The disrobing of Buddhist monks and reformed pastors...

(Jesus said) I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. (John 10:11-13)

(Tim) Tonight I'm leading a discussion of Herbert Workman's Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford Paperbacks) with our first year Pastors College men. If you haven't read this book, you simply must. Nothing has helped me understand our present pressures and how best to prepare our children for the coming persecution as well as this little treasure.

Anyhow, I was reminded of Workman's book while reading this excerpt from an account published in the Times of the recent persecution of Buddhist monks in Burma:

A teacher talked about the pain of seeing Buddhism desecrated and the fear of the military that spread among the monks.

I know dozens of monks. One monk is very old. He is 78. It never occurred to him that in his lifetime he would have to hide. The day after the shootings started, I went to this monastery and the faces that I saw on those monks was something I had never seen. It is not fear. It was a sadness so unbelievable.

Now the young monks that I talked to--who weren't rounded up--they want to disrobe...

They don't have the moral courage to go on. "Better to be a layman," they said.

I told them that this would be a terrible loss for our Buddhism. "No," they say, "What's the use of meditation? The power of meditation can't stop them from beating us."

The worst thing now is that no amount of persuasion from the abbots will stop the young monks from disrobing.

An abbot of a monastery where hundreds of children are taught said three-quarters of the monks had fled:

"How difficult this is....They ran away for their security...."

Really, can we expect pastors to stand when the killing fields come to these United States if we haven't stood at the breaches in the wall during these years of relative peace? Calvin exhorts us all the time not to spend the years of peace relaxing, but rather to use them to prepare for the coming battles. And yet, with each year that passes I note the decline of power and conviction in Protestant and reformed pulpits.

Speaking bluntly, if my sermons have abandoned God's 'no' for His 'yes'; repentance for faith; justice for mercy; the law for grace; if I have put forward sermons that are culturally synchronous rather than antitethical; if I've exchanged truth, beauty, and goodness for the righteousness of faith; if I have non-ordained male and female deacons on a joint deacons board and women serving the Lord's Supper to the congregation; if my congregation is devoid of racial and cultural heterogeneity in a city of ethnoi; really, I'm already disrobed.

I find it almost impossible to imagine myself or many of our reformed luminaries being charged, let alone executed, for anarchy and atheism.

Comments

>if my congregation is devoid of racial and cultural heterogeneity in a city of diverse ethnoi; really, I'm already disrobed You get to choose who attends your church?

Great post

David, Yes, in many many ways. Michael

>Yes, in many many ways. I think someone is kidding himself...

David, Courage, like musical ability, is a gift of God. We can pray for it, we can refine it, we can train it, but in the end, only God knows whether in the day of trouble we will possess "the red badge of courage". Nor should we despise those who lack it, nor even despise the "better part of valor". Let us pray that we will be found among the few on that great and terrible day, but pray even more that the day be postponed. Who knows but there are still those in training, not yet within the walls? So shoulder up those packs, double time those legs, and pray without ceasing, for there is but one way to be ready.

David, Not at all. You obviously can't pick the individuals that come to your church. However, as the gospel becomes more central in a church it can and will overcome man's tendency to divide over race, class, education, nationality, and so on. If a church is homogeneous there are only two reasons that come to mind. First, the community it is in has very little diversity. Second, the church has made something other than the gospel central in their fellowship (pride in home school, pride in home birth, pride in Republicanism, pride in music styles, etc). It is this second reason a pastor can do something about. He can work hard to cast down all false gospels that divided a church and exalt the gospel of Christ which will transcend all racial, economic, and cultural identities uniting all sorts of men in Christ. Is that really that far-fetched?

Wow, I had two immediate reactions - First, what a contrast between these Buddhist monks and persecuted Christians. Your excerpt doesn't say which country this persecution occurred in, but I think it is a safe bet that there are persecuted Christians standing when these Buddhist monks are running. Second, I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be more purposeful about where we live and attend church. My church would be just about lily-white except for our relationship with the Ugandan community in Denver - and I am so thankful our new worship leader is Ugandan and we will be doing even less of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" choruses than we do now. But I warn you, there may be dancing! Kamilla

Oops - clarification - the church is lily-white because the suburb is the same. K

My old church had some 1,200 white people on a Sunday morning and maybe 3 or 4 black people, despite constant (and fruitful) outreach to the mostly minority apartments across the street. Hundreds of them became Christians, and they all went to various black churches, most of them doing so without even visiting our church. I think it can be a noble goal to get non-whites into your church, but it's much more important to get them into The church. The most successful multi-racial church we have in our town is this one . . . http://www.rwoc.org/ . . . thanks to the constant pandering to the black community by its pastor (ahem, "apostle"). Truth is much more important than surface integration.

By the way, the most integrated church I've seen is London's Metropolitan Tabernacle. Likely two thirds of their large congregation is non-Anglo.

So, would you suggest I spurn All Souls Langham (fairly well integrated), St. Mary's (very white, being in a "posh" neghborhood) and Holy Trinity Brompton (have yet to visit) for Spurgeon's old church on my next visit? Kamilla

That's a hard one, Kamilla. Sadly, I'd certainly not suggest you attend Lloyd-Jones' Westminster Chapel. Going to the Tab Sunday morning would be absolutely shocking to any Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, or submergent type. As well, missional and evangelical types. It was even shocking to this crusty old Presbyterian. Stark, solemn, dour, sober, reverent, entirely Word-centered...and filled with red and yellow, black and white, all precious in His sight. It simply boggles--don't miss it. You'll hate and love it, both together. Then, that same day, we attended Evensong at St. Paul's. Pompous, gilded, pedantic (the word 'god' was pronounced with eight syllables), garish--not beautiful, heterodox bordering on heretical, lacking any milk of human compassion, completely Anglo; and they wouldn't let Taylor use the bathroom, afterwards. The stark contrast between these two "churches" was the single most impressive thing we brought away from London, this time. Anyone looking for a living example of everything I've warned against has only to attend Evensong at St. Paul's. Go to their web site, click the "About" button, and these are the first words you read: >A Cathedral dedicated to St Paul has overlooked the City of London since 604AD, a constant reminder to this great commercial centre of the importance of the spiritual side of life. >The current Cathedral – the fourth to occupy this site – was designed by the court architect Sir Christopher Wren and built between 1675 and 1710 after its predecessor was destroyed in the Great Fire of London. Its architectural and artistic importance reflect the determination of the five monarchs who oversaw its building that London’s leading church should be as beautiful and imposing as their private palaces. >Since the first service took place here in 1697. Wren's masterpiece has been where people and events of overwhelming importance to the country have been celebrated, mourned and commemorated. Type "St. Paul's Cathedral" into Google, and here's the text Google returns under St. Paul's link: >The official site of the magnificent Baroque church designed by Sir Christopher Wren in 1673. It has an illustrated chronology and 360-degree panoramas that ... Splendid. Brilliant. Magnificent!

Hi Tim, On my last visit, I spent nearly the entire day in St. Paul's but you are absolutely right about the services - I did sit in on the noon eucharist even after seeing the celebrant arrive in "middle-aged-man-trying-to-look-like-a-young-stud" bicycling gear! All Soul's Langham was very good and very integrated but a bit of a shock as I didn't expect it to be so low-church evangelical (Stott's church evangelical? How could you expect otherwise!). I have promised myself NEVER to visit Holy Trinity Brompton after their former worship leader told me I should go there on my next visit to London because, "You'll have more fun!" Blech, Blech and blech again! Kamilla P.S. It seems The Metropolitan Taabernacle is in the vicinity of the Imperial War Museum, hmmmm, perhaps that would be a day too solemn?

(Just passing through - a Presbyterian from Southern California). This is significant: "... The power of meditation can't stop them from beating us." Turning the other cheek only works if the other guy isn't going to rip it off your face. It only takes one to make war, but it takes two to make peace. Peace comes - and stays - only through strength. Nowadays, there are more than ever (except perhaps for the early church) people, cultures, even societies, willing to see our destruction. "Calvin exhorts us all the time not to spend the years of peace relaxing, but rather to use them to prepare for the coming battles." The way to insure peace is to prepare for war. Not just an idealogical war between beliefs (or nonbelief), but a real war (like the one going on now). The pages of history are littered with the remains of nations who have been unwilling or unable to "prepare for war". It's certainly true that they were vanquished by other nations who also prepared, but the key point is our understanding of that preparedness. As with the key to democracy being "self-interest, well understood", the key to strength is that strength, well understood. In the first case, the understanding is not just my welfare, but that of everyone else; in the second, to use that strength to protect and preserve what we hold dear, not just to vanquish someone else. Perhaps I'm overly optomistic, but I doubt we'll ever see real persecution in our lifetimes. Too much would have to change here, too much in terms of our culture and society. Still, it wasn't that long ago that Bonhoeffer was executed for his beliefs - but in a completely different culture.

>It is this second reason a pastor can do something about. He can work hard to cast down all false gospels that divided a church and exalt the gospel of Christ which will transcend all racial, economic, and cultural identities uniting all sorts of men in Christ. Is that really that far-fetched? It sounds more like someone has imbibed the false gospel of modern culture which places race at the center of life. The idea that a pastor can oblige racial minorities to attend and even more so that he can do so without weakening his witness to the gospel is not sound. If a church has some practice which is not rightly derived and which militates against people from other cultures then it should examine its practices. The idea that other folks are just dying to come in if we'd just make a few changes because they haven't anything better to do isn't sound either. If you really feel this strongly you should transfer your membership from your current church and find a disproportionately minority church to which you can bring diversity.

"Sadly, I'd certainly not suggest you attend Lloyd-Jones' Westminster Chapel." - Tim I've never been to Westminster Chapel, but I'm a confirmed Lloyd-Jones fan. What happened to his old church?

To David Gray - the consequences of dodging issues of race because they were too tough to deal with can be seen with our Southern Fundamentalist friends. The situation with BJU, which stubbornly refused to admit African-Americans until it was forced to, has (with a lot of other things), developed a culture in which black Americans, and many other people of colour, do not want to have anything to do with the fundamentalist witness. And why should they, given the rude brush-offs they got in the past? Philip Yancey was the product of such a church, and he's now one of the best known exFundies there is. Reformed churches in South Africa are another example of how not to do things - that they supported the former apartheid regime for years did not help their witness to Africans ... one iota.

>To David Gray - the consequences of dodging issues of race because they were too tough to deal with can be seen with our Southern Fundamentalist friends. The situation with BJU, which stubbornly refused to admit African-Americans until it was forced to, has (with a lot of other things), developed a culture in which black Americans, and many other people of colour, do not want to have anything to do with the fundamentalist witness. Sounds like you agree with me.

I always cringe when BJU is mentioned - I stopped supporting an apologetics ministry the year their Christmas letter trumpeted how well the leader's daughter was doing in her studies there. I have a former co-worker who went there for two years. She is white, her husband hispanic and while they both attended there (before they actually began dating) they were not allowed to sit in the lirary together to study or in the cafeteria to eat as a couple, even as two friends. It makes me shudder, Kamilla

I live about two miles from BJU, and BJU might have been officially wrong for a long long time about racial matters, but in the classrooms of the elementary school and junior high (where I attended,) I never heard anything negative about black people, the textbooks lionized MLK jr., and I never heard a single racial epithet thrown toward any of the few black people who did attend. It wasn't until I started attending public high school that I really experienced any real racism first-hand. We should at least give BJU the credit for changing, and realize that maybe the secular press has always hated them for more significant reasons than their dating policies.

Keith, My point was that, unless they have changed remarkably in the few years since my coworker and her (then future) husband went there, they haven't changed enough, not nearly enough. You don't actually have to say anything negative about a nonwhite group to be a racist - segregationist dating policies, etc. suffice to prove that point without anything "negative" ever being said. Do you know, are those policies still in place or have they also, at last, been removed? Kamilla

Yes, they've been gone for seven years now.

Hmmm, I don't think she knows that. Very late, but still good to hear Kamilla

A bit of history here. The inter-racial dating ban goes back, in fact, to the early fifties, at a time when people of "other races" were admitted to BJU. When a relationship was struck up between an Asian and a European person, the Asian's parents protested so bitterly that the university realised discretion was the better part of valour. So there is more to it than suggesting that the ban was aimed at black Americans dating non-blacks. In the event, what dating there was, would have been under fairly strict rules. Black Americans were not admitted to BJU until 1971, and only if they were married. Single black Americans started arriving after about 1975, but the inter-racial dating ban remained - students were expelled for breaking it - until 2000. In that time they would not have admitted married couples of differing races. The point is not that BJU eventually changed, but that it took a painfully long time to do so - and I fear along the way, it gave the rest of Fundamentalism a bad name that fundamentalism didn't quite deserve.

Say what you will about BJU, they hold on to traditions, for better or worse. I always say that they're like a 1950s version of the Amish.

Add new comment