The Salty Peanut Gallery

The Southern Baptist Convention has received a good deal of media attention over a recent statement released by 25-year-old seminary student, Jonathan Merritt, entitled “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.” Over the past couple of weeks this document has stirred up a firestorm of controversy within the SBC that has risen to a level that in my mind is both distracting and unnecessary. It should be noted that the document is not an official statement of the Southern Baptist Convention nor is it in any way endorsed by them despite a signature list of over 200 names, including a number of high-profile Southern Baptist leaders. Among the listed names are James Merritt, Jonathan’s father and a former president of the SBC, Frank Page, the current SBC president, and Jack Graham, also a past president of the SBC.

Now I recognize that I am arriving somewhat late to the party on this issue. I would like to have commented on it sooner. One reason I haven’t is because it’s Easter. I’m a music guy. Do the math. More importantly, though, I’ve needed time to digest the matter for myself in order to arrive at a reasonably informed conclusion. So here’s my best shot.

Initially let me say that I do think the parties involved seem at least to have their hearts in the right place. I may not totally agree with their position, but I don’t at all believe they are deserving of the harsh rhetoric and name calling that they’ve been receiving from opponents of the initiative. I seriously don’t believe they are a part of any kind of “left wing, liberal agenda on global warming.” According to Jonathan Merritt, the purpose for this document was “to call people to begin participating in the conversations.” I for one am willing to take him at his word. So let’s participate, shall we?

David Hankins, executive director of the Louisiana Baptist Convention gives a great explanation as to why he feels the initiative is misguided, one in which I totally agree:

First, the fundamental assumption of the declaration is predicated on a seriously flawed understanding of the debate regarding climate change. It affirms the view that human-induced, catastrophic global warming is an undeniable fact. There is no “general agreement” in the scientific community on any facet of this subject. There is evidence of growing dissatisfaction in the scientific community with the claims that global warming 1) is caused by human factors; 2) has any alarming consequences; 3) can be altered by a change in human behavior; and 4) should provoke the kind of draconian economic and political actions being currently proposed by many environmental activists.

If global warming is a catastrophic danger caused by destructive human behavior, then everyone, especially godly people, ought to act to correct it. If, however, global warming is only a naturally occurring weather pattern which has been blown out of proportion by politically motivated partisans misconstruing the data, then it is irresponsible to call for actions that will actually harm, not help. If the latter, this new declaration actually evinces the “reckless and ill-informed” behavior it worries Southern Baptists may be exhibiting.

Hankins cuts to the heart of the matter of why some feel it’s necessary for Southern Baptist to be less “timid” about environmental issues. It boils down to “the concern that we are perceived as uncaring among those who are anxious about catastrophic climate change.” Hankins likens it to the belief among some that the church is mean to homosexuals.

Are we “mean”? Or could it be that the church believes homosexual behavior is sinful and, when it has addressed this highly volatile subject, it has said so? Until we say homosexual behavior is acceptable, we will not be considered by the culture to be “caring.” “Caring” means affirming their point of view, including their error.

And the same is true of the global warming issue. Southern Baptist have repeatedly affirmed the biblical mandate for Christians to be good stewards of God’s creation. Look no further then the 2007 SBC Resolution On Global Warming. The point is this. It isn’t necessary to embrace error just so it can be said of us that we care. All that is necessary is that we remain faithful to the truth and that we speak it in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Today I was having lunch with a pastor in my community who acknowledged he had church members that did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. These were mostly older folks raised under the teaching of men who received their training during a time when the learning institutions of my denomination were considered to be liberal. The idea that Christ’s resurrection was physical and not just spiritual was a concept completely foreign to them. John MacArthur gives a great explanation as to why this is such a vital issue to our faith.

Every Easter the newspaper runs an article that casts doubt on the resurrection. Just how important is the resurrection to the Christian faith?

It’s no wonder Paul, the other apostles, and every leader in the early church continually proclaimed Christ’s resurrection as the culmination of His ministry. Those men were so captivated by the significance of the resurrection that they could not help but preach it. And that should be our attitude today.

Paul said it best. Without the resurrection, “we are of all men the most pitiable.”

Update: Albort Mohler responds to the question asked by the editors of The Washington Post and Newsweek for their “On Faith” conversation: Do you have to believe the resurrection is literally true — that Jesus came back to life in his body — to be a Christian?

Update: I love Chuck Colson’s answer to the same “On Faith” question:
People will give their lives for something they believe to be true. They will never give their lives for something they know to be false. Had they not seen the resurrected Christ with their own eyes, the Apostle Peter would have been the likeliest candidate to become the John Dean of the first century church.

Now who can argue with that?

Benny Shanon, professor of cognitive philosophy at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, thinks Moses and the children of Israel may have been high on a hallucinogenic drug when they received the Ten Commandments. According to Shanon there are two naturally existing plants in the Sinai Peninsula that have psychoactive components that can be combined to make a potent drug cocktail. This beverage would be very similar to a drink called ayahuasca usually found in the Amazon jungle. In an article for the British journal Time and Mind Shanon writes, “In advanced forms of ayahuasca inebriation the seeing of light is accompanied by profound religious and spiritual feelings. On such occasions, one often feels that in seeing the light, one is encountering the ground of all Being … many identify this power as God.”

In an interview with Israel Radio he said, “As far as Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don’t believe, or a legend, which I don’t believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effects of narcotics.”

He also suggested that Moses was probably under the influence when he saw the burning bush. According to Shanon the Exodus account of the bush burning without being “consumed” is evidence of the power of drugs. Of course this is all just speculation since he has no direct proof of any of these claims.

Shanon admits to having first hand knowledge of the affects of the ayahuasca plant, having “partaken of the … brew about 160 times in various locales and contexts”. One wonders whether Professor Shanon was under the influence of ayahuasca while writing his article since this seems to be the extent of his research.

Assuming Shanon has enough healthy brain cells left after 160 mind altering drug trips to engage in rational thought, I have one or two questions that beg answering. What are the odds really that an entire nation would all experience the exact same hallucination at the same time? And not just once, but a number of times, including the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the Egyptian army being thrown into the sea. Were those all just drug induced hallucinations? Man, that’s a lot of ayahuasca. And what about the Ten Commandments? Are we to believe that a hallucination carved this document into tablets of stone that for thousands of years have stood the test of time? Is that really what you want us to believe, Dr. Shanon?

Proverbs 22:1 says, “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, Loving favor rather than silver and gold.” The name “Imperials” has represented a legacy of excellence, pioneering and impacting the Christian music industry for over 40 years. Accolades include 17 Dove Awards, 4 Grammies, 8 time Group of the Year, 4 time Album of the Year, 4 time Gospel Performance of the Year and 1 time Artist of the Year. The Imperials have truly been one of Christian music’s most popular singing groups. But now it seems that legacy is in grave danger of being tarnished through a legal battle over who owns the name.

Christianity Today has a recent article about The Imperials who are embroiled in a lawsuit that puts father and son on opposing sides. You can read all about it:

Imperials Embroiled in Lawsuit Over Name

The Imperials have posted this response to the Christianity Today article:

An Open Letter from The Imperials

Here’s the rub. In 2005 Armond Morales, owner and cofounder of the group signed an agreement which passed The Imperials name on to a younger group that included his son, Jason Morales. The agreement also stipulated that he would give up his right, title, and interest to the Imperials trademark. According to Armond, he signed the agreement because he had retired from The Imperials in 2003 and “it made sense” at the time to transfer the name to the younger group. He also claims they had a verbal agreement that he could continue to sing using the Classic Imperials name.

At some point, however, all that changed. The younger group began regularly receiving calls and emails from fans and churches confused as to who “The Imperials” really were. While I’m sure that was a source of frustration, a larger issue arose when, according to The Imperials, “several record labels (including one major label)” expressed interest in signing them to a record contract as long as other groups (there are actually three) were not “franchising The Imperials name.” They were told, “Get the name situation fixed and then come back and talk to us.” This to me seems to be the main issue.

Now I’m not about to pass judgment here on who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m not altogether sure that either side is completely innocent. But there is a wise way and a not so wise way to handle every conflict in life and God’s word holds the key. When we choose to either ignore or redefine the wisdom of God as it is expressly stated in His word, we cannot expect to receive the fullness of God’s blessing. In The Imperials open letter statements are made that demonstrate what I mean.

The most obvious example is their rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 in which Paul sharply rebukes believers for taking their brother to court. After consulting with pastors and other students of the Word, The Imperials have concluded that this verse doesn’t apply to them. They say, “Paul was talking about suing people over ‘trivial’ matters…and not matters that effected one’s livelihood.” What Paul was talking about, gentlemen, was the “shame” and “defeat” that occurs when believers are incapable of resolving their disputes in a spirit of love.

The Imperials claim to have asked God repeatedly to release them from the group. “Every time,” they say, “the answer is the same. God called us to be The Imperials and to steward the legacy and we have to follow His leading.” Far be it from me to question another man’s calling, but God usually doesn’t call people to behave in a way that is contrary to His Word.

The Imperials also assert that pastors from around the country with whom they’ve consulted have all agreed that they had no choice. Well I disagree. I think there’s always a choice. The right choice for believers is to protect their relationship with the Lord and with their fellow believers ahead of protecting their rights and possessions. The real irony is that in the battle to obtain the sole rights to The Imperials name, the public controversy may ultimately render it worthless. “Actually,” Paul says, “it is already a defeat for you.”

Update: Armond Morales, founding member of the Grammy & Dove Award winning group The Imperials, issues public statement in response to the story that broke last week at ChristianityToday.com.