What Should I do: Thoughts on Political and Cultural Engagement

I’m struggling.  I’m struggling with how to engage culture for God’s glory.  The recent nomination fight over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh forced that struggle to the front of my conscience.  There are five realities guiding my decisions on cultural engagement, and five action steps I’d like to take in the future.

5 Realities

  1. I have friends who I want to influence with the gospel:  This reality hits me hard.  I have many friends who don’t think like me, vote like me, share my background, etc…  I want be a Christ like influence in their lives.
  2. I see our society moving in a counter gospel direction:  I’m concerned about the direction of our culture.  We’re not moving toward the gospel.  We’re not moving toward Christ.  We’re moving away from Christlike values.
  3. I have opinions:  I have opinions on politics and on other aspects of our society.  I have biblically informed opinions that I’d like to share. I’d like to be a part of the conversation.
  4. My political party does not always align with my opinions:  This has become abundantly clear in the past two years.  The Republican party has moved farther to the right, and has left me feeling like a man without a party.
  5. God is neither republican or democrat:  I may feel like a man without a party, but I am never without God.  There will be democrats who spend an eternity with Christ.  There will be republicans who do not.  This is the most important reality.  It connects back to the first reality.  My heart’s desire is to see all my friends spend an eternity with God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

What am I to do?  These realities are difficult to navigate.  I’m not the only Christian struggling with the correct biblical posture for cultural engagement.  Here are five action steps I’d like to recommend to those who are struggling with this issue, both democrat and republican.  I’m committed to following these steps in the future:

  1. Do not be a stumbling block:  When Southern Baptists met for our annual meeting  in St. Louis in 2015, the messengers debated a resolution supporting a ban on the display of the confederate flag on public property.  There were emotional speeches on both sides of the issue.  Dr. James Merritt said, (I’m paraphrasing here) “If the confederate flag causes my brother or sister to tune out the gospel, then the confederate flag must go.”  If the voicing of my political opinions causes my brother or sister to miss the message of the gospel, then I should keep my political opinions to myself.
  2.   Engage with purpose and grace:  I always need to ask myself, why am I engaging this person on this issue?  Am I just looking for a fight?  Am I just looking to prove someone wrong?  Christ never engaged just to fight someone or prove someone wrong.  He always engaged with purpose and with grace.  The message of God’s grace was always on his lips, and He offered forgiveness while simultaneously standing against sin.
  3. Cultivate more relationships with people who do not think like me:  I can’t engage in meaningful discussion in an echo chamber–see reality number one.  I want to cultivate more of those relationships.  I want to genuinely listen to arguments.  Those arguments may not change my mind, but they give me an insight into people and their thoughts.
  4. Those who have different values are not my enemy:  There are too many conservative Christians who treat non-Christians as enemies.  They are not our enemy. The Bible says our fight is against the ruler of this atmospheric domain.  I want to always be careful not to treat those who ideologically oppose me as my enemies.
  5. I will not belong to either political party:  I’ve found myself in the position of not belonging to either political party.  I will still vote for a certain type of candidate, but I will not vote republican just because I’m a Southern Baptist Pastor.  The Republican or Democratic, or whatever party will have to earn my vote.

This is where I’ve arrived in my struggle.  Paul wrote in Philippians 3, verse 12 and following, “Not that I have already reached the goal or am already fully mature, but I make every effort to take hold of it because I have been taken hold of by Christ Jesus.  Brothers I do not consider myself to have taken hold of it.  But one thing I do; forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead, I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus.

Women Can Speak in Church–1 Corinthians 14:34-36

I wrote an article earlier this week exhorting women to speak up in their churches and local association meetings.  My post generated a fair amount of comments, accusing me of, among other things, being a leftist, feminist infiltrator, and not knowing God’s word.

The scripture used to support a position in opposition to my post was 1 Corinthians 14, Paul’s instructions for orderly worship.  I’d like to explore Paul’s instructions in this post, and specifically, Paul’s instructions for women to be silent in church.

Paul writes, beginning in verse 33 of 1 Corinthians 14, “Since God is not a God of disorder but of peace.  As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.  And if they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting.  Did the Word of God originate from you, or did it come to you only?”

First, Paul does not expressly prohibit women from speaking in the church.  In 1 Corinthians 11:5, he writes, “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved.”  In the Corinthian church, women were permitted to speak in an orderly fashion.  Do Paul’s instructions in chapter 14 contradict his instructions in chapter 11?

If we examine Paul’s instructions in light of what was going on in the Corinthian church, we learn that there were women who were creating disorder in the public meetings.  We learn there were women who were dishonoring their husbands by publicly questioning their doctrine.  Paul’s instructions were meant to bring order back to the meetings in the Corinthian church.  Paul’s instructions were never meant to silence every woman in every church until Christ comes back.  We cannot lift verses 34-36 out of their context and command every woman in our churches to be silent.  If we use a strict literal interpretation of those verses, then we also must strictly interpret verses 26-33 where Paul says that only two or three should speak.  I know of some churches where this would be a good guideline in their business meetings, but most pastors would be looking for a job the next day if they tried to enforce a limit of three speakers during a business meetings.

All of Paul’s instructions in chapter 14 are for keeping good order and discipline in church meetings.  If women are causing a disturbance in the church meetings, then they should be silent.  If men are causing disorder in church meetings, they should be silent.  The key verse in chapter 14 is verse 40, “But everything must be done decently and in order”.  

There are also many questions that must be answered if we take a strict literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14.  First, what about women teachers?  Should they not teach?  If women are to be silent in church, then they should not teach, and teaching should only be done by men.  What about public prayer requests?  Should women lean over to their husbands and whisper their prayer requests so the husband can repeat them in public?  What about singing solos?  What about giving their testimonies?  Should the husband give his wife’s testimony for her?  What about matters that concern ministry to women?  Should only the men debate womens ministry matters?  I’ve served three churches where the treasurer was a woman.  Is she not allowed to give the treasurer’s report?  Does another man have to do that?  What about single and widowed women?  In the early church, they were to be cared for by a deacon, but what if a single or widowed woman has an ungodly deacon?  Is she just out of luck?  What about the wife who comes to church without her husband?  Is she out of luck too?  What about association meetings?  What about state conventions?  What about the national convention?  Should Dorothy Patterson not have given a nomination speech in 2016 at Phoenix? (I think she did this at Phoenix but it may have been in St. Louis a year earlier)

All the questions above can be answered with 1 Corinthians 14:40 as the guiding principle.  Everything must be done decently and in order.  This position does not make anyone a leftist, feminist, infiltrator who does not know God’s word.

My wife and I have struggled and argued about this passage for most of this year.  When I have opened my heat to God’s word and His Spirit, I have found that my opposition to women speaking in church was not based on anything Biblical, but was based on my selfish desire to make name for myself and to be in control.  Male dominance is not what Paul had in mind when he wrote this chapter, and it is not part of the decent order which God would have all local churches practice.

The Best of Enemies

Do you know the names Ann Atwater, CP Ellis, and Howard Fuller?  I didn’t until I read the book “The Best of Enemies,” by Osha Gray Davidson.  The book chronicles racial relations in Durham, North Carolina in the 1960’s.  I heard about the story of CP Ellis and Ann Atwater during this year’s pastors’ conference when Dr. Tony Evans used their story as a sermon illustration.  I decided to research the story and found Davidson’s book.  I’ll give a summary and then three strengths and three weaknesses of Davidson’s work.


During the first half of the 20th century, Durham, North Carolina was known as a progressive jewel of the south which had great race relations.  This, of course, was not true.  Durham did boast a class of black elites which was more than most southern cities, but the living conditions for the lower class black population were just as squalid and unfair as other Southern cities.  The book chronicles the rise of both Ann Atwater, a poor, single black mother and CP Ellis, a poor white man who found a sense of purpose in the Durham chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.  He would eventually become The Exalted Cyclops of the Durham chapter.  Ellis and Atwater clashed at many city meetings and became bitter enemies.  In 1971 the Durham schools were forced to integrate and this caused considerable turmoil.  A man named Bill Riddick came to town and suggested the city hold what is called a charrette.  A charrette is an intense meeting over several days, in Durham’s case 10 days, where an entire community is invited to come together to solve a particular problem.  The charrette began by naming a steering committee.  Guess which two people were elected to chair the steering committee.  Ann Atwater was not even in attendance when she was elected a co-chairwoman of the steering committee and her fellow chairman was none other than her worst enemy, CP Ellis.

During the meetings, Atwater and Ellis found that poor black families and poor white families struggled with the same problems.  Ellis came to believe that blacks weren’t what keeping poor whites impoverished, but the ruling elites, both black and white.  There’s a moving scene in chapter 13 which describes Ellis and Atwater talking alone in the auditorium when reality finally poured in on Ellis and he began to cry.  The charrette ended with Ellis renouncing his membership in the Klan and reportedly tearing up his klan membership card in front of the community.

Ellis and Atwater became lifelong friends, and when he died in 2005, Atwater delivered a eulogy at his funeral.  The introduction includes a story about Ann coming to the funeral home before CP’s service, and, while sitting there was asked to leave by a white man.  She finally stated that CP was her brother.


  1. Davidson does a remarkable job of setting the scene for the charrette.  He plows through a century of racial history in Durham and relates the events in Durham that coincided with the larger national struggle regarding race relations.
  2. Davidson gives equal pages to both the histories of Ellis and Atwater. Davidson is a career journalist and when I began reading the book, I assumed he would major on Atwater’s story, but his work is non-biased and fair.  He notes the high price Ellis paid for his actions during and after the charrette.
  3. His character descriptions of Atwater, Ellis, and other minor characters are moving.  I felt as though I could close my eyes and hear Atwater or Ellis talking with me.


  1. Davidson only devotes two chapters to the seminal event, the charrette. He spends 11 chapters covering background material, but only two chapters dealing with the event that shaped this unusual friendship.  I would like to hear more about the charrette itself.
  2. He ends the book with a retelling of Ellis’ suicide attempt in 1972. and the psychological price he paid for his actions.  I would like to have known more about the friendship that developed after the charrette, but so much time was devoted to background material that a detailed description of their friendship would have made the book very lengthy.
  3. This may not be considered a weakness, but for a novice in black history, such as myself, Davidson includes the action of too many activist groups.  I was difficult to keep up with who belonged to which group and which groups were militant and which were peaceful and so on.

What I learned

What does this have to do with the Southern Baptist Convention and SBC Voices in 2018?  We’re having our own struggles with diversity and race relations.  I learned a lot about the history of race relations, and I learned about some influential people that many of us have never heard of.  Incidentally, I wonder if our own Dwight McKissic is related to the Floyd McKissic mentioned in this book?  I learned that there’s a lot I don’t know about a critical period in our nation’s history which still affects us today.  Before we go patting ourselves on the back for including minorities in leadership roles, we would all do well to read the story of Ellis and Atwater and remember that there are men like CP Ellis who paid a high price for doing what was right.  Are we willing to pay that price?

Why Dave Ramsey Was Not a Waste of Time at the SBC

My wife and I made sure we made it back into the convention hall Tuesday afternoon to hear Dave Ramsey speak.  When we came in, he had already begun speaking.  I was excited to hear him.  I’m always excited to hear Dave speak; I’ll admit I see him as a bit of a hero.  My wife and I are Dave Ramsey fans and as soon as we get our house paid off, we’re going to Nashville to do our debt-free scream.  My kids even have the introduction to his radio show memorized.

I was disappointed to hear grumbling in my section, and then murmurings afterward about his appearance.  There were those who thought his speech was a waste of time.  I’d like to give a few reasons as to why his speech was not a waste of time and some benefits to partnering with Ramsey Solutions.

  1. He spoke God’s Word: As far as I know, Dave confines his thoughts on scripture to those passages having to do with money and stewardship.  He does not try to be an evangelist or a preacher.  Any time we hear God’s Word, we are not wasting our time.
  2. He speaks on a difficult subject: He’s not afraid to speak on one of the most difficult topics in scripture.  He’s not afraid to kick our behinds in the right direction when we need it, and let’s face it, with so many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, many of us need our behinds kicked in the right direction.  I know I did.  I suspect that some of those who think hearing from him was a waste of time think so because he spoke uncomfortable truths.  He makes us squirm, and we need to squirm.
  3. His program benefits our churches: When pastors and members learn to handle God’s money God’s way, then they have more money to give.  Dave teaches the tithe, and he also teaches generous giving.  How much money would we have for missions if we taught our people to tithe, get out of debt, and give generously?

What are the possible benefits of partnering with Ramsey Solutions?

  1. Financial health: A pastor once told me when I was negotiating salary with a search committee to tell them, “You don’t want me sitting at my desk every Monday morning wondering about how the bills are going to get paid.”  That statement could not be more true.  How many pastors out there go to the office on Monday morning wondering how they’re going to pay their bills?  Financial health allows a pastor to focus on his job.
  2. Fewer funds needed for Mission Dignity: I love Mission Dignity.  I think it’s a great program.  Some of you are going to think that I’m accusing all recipients of Mission Dignity funds of bad financial management.  I am not doing that.  Some of the Mission Dignity participants are victims of churches that did not steward God’s money God’s way and thus could not provide adequately for their pastor and his family.  Mission Dignity is a great safety net, but what if we could move that safety net up 20 or 30 years?  What if we could save pastors and their wives from having to use Mission Dignity funds?  There would be more money for missions.

The Ramsey Solutions group is very open to working with churches.  I hope more leaders use their programs because we have an opportunity to intentionally move the safety net forward for our brothers and sisters in Christ — our pastors and our members.  If more members of the SBC had financial peace, how much more could we do with the Cooperative Program? How many more missionaries could we support? How many pastors could devote their time and mental energy completely to prayer and ministry of the word?