Two Men Worth Commending
Praise where praise is due! In recent days, two men, both pastors, have done us a favor by setting a public example of taking a stand in an unpopular arena. The first is Hershael York, pastor of the Buck Run Baptist Church of Frankfort, Kentucky. He was invited to deliver the invocation before the Kentucky legislature on the night in which Governor Steve Beshear would deliver his budget speech. Beshear is lobbying hard for legalizing gambling in the state, largely because Kentucky dollars are going to neighboring states that allow gambling. Beshear is another politician in a long line of pragmatists who think that the end justifies the means. York, in striking contrast, offered this prayer for the legislators:
Help us to admit that we cannot truly love our neighbor as ourselves and then scheme to get his money by enticing him with vain hope. May they not lead this state to share profits from an industry that preys on greed or desperation.
Help us to foster salaries and not slot machines, to build cars and enable jobs—not license casinos and seduce the simple into losing what they have. May their greatest concern not be that we get our share of the family’s losses, but that we foster a sense of hope and justice that creates opportunity and leads to success.
Bully for York for offering a courageous prayer in the face of such pressure. In doing so, he is standing in a long line of preachers and prophets who had the opportunity and courage to cry out against the iniquity of the day. Like Nathan the prophet rebuking King David, or John Knox shaking his finger in the face of the Queen, York besought God publicly for politicians to put righteousness ahead of expediency. Sadly, his prayer fell on the governor’s deaf ears, as the video linked above demonstrates: Beshear followed York’s invocation by continuing to angle for legalized gaming.
The other man worthy of commendation, also a Southern Baptist, is Voddie Baucham, Pastor of Preaching at the Grace Family Baptist Church of Spring, Texas. Baucham was invited to fill the spot vacated by Mark Dever in James MacDonald’s Elephant Room 2. Dever bowed out when he learned that MacDonald had also invited Bishop T. D. Jakes of the Potter’s House; Jakes is a Oneness Pentecostal who preaches a prosperity gospel. With Dever gone, MacDonald invited Baucham to stand in. Baucham considered the venue and the invitation of Jakes and declined the invitation.
However, Baucham had already been scheduled to preach at a Harvest-sponsored Men’s Conference that followed shortly after the Elephant Room 2 conversation. Enough has been written on the lack of clarity with which Jakes answered the questions on his view of the Trinity and the shallowness of the nature of some of those questions. However, Baucham had to field questions from his own constituency about the Elephant Room conversation because of the following Men’s Conference.
Because of the lack of clarity on the Trinity and the failure of the ER2 participants to address Jakes’s prosperity gospel, Baucham responded publicly to the issue via his Facebook page knowing full well that he was to preach for MacDonald soon thereafter. Baucham showed up at Harvest and, after a brief conversation with MacDonald, was disinvited from speaking at the Men’s Conference. Baucham’s rationale for speaking out against the ER2 interview with Jakes may be found here.
Whether or not one agrees with these men over their association with the Southern Baptist Convention, we can certainly appreciate their forthright stand for righteousness in the face of a clear challenge to truth. York could have privately admonished the governor against the gambling issue and Baucham could have chosen remain silent after the ER2 meeting, but both men felt that silence on their part implied some form of tacit agreement. Both men are to be commended for the stand. They serve as models of gracious opposition.
For All The Saints
William W. How (1823-1897)
For all the saints who from their labors rest,
Who thee by faith before the world confessed,
Thy Name, O Jesus, be for ever blest.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou wast their Rock, their Fortress, and their Might;
Thou, Lord, their Captain in the well-fought fight;
Thou, in the darkness drear, their one true Light.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
O may thy soldiers, faithful, true, and bold,
Fight as the saints who nobly fought of old,
And win with them the victor’s crown of gold.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
The golden evening brightens in the west;
Soon, soon to faithful warriors comes their rest;
Sweet is the calm of Paradise the blest.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
But lo! there breaks a yet more glorious day;
The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
The King of Glory passes on his way.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast,
Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
Singing to Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Jeff Straub Bio
Jeff Straub (PhD, Southern Baptist Seminary) is professor of historical theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, MN. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 1 view
If you had one opportunity to speak biblical truth before the government about something that the government was about to do and did not do it, you would be a coward.Actually, since we don’t live in a theocracy, Scripture truths are debate assertions.
If the legislature was about to vote on abortion and York prayed that people would not consent to mindless infanticide, that would not be inappropriate at all. Scripture truth is not debate talking points.
We cannot—and don’t want to—govern by forcing everyone to comply with what the Bible teaches. There’s no actual faith in that.
But we do want to see our society be blessed by honoring the realities of right and wrong revealed in Scripture. So how do we make that happen? The only way is to be persuasive in public debate.
We can either be coercive or persuasive. I don’t see any other options.
If our obligation is to be persuasive, then we ought to speak in ways that are likely to be effective.
But really, more at issue here is whether an invitation to pray is supposed to be seen as an invitation to address the legislature. My view is that even if the legislature views it that way (which I doubt), it’s not biblical to view it that way. It’s pretty hard to find “confrontational prayers” in Scripture… which only makes sense since the audience is God.
I’ll grant that leading in prayer is a special kind of prayer. But it’s still fundamentally about leading others in seeking God, not telling others what God thinks about things.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
No one is arguing governing by force. I was talking about a preacher with the opportunity to proclaim truth in a format given to him.
Technically speaking, those unbelievers were not led in prayer at all. So it had a twofold benefit at least: 1) prayer for right decisions, 2) rebuking evil decisions.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] If you had one opportunity to speak biblical truth before the government about something that the government was about to do and did not do it, you would be a coward.James, thanks for responding to my comment. I want to parse what you’ve said here, so you can then explain to me why I’m misunderstanding it. :)
1. You are saying that he was speaking Biblical truth before the government. I say that prayer is speaking to the Lord.
2. You are saying this was his one opportunity to speak Biblical truth. I say that in America today there are many opportunities. He could have walked outside the chamber and stood on the front steps and began saying whatever he wanted. He could have been writing, phoning, protesting, etc.
3. You are saying that if we only have one chance, we need to seize it. I say that we need to be sure that our words in every situation are always with grace, that we don’t need to “seize a chance”, and that it is God and not me that changes hearts. Nothing I say will make one bit of difference unless God works, whether I have one, zero, or many chances, so the most important thing is to make sure my words are exactly as God wants them to be.
I say he was not invited to “speak before the government,” but rather to speak to God, and it was bad manners for him to do the former. It violated the spirit (though probably not the explicit terms) of his invitation, and was not peaceable.
In brief, I think this comment was not of the standard I might have expected from you. :) I welcome push-back.
I guess I don’t know what you mean by debate points. To me, a “debate point” is something you believe is true and value enough that you seek to persuade others as well.
You seem to be assuming that a debate point cannot be something that is absolutely true and that you believe with total conviction. But these are ultimately the only things worth debating.
Of course, you’re welcome to your own definition. But no Christian believes that the moral principles of Scripture are just stuff to randomly and insincerely yak about.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Discussion