [Aft ….” University of Virginia Press. Accessed January 15, 2024. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-35-02-0331.

Hamburger, Philip. Separation of Church and State, Revised edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.

“Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin.” Accessed January 15, 2024. https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html.

Jr. Early, Joe, ed. The Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys. Macon, Ga: Mercer Univ Pr, 2009.

Kidd, Thomas S. God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution, 1st edition. Basic Books, 2010.

Kidd, Thomas S., and Barry G. Hankins. Baptists in America: A History. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Kidd, Thomas S., Paul D. Miller, and Andrew T. Walker, eds. Baptist Political Theology. B&H Academic, 2023.

Strickland, Arthur B. Roger Williams, Prophet and Pioneer of Soul-Liberty, 1st Edition. The Judson Press, 1919.

Warren, James A. God, War, and Providence: The Epic Struggle of Roger Williams and the Narragansett Indians against the Puritans of New England, First Edition. New York: Scribner, 2018.

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/29/religious-liberty-part-4#comments 0 Religious Liberty (Part 3) http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/22/religious-liberty-part-3 Wed, 22 May 2024 16:12:49 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/22/religious-liberty-part-3

Religious Liberty (Part 3)

This is part three of our series on religious liberty and the Baptist tradition. In this article, we will explore a significant exchange between the Danbury Baptist Association and President Thomas Jefferson. This exchange, for right or wrong, formed our modern understanding of religious liberty through the concept of the separation of Church and State.

Danbury Baptist Association (1801-1802)

From the early days of Roger Williams in America to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, religious liberty has been a hallmark of the American ideal. Perhaps no other unalienable right has been fought for and contested more than the free exercise of religion: a man's right to worship his god according to his conscience. During the years following the ratification of the Constitution, the individual states were still working out what an established state church looked like. Connecticut was one such state. Entrenched as a state congregational church, taxes were demanded from the citizens of Connecticut to fund the state church. Petitions of exemption could be made, but for Baptists in Connecticut, even this seemed an overreach.

In 1801, members of a committee chosen to represent the Danbury Baptists Association wrote the newly elected president, Thomas Jefferson, a letter. Thomas Kidd notes that while their religious convictions could not have been more different, Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists shared a similar conviction for religious liberty.

Similar, but not the same. In Hamburger's volume entitled Separation of Church and State, he argues, "In all probability… only a handful of Baptists, if any, and no Baptist organizations made separation their demand. Instead, Baptists focused on other, more traditional, claims of religious liberty."

For the Danbury Baptists they did not want to see a wall of separation built between the church and the state because this would have negative implications on how a free people function within their civic responsibilities (i.e., voting one's conscience reflects one's religious convictions, taxation without representation, and the freedom to dissent without unjust repercussions, such as banishment as in the case of Roger Williams). Rather, they desired the states, in their case Connecticut, to disestablish state churches. They desired the same liberty granted at the federal level to be extended at the state level. Thomas Kidd seems to assume the question Hamburger answers when he poses the question, "Is a modern strict separationist view of church-state relations what the Danbury Baptists (or Jefferson) wanted? Did they wish for the government to have no connection whatsoever with religion?"

The content of both letters gives insight into the wishes of the Danbury Baptists and the response of Jefferson, who saw the Danbury Baptists as convenient allies. In a letter dated October 7, 1800, addressed by the Danbury Baptist Association and signed by Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, the association makes their concerns known, "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty—That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals—That no man aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions—That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour." Jefferson penned his response on January 1, 1802, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association, specifically the signing of the initial letter.

In his response, the now infamous words were written, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson’s comments about a “wall of separation” have been both helpful and detrimental to the Baptist concept of religious liberty. On the one hand, Jefferson seems to protect religious liberty, but on the other hand, Jefferson created an argument for why Christians should not be active in public affairs.

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association set a precedent. The wall of separation concept has generally protected the church from the government's overreach, but not always. We will discuss this in upcoming articles. At the same time, the separation has tainted how people understand the involvement of faith within the public square. One of the outcomes is the idea that faith should be kept private and not applied publicly. This view is in error and has helped to create opposition to evangelicalism within the public square.

Bibliography

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/22/religious-liberty-part-3#comments 0 Religious Liberty (Part 2) http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/17/religious-liberty-part-2 Fri, 17 May 2024 13:24:00 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/17/religious-liberty-part-2

Religious Liberty (Part 2)

This is part two of a series addressing the Baptist distinctive of religious liberty through a historical lens. In this article we see religious liberty become an American ideal through the influence of significant Baptists, such as Roger Williams. The purpose of this article is to further develop an understanding of religious liberty in America from its Baptist origins.

Roger Williams (c. 1603-1683)

James Calvin Davis has noted, "If we measure a thinker's importance to a tradition by his self-identification with it, then Roger Williams barely rates in the history of Baptists in America." Nonetheless, because Williams offered a theological defense of religious liberty, he represents an essential source for the American doctrine. Williams arrived in Boston in 1631 after spending some time in Holland. Being a Puritan by conviction, Williams was offered a ministerial position at the Boston church, which he turned down on account of what he considered to be theological errors they practiced in the Church of England. Williams's particular brand of Puritanism was that of the separatist, the same kind of Puritans called Pilgrims who landed in the New World at Plymouth. Williams lived with this group for a time.

While in Massachusetts, Williams was caught up in several controversies that ultimately led to his banishment from the colony. His most egregious offense was his objection to the conflation of religious and political authority.

Williams maintained that "clergy should not have a direct influence in civil matters, and civil magistrates should keep out of church affairs."

Through a series of providential events, Williams settled in what would eventually become Rhode Island. During two separate trips to England to establish a charter for the new settlement (1644 and 1652), Williams engaged in some of his most heated debates over the cause of soul liberty, or the liberty of conscience.

The target he took aim at was the Puritan Minister, John Cotton. Cotton was the man chosen for the ministerial position turned down by Williams in Boston. During these trips, Williams published The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience and The Bloudy Tenet Yet More Bloudy. In both publications, Williams directly addressed his convictions on the soul liberty of an individual. Williams was successful in establishing a charter for Rhode Island, and the first Baptist Church was established in the new settlement. The first building was later enlarged, and the current building was constructed in 1775.

On the church bell was engraved: "For freedom of conscience the town was first planted; Persuasion, not force, was used by the people; This church is the eldest, and has not recanted, Enjoying and granting bell, temple, and steeple."

Even though Williams did not remain a Baptist for long, his influence in early Baptist political theology was instrumental for later colonial Baptist leaders such as Isaac Backus. Additionally, the United States Congress has properly recognized Williams's contribution to the tenant, which has contributed significantly to America's exceptionalism. Furthermore, Williams was likely the impetus behind the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the establishment clause that prohibits the government establishment of and was undoubtedly an influence on the leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association.

As this series continues to consider the historical development of religious liberty as a Baptist conviction, we will undoubtedly begin to see major points of application for us today. In the next two articles we will be move through the 19th century and into the 20th century. In the final article we will focus on religious liberty in the 21st century and what the means for faithful Baptists today.

Bibliography

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/17/religious-liberty-part-2#comments 0 Religious Liberty (Part 1) http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/08/religious-liberty-part-1 Wed, 08 May 2024 13:41:08 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/08/religious-liberty-part-1

Religious Liberty (Part 1)

I love Baptist history. I have learned so much about my Baptist convictions through studying Baptist history. One such conviction is the principle of religious liberty or the idea that every man has the right to worship his God as he sees fit. This conviction is at the bedrock of the earliest Baptist movement. In this series of articles, I seek to introduce religious liberty as a Baptist conviction. I do not intend to provide an exhaustive treatment of the issue, but I do hope this short series of articles provides some context for Baptist ecclesial and political engagement.

Thomas Helwys (born c.1550 - died c.1616)

Thomas Helwys is credited for founding the first Baptist church in England. Helwys left his home in England with John Smyth after deciding with Smyth that the Church of England was beyond reform. Smyth's congregation of Gainesborough arrived in Amsterdam, with Helwys, in 1607. The significance of Amsterdam is to be understood in the fact that Holland had no state religion. The separatist congregation was able to worship according to their convictions without the oppressive regulations of the state church in England, so long as they were not considered to be disruptive.

While in Holland, Smyth and Helwys arrived at the Baptistic conviction of believer's baptism, and in 1609, Smyth established the first Baptist church in existence by re-baptizing himself prior to baptizing Helwys. Shortly after the first Baptist church was established, Smyth and Helwys had a disagreement over whether the new fellowship should join with the Waterlander Mennonites. Helwys and ten followers refused to join Smyth and the rest of the Gainesborough congregation as they joined the Mennonites, and over the next several years, Smyth and Helwys would exchange blows over their differing theology.

Eventually, in 1612, convicted that he should have never fled persecution, Helwys and his followers returned to England. It was at this time the first Baptist church was established in England, just outside the walls of London in Spitalfields. Just before returning to England, Helwys wrote his most influential publication, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity. Early notes, "W.T. Whitley believes that in this book, Helwys made the first appeal in the English language for complete religious liberty."

Early shares that Helwys had the desire to speak with the one man in all of England who could help his cause, King James I. Out of this desire, Helwys sent the king an autographed copy of A Short Declaration, with a handwritten note that said:

Hear, O King, and do not despise the council of the poor and let their complaints come before you.

The king is a mortal man and not God, therefore he has no power over the immortal souls of his subjects, to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual lords over them.

If the king has authority to make spiritual lords and laws, then he is an immortal God and not a mortal man.

While space will not allow a detailed treatment of A Short Declaration, it is essential to note that in this treatise, Helwys delivers several pointed critiques of his opponents. Helwys's work takes on an apocryphal tone throughout much of the writing. Within his writing, he even condemns the Puritans for their false professions, associating them with false prophets. However, in Book II, Helwys argues for complete religious liberty. Perhaps the most influential statement made on the matter in Helwys' writings is this:

For we do freely profess that our lord the king has no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all. For our lord the king is but an earthly king, and he has no authority as a king but in earthly causes. If the king's people are obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the king, our lord the king can require no more.

For men's religion to God is between God and themselves. The king will not answer for it. Neither may the king be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it does not appertain to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.

This is made evident to our lord the king by scriptures.

Helwys understood a man's religion is between that man and God himself. What is interesting to note is that Helwys did not simply advocate for religious liberty for his new Baptist congregation in a country with a state-established church. Instead, he made his appeal to the king on behalf of unbelievers, Muslims (Turks), and Jews. Helwys' genius was in knowing that liberty withheld from any religion can threaten liberty to all religions.

Part two of this series will consider the significant contribution Roger Williams made to the Baptist distinctive of religious liberty. Again, the goal of this article is to introduce the reader to the Baptist conviction of religious liberty. In the end, we will consider some implications of this conviction for the church today.

Bibliography

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/05/08/religious-liberty-part-1#comments 0 Why I Don't Like "WWJD" http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/04/10/why-i-don-t-like-wwjd Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:12:29 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/04/10/why-i-don-t-like-wwjd

Why I Don't Like "W.W.J.D"

Last Sunday, I preached a sermon that directly addressed the American concept of the gospel and the dangers of prosperity within evangelicalism. Prosperity preaching and the “word of faith” movement have infiltrated the gospel of grace and turned it into a gospel of works, but the foundation was already laid. I do not want to write a history of prosperity preaching in America for two reasons. First, not everyone enjoys history like I do. Second, while the influence of prosperity preachers in the 1800’s is undoubtedly seen in the modern movement, I think it is better to address more culturally relevant issues. That is why I want to tell you why I don’t like WWJD (What Would Jesus Do).

I am a child of the 90s. I grew up with Walkmans, Tamagotchis, and neon-colored windbreakers. I also grew up in the craze of the WWJD bracelet. Every stylish Christian kid had at least one WWJD bracelet next to their cassette of DC Talk’s Jesus Freak (played at ear-piercing volume in your Walkman, with bass boost) and their puka shell necklace. This was more than a reminder of acceptable behavior; it was a fashion statement! But what’s wrong with a reminder of acceptable behavior?

I think the most basic way to answer this question is not only to ask “what” Jesus would do but “why” we should model Christ-like behavior. At its core, WWJD assumes personal action. When we are faced with an ethical or moral dilemma, we ask, “What would Jesus do?” The result is a good deed or good work. The connection to prosperity is undeniable; if I do what Jesus would, God will bless me. Essentially, if we model Christ-like behavior, God will bless our efforts. Now, don’t miss what I am saying. Indeed, we should behave in a way that reflects what we believe, but even more, we should reflect what has been done for us.

This brings us to the follow-up question: why should we model Christ-like behavior? This question gets to the core of the biblical gospel. Instead of looking back at our good works, we should look back at what has been done on our behalf. Our behavioral change comes out of a heart change.

With that said, I want to give you a few things to consider when you ask WWJD.

1. Your ability to do anything Jesus would do is only because He has given you a new heart.

Ezekiel 36:26 says as a result of the new covenant made in Christ’s blood, we will be given new hearts. The sinful hearts of stone will be removed, and we will be given a new heart sealed with the Holy Spirit.

2. Apart from a new heart, all your works are dead.

Paul says in Ephesians 2:1-3 We are dead in our sins and trespasses. In our dead state, we carry out the desires of the flesh, and one of the strongest desires of the flesh is validation. As dead people, we find validation in doing “good” works, even though everything “good” we do as dead people only results in dead works with no value, but there is hope. Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-9, God, being rich in grace, mercy, and love, has made us alive in Christ. The gospel is the message that God, in Christ, has brought dead men and women to life by grace through faith in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. As a result of our faith in Christ, our dead hearts of stone have been replaced with hearts sealed by the Holy Spirit.

3. Having been made alive in Christ, we are to be imitators of Christ.

Ephesians 5:1-2 says to be imitators of God and walk in love as a sacrifice to God who has made you alive in Christ. Additionally, Paul writes to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” We are to follow in the sacrificial love of Jesus, who gave his life as a ransom for our sins to give us a new heart. In his grace, God also gave strong men of the faith (like Paul) who model Christlikeness. They were imperfect and struggled with sin, but we are encouraged to follow them as they strive to follow Jesus.

4. Imitating Christ results in the fruits of the Spirit.

Paul writes in Galatians 5:22-23 about the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. These fruits are the by-product of imitating Christ. They also become the seasoning salt we, as believers, are to salt the earth with. In this, we work out our faith with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13).

5. The fruits of the Spirit are worked out in our good deeds.

Paul says in Ephesians 2:10 that we are created in Christ Jesus for every good work. Additionally, James 2:17 says faith without works is dead. He continues in James 2:18 to say I will show you my faith by my works.

WWJD is not simply behavioral modification. More than that, it should remind us that we are to work out our faith in fear and trembling because God is at work within us. Simply asking what Jesus would do and doing that thing does not earn favor with God. Instead, when we understand that we should model Christ-like behavior because he died to give us a new heart and bring us to life, we will desire to demonstrate our faith in Jesus by modeling Jesus through our words and deeds.

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/04/10/why-i-don-t-like-wwjd#comments 0 Holy Week http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/22/holy-week Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:00:00 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/22/holy-week

The Biblical Events of Holy Week

Every year, as Resurrection Sunday approaches, I find value in being reminded of the events that took place during Holy Week. This post provides a brief walk-through of Holy Week with accompanying Scripture references. I hope this post can be used as a guide for family worship during Holy Week or as a tool for personal study. I pray it is a blessing to you.

Based on the reverse engineering of the Jewish calendar system and the assumption that Jesus was crucified in AD 33, not AD 30, we know Holy Week began on Sunday, March 29, AD 33, and culminated with the resurrection on Sunday, April 5, AD 33. The events of Holy Week surround the Jewish observation of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12 – 13).

During Jesus’ day, the observation of Passover would have caused a significant stir in Jerusalem. The city would have swelled to 60,000 (or more) devout Jews, coming to the temple to worship and remember God’s provision in bringing His people out of Egyptian slavery. There would have been excitement and energy in the city, which was not usually there. At the same time, the Romans needed to keep the peace. They needed to ensure worship did not lead to an uprising. So, while there was excitement, there was also the recognition that as the Jews celebrated their liberation from Egypt, they did so under the occupying forces of Rome.

Sunday (March 29)

Jesus enters Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. He receives a Messianic welcome as the people welcome him with shouts of "Hosanna!!!" All four gospel evangelists provide this account (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-18). During his entrance into the city, Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). Additionally, John provides additional information on Sunday’s events throughout John 12. Jesus returned to Bethany about 2 miles from the city at the end of the day.

Monday (March 30)

Jesus clears out the temple of the money changers. This dramatic event is accounted for by the synoptic gospels (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; and Luke 19:45-46). Here, Jesus gives his powerful quote: “My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of robbers.” With the hustle and bustle of a busy celebration week, Temple Mount was filled with opportunists seeking to capitalize on the Jewish pilgrims who had come to worship.

Tuesday (March 31)

Jesus returns to the temple and is engaged in controversies surrounding his authority. First, the Pharisees question Jesus’ authority. Jesus responds with his own question, asking them if John’s baptism was from God or man (Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33); Luke 20:1-8). Jesus’ response shut the mouths of the Pharisees because their answer would have threatened an uproar among the people who believed John was a prophet of God. Second, the Sadducees (who denied the possibility of a resurrection) question Jesus about the resurrection. They pose the question to Jesus: if a man dies and his brother takes his wife as his own, whose wife will she be in the resurrection? Jesus responds by saying in the resurrection; you are neither married nor given in marriage (Matthew 22:23-033; Mark 12:18-27). Finally, the Herodians (those who were faithful to Rome) asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus responds famously by saying render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s but to God the things that are God’s. In his response, Jesus is demonstrating that even though Caesar is the earthly authority, he is still created in the image of God, and while he may be due taxes from the people, God is still owed worship from Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:19-26).

During this time, we find some unique allies that have begun to form between the various opponents of Jesus. The Pharisees were the religious legalists of the day who took exception to the teachings of Jesus. The Sadducees were opportunists who got rich off the Romans, and they were intent on not letting the zealous teaching of Jesus ruin their good thing. The Herodians were the Roman loyalists who saw Jesus as a revolutionary threat that needed to be contained.

Wednesday (April 1)

With the various groups threatened by Jesus, the Sanhedrin plot to kill Jesus (Matthew 26:3-5; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:1-2).

Thursday (April 2)

Jesus observes the Passover meal with his disciples (Matthew 26:20-35; Mark 14:17-26; Luke 22:14-30). During this time, Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper, washes his disciple’s feet, dismisses Judas (who would betray him), predicts Peter's betrayal, and delivers his upper room discourse (John 13:1-17:26)

After they ate the Passover meal, they sang a hymn, which probably came from Psalm 113-118, and they made their way to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus would pray (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46).

Friday (April 3)

After midnight, Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss. Jesus is arrested and placed on trial. Jesus is taken before the high priest, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin during this time. False accusations are made up, and Jesus is beaten and then sent to stand before Pilate. Luke points out that Jesus even stood before Herod (Luke 23:6-16). Eventually, Jesus is handed over to be crucified based on the accusations of the Jews. Jesus dies at the hands of the Romans by hanging on a Roman cross and is buried that evening in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 26:57-27:61; Mark 14:43-15:47; Luke 22:47-23:56; John 18:1-19:42).

Saturday (April 4)

The Sabbath day of rest is observed. At the same time, Jewish leaders posted guards at Jesus’ tomb to ensure his body was not stolen (Matthew 27:62-66; Luke 23:56).

Sunday (April 5)

In the ultimate fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, the seed of the woman crushes the head of the serpent as Jesus defeats death and rises from the grave. The first witnesses were the women who had tended to his body. The angels ask, “why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, for he has risen, as he said!” The women's testimony caused Peter and John to run to the empty tomb to see for themselves that Jesus was, in fact, not there (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18).

This is not an exhaustive list of the events that took place during Holy Week, but I trust it will help you better understand the days leading up to our Lord’s death and victorious resurrection. For a more detailed chart, click here. For further reading, I recommend The Final Days of Jesus: The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived.

I pray this causes you to think deeply about Christ’s passion and atoning sacrifice, which allows us to be redeemed and reconciled to our Heavenly Father. We are the beneficiaries of this great act of love by grace and through faith.

Soli Deo Gloria

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/22/holy-week#comments 0 Why Believers Must Care About Politics (Part 2) http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/13/why-believers-must-care-about-politics-part-1-copy Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:06:55 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/13/why-believers-must-care-about-politics-part-1-copy

Why Believers Must Care About Politics (Part 2)

In my last article, I presented a few reasons why Christians should engage in politics. However, it is not just that Christians should engage in politics but also how Christians should engage in politics. You can do the right thing the wrong way. In this article I wish to provide a few ways Christians should think about the political engagement.

How should Christians engage in politics?

1. Christians should engage in politics prayerfully.

Seeking the Lord's guidance and wisdom through prayer is the first place every believer should begin. Prayer keeps us humble in the process, it keeps us dependent on the Lord and not on politicians, and it helps us maintain a healthy Kingdom of Heaven first perspective.

2. Christians must educate themselves on the issues.

As I said earlier, this article is not intended to treat specific policy matters. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge the complexities of a biblical worldview on the day's political issues. We must be informed on local matters surrounding school districts, city councils, and local judges. We must know our state representatives and senators and what they stand for. We must know who our governor is and how he plans to lead the state in which we reside. Likewise, we must be prepared to vote for (or against) certain federal leaders, including the president. Christians need to think Christianly through issues of taxation, immigration, the sanctity of life issues, LGBTQ+ concerns, and even matters of justice (believe it or not, the Bible has a lot to say about justice). We must be educated.

3. Christians must enter the public square as ambassadors for the kingdom of Heaven.

In a recent panel discussion, Dan Darling (Land Center for Cultural Engagement) posited that Christians should be missionaries in the public square. He is correct! Another way of thinking about this is that Christians need to understand that they are Christian Americans, not American Christians. This nuance has profound ramifications. American Christianity tends to place what is best for America first and then place Christian convictions wherever convenient. A Christian American rightly understands his first allegiance is to the kingdom of Heaven and allows his faith to influence his patriotism. The latter produces a healthier kind of patriotism, a patriotism that honors King Jesus first. The late Foy Valentine (Executive Secretary of the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, now the ERLC) used a helpful triumvirate for cultural engagement. He says believers must be moral salt, ethical light, and spiritual leaven within secular culture.

In closing, a distinctly Christian voice is needed in the public square. By not being educated and involved in politics, believers essentially say this is one area in which the Christian witness is not required. Not only is this thought wrong, but it is dangerously naïve to believe that American religious liberties will be protected apart from the voice of Christian Americans speaking to the issues. Yet, believers must be acutely aware of the pitfalls of elevating partisanship over faith.

Leeman has written extensively about the role of the government and the church. The Lord has endowed the government with the power of the sword. He has also endowed the church with the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. The church is not competent to wield the sword, and the state is not competent to properly use the keys; here, the separation of church and state is established. When the state begins to cross over into areas the church must speak on, believers must let their voice be heard: protect the Imago Dei, defend the family, and preserve religious liberties. As believers, we must go about this prayerfully, be aware of the issues, and be faithful to herald the gospel of King Jesus in the public square. When Christians think Christianly about political issues, the extreme positions we see today will grow closer together. Disagreement can be had with brotherly love and Christian charity.

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/13/why-believers-must-care-about-politics-part-1-copy#comments 3 Why Believers Must Care About Politics (Part 1) http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/06/why-believers-must-care-about-politics-part-1 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:13:11 +0000 http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/06/why-believers-must-care-about-politics-part-1

Why Believers Must Care About Politics (Part 1)

The need for believers to better engage the complex political issues of the day is on the incline. The how and the why of Christian engagement must be thoughtfully considered. This article will not directly engage in policy matters; instead, it will present an ontology of Christian political engagement, with the desire that it will encourage believers to think Christianly about our voice in the public square. This first of two articles will consider why Christians should engage in politics, and the second article will consider how Christians should engage in politics.

There is an increasingly great divide among evangelicalism today. One can scarcely argue that extremism has not influenced the church's thinking. Before I get too far ahead of myself, let me define what I mean by "extremism." The space between the ideological and theological far left and far right has become anything but a demilitarized zone. The ability to disagree with grace and Christian charity has become fleeting, even among friends and allies. One must either fall in line with their tribe of conviction or be anathematized. The decline in civil discourse has resulted in militant tribalism that threatens the unity of families, churches, denominations, and even the very fabric of our democracy.

Extremism has replaced soul liberty with oppressor and oppressed power dynamics. The far left is quick to accuse those on the right of being bigots, misogynists, and indifferent to the abuse of authority. By contrast, the far right is quick to identify slippery slopes of any kind, often looking for deep-state conspiracy theories. Both sides are guilty of lobbing the hand grenade of institutional corruption and financial malfeasance into the crowd and letting the accusational shrapnel cut down whoever is in the way. The days of civil disagreement in the church and the marketplace would appear to have gone by the wayside.

Why should Christians engage in politics?

1. A distinctly Christian voice is needed.

As Christian Americans, we find ourselves as citizens of two kingdoms. Our primary allegiance is to the kingdom of Heaven and our Savior King, Jesus Christ. As citizens of Heaven, we have been commissioned by the Lord Jesus to proclaim the excellencies of the gospel and protect the integrity of the message of the Word of God.

In the current cultural climate, one biblical doctrine constantly attacked is the imago Dei. The Bible is clear from the beginning of Genesis that God created humanity in complementary roles (men and women) to reflect the image of God within creation. I often tell the church I pastor, "You are created in the image of God for a relationship with God, by the grace of God, and for the glory of God. Therefore, yours should be a life of worship." When the image of God is distorted within creation, the result is a distortion in the ordered worship of the Creator. For this reason, Christians should voice their convictions on all matters of life. We should unapologetically defend the right-to-life of pre-born children and defend the sanctity of end-of-life care.

In the same way we are unapologetically pro-life, we must also be pro-family. We should vigorously defend the gender binary created by the Lord and resist the encroachment of the LGBTQ+ agenda and the sexual revolutionaries. Within this vein, we should also be resolved to defend a biblical understanding of marriage (one man and one woman in a committed covenantal marriage for life). We should elevate the complementary roles of men and women as part of God's created order. We should also protect our children from the cultural lies associated with gender dysphoria. This protection can be done through advancing a robust biblical theology on the nature of gender, which will combat the tide of gender fluidity.

Additionally, we must remain committed to religious liberty. This commitment means we cannot be intimidated by someone else's religious convictions. As Christians, we believe Jesus is the only way to a reconciled relationship with our heavenly Father, but others do not believe the way we believe. We must preserve individual religious liberties for all. Once the government regulates religious liberties for one faith system, the door is open for our religious liberties to be regulated. We may disagree and can undoubtedly speak out where that is the case. Nevertheless, we must fight to preserve our first liberty.

2. The church is inherently political.

Jonathan Leeman is incredibly helpful in this part of the conversation; his treatment of the church as embassies of Heaven and believers as ambassadors uses innately political language to address the relationship between the two kingdoms.

In How the Nations Rage, Leeman rightly presents several things the church is not: It is not a base for voter recruitment. It is not a lobbying organization or a branch of this or that party. It is not a place for partisan positions and campaign speeches. Instead, a church is political, like an embassy is political (How the Nations Rage, pg. 135). The Bible is full of political language. For example, when Jesus says, "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." This political statement pits the kingdom of Heaven against the kingdom(s) of the earth; contextually, this would have been Rome. Jesus also calls his followers to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Paul calls the Roman Christians to submit to their rulers, and Peter says the same (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2). Leeman is right to address the things a church is not. He is also right to assert the church is political.

Additionally, writing as a Baptist that holds to baptistic congregationalism, a healthy church models a healthy democratic polity where the authority of the pastor/elders is given first by the Lord Jesus but secondly by the congregation. The congregation is responsible for removing and installing pastors/elders as the need arises. In turn, the pastors/elders are expected to steward that authority to the glory of God and for the spiritual health and well-being of His people. Not only should Christians let their voice be heard in the democratic process of their church, but they also have the responsibility to let their voice be heard in the democratic process on the local, state, and federal levels.

In part two, I will explore how Christians should engage in politics, and one of the points I will make is that Christians should engage in politics missionally. The missional component of Christian political engagement comes to bear within the distinctly Christian voice in the public square. The defense of the Imago Dei, biblical family values, and religious liberty are gospel-driven aspects of Christian political engagement. My prayer is that these articles will help you think Christianly about your voice and your engagement in politics.

]]> http://fairviewsherman.com/blog/2024/03/06/why-believers-must-care-about-politics-part-1#comments 1