Changeless Truth for Changing Times: Discerning How to Be Discerning

*A Review of: Nikki Giovanni, “On My Journey Now.”

With her opening words, author Nikki Giovanni imparts truth needed by all readers as a context for the spirituals. “We say that the slavers went to Africa to get the slaves, which is far from true. The slavers went to Africa to get Africans to make them slaves.”

How did free people, with their own cultures, their own families, their own everything survive and remain sane when overpowered and raped of everything? Captured and ruptured, how did they survive and even thrive?

Giovanni, award-winning author of “Rosa,” and University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech, provides a core answer. It was through the co-created, spontaneous spirituals by which African Americans proclaimed, “I’m a child of God!”

As her aptly chosen subtitle suggests, “On My Journey Home” looks at African American history through the spirituals. Giovanni takes her readers on a journey from capture, to auction block, to daily hardships, escape, community building, the Invisible Institution, Sunday worship, heavenly hope, Emancipation, the Fisk Jubilee Singers, the present, and even to the future.

Giovanni makes the vital point that we sing the slave spirituals as “cute children’s songs,” forgetting the depth, the pain, the passion, and the meaning that drove their creation and their singing. Build through the blending of Old Testament deliverance themes, New Testament redemption themes, and the pressing need for shared hope, these songs of Christian faith were anything but cute, though they did evidence the trusting faith of a child in a good Father.

Nor were these songs “polite.” Often, subtly so, they challenged the hypocrisy of their Christian masters with words such as “Everybody talkin’ ‘bout heaven ain’t going there.”

Giovanni has it right. The African American Christians “didn’t just write the songs, they lived them.” To understand African American history is to understand the slave spirituals and to understand the slave spirituals is to understand African American history. This is the gift of “On my Journey Now.”

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of “Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction,” “Soul Physicians,” and “Spiritual Friends.”

*A Review of, Paul Kengor, “God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life.”

Let’s state this clearly from the beginning. Whether you embrace Hillary Clinton’s politics or not, whether you embrace Hillary Clinton’s beliefs or not, her beliefs are a critically important issue, for they deeply impact her political convictions.

Here’s another fact to clarify. The author, Paul Kengor, is not an apologist for Hillary Clinton. He has written similar books on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. His aim in all three books is to write an accurate spiritual history of these three important political figures.

In “God and Hillary Clinton,” Kengor excels at revealing to readers the spiritual shaping factors that brought Hillary Clinton to embrace the beliefs and practices she does. If you want insight into who she is, what she believes, who influenced her personally, who she read, and why, then this is the book to read.

What’s more, Kengor’s writing style, his first-hand interviews, and his access to letters and other documents, make this a well-written, creative, captivating history book–no easy task.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction, Spiritual Friends, and Soul Physicians.

*A Reivew of: Tim Challies, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment

Tim Challies is well known to the blogosphere and to the world of Amazon.com Reviews. John MacArthur has it right when he says of Challies, “His weblog is a favorite stop for thousands of Christian readers every day.”

On his weblog and in his Amazon reviews, Challies seeks to assess how well or how poorly a book thinks biblically about life. In “The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment” he offers a practical theology of how to develop the spiritual discipline of discerning truth from error, right from wrong. Or, as he puts it, this book “is written for all those who believe that it is the duty of every Christian to think biblically about all areas of life so that they might act biblically in all areas of life.”

The current historical context for Challies’ work is vital. We live in a day and age where, because of information technology, everyone can write, and, everyone can write against everyone else. Thus, we find a plethora of counterfeit truth claims in Christianity today while at the same time finding an excess of self-proclaimed prophets of discernment whose main task in life seems to be exposing the supposed duplicity of false prophets, sheep-in-wolves clothing, and Trojan Horsemen sneaking heresy into the church.

Obviously, both of these extremes harm the cause of Christ. Counterfeit theology fails to speak the truth. Counterfeit “discernment ministry prophets” fail to speak in love, and, nine times out of ten, also fail to speak the truth about those they critique.

Into this vast wasteland Tim Challies speaks. His ten chapters should be required reading for both groups. Those who claim to teach newly emerging ideas of Christianity need to learn from Challies how to erect biblical theologies for their ministry models. Those who claim to have cornered the market on spotting counterfeits need to learn from him how to develop true, biblical, loving, humble discernment.

Chapter by chapter, Challies calls readers to guard the deposit of the pure Gospel of Christ’s grace. Quoting author J. C. Ryle, Challies notes that we spoil the Gospel through substitution, addition, interposition, disproportion, and by confused and contradictory directions.

The heart of the book addresses the question of how we really know truth. Challies challenges readers to the highest possible view of the sufficiency of Scriptures, which he defines as forsaking all subjective means of supposedly knowing God and instead founding spiritual discernment upon God’s objective revelation of himself in Scripture. While agreeing totally with this foundational concept, it would be interesting to hear Challies and the authors of “Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit” (Wallace and Sawyer) engage one another. While Wallace and Sawyer believe 100% in the sufficiency of Scripture, they eschew the idea among many Evangelicals who seem to make the Trinity: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Scriptures.” This overly rational, Princetonian, modern, Enlightenment mindset often seems to eliminate the work of the Spirit in illuminating believers, replacing it with a mindset that seems to equate one’s interpretation of Scripture with the Scripture’s own inerrancy and inspiration. It confuses biblical, humble, openness and dependence upon the Spirit with “mysticism.” It confuses the use of God-given reason with the worship of rationalism. Saying that we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture is not enough. We must all acknowledge that we inevitably bring our self, our personality, our culture, and our experience to the text. How the Spirit works in the full human personality (relational, rational, volitional, and emotional) to help us to discern truth is perhaps a deeper issue that Challies might explore further in future works.

It is in chapter three that Challies defines discernment. “Discernment is the skill of understanding and applying God’s Word with the purpose of separating truth from error, and right from wrong.” Personally, I would add, “for the purpose of exalting and enjoying God by loving God with our whole heart and loving our neighbor as we love ourselves.” This last part of the definition oft seems missing by some in the so-called modern “discernment” movement who seem to speak more to attack, than to attract, who seem to speak more to expose error without the commensurate motivation of restoring others to truth and reconciling relationships.

Challies further highlights our need to discern in the areas of doctrine and life: what is true about God and what is true about how we live for God. Spiritual discernment enlightens us to know who God is and to know the will of God for life—in terms of right and wrong behavior.

Since Challies states that discernment is a spiritual gift, in chapter seven he exegetes 1 Corinthians 12:10 and “the ability to distinguish between spirits.” He concludes that one cannot conclude whether this gift today is exactly the same as the gift of discerning of spirits in the early church. He concludes, based on a more expansive study of discernment throughout the Bible (rather than just based on 1 Corinthians 12:10), that there is a gift of discernment today. He notes, “People with this gift will have special ability to separate truth from error and to discern whether something originates with God or with Satan.” He further notes that even though not all have the gift, we all are to pursue this discipline.

One wonders if Challies were discerning this view from another author, if Challies might not chide that author somewhat. If we can’t demonstrate exegetically that it is a modern-day gift, then perhaps it is better not to call it a special spiritual gift given to certain saints, and rather do what Challies does in his last sentence of chapter seven and simply say it is a discipline that all should develop. It seems that some have jumped on this concept of a special, enduring spiritual gift for today (which may not be exegetically supportable), and concluded that they have been given the almost exclusive mantle of the prophet to expose error in a superior way to others in the Body of Christ.

Because of much current misuse of so-called “discernment,” I find chapters eight through ten the most crucial. In chapter eight, Challies exposes the dangers of discernment. Among these he lists items such as guilt by association and honor by association. These are two false, illogical, and ill-theological methodologies (mis)used extensively in the “discernment” movement. He also lists the error of failing to distinguish between the critical and the disputable. This is where “prophets of discernment” call others heretics because they disagree with them on an issue that the church has never labeled as one of the fundamentals of the faith. Witch hunting is another danger of discernment that Challies eschews. Challies rightly observes how “insufferable” such a process becomes and notes that “a person who continually stirs up anger and disagreement is committing an offense that the Lord hates.”

Challies also lists relying unduly on others, simplicity, pride, withdrawal, and truth without love as additional errors/dangers. This chapter is the proverbial “must read” for anyone who feels the subjective call to the ministry of “discernment.” Coming as it does from one of the young leaders in the area of true biblical discernment, it has a wonderful possibility of being heard and heeded.

Chapter nine is valuable for all readers—especially since God calls everyone to be discerning. Here Challies provides wisdom principles for developing wisdom. You can’t beat that.

While chapter nine highlights movement toward developing discernment, chapter ten emphasizes how to practice the ministry of discernment. Taken together, chapters eight through ten should become the manual for the discernment movement. Consecutively, they teach what not to do, how to mature in discernment, and how to practice the art of discernment: how to study the Bible, how to use the mind (reason), how to depend upon the Spirit, and how to read fairly other authors to discern truth from error. These three chapters are worth the proverbial price of the book.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of “Beyond the Suffering,” “Soul Physicians,” and “Spiritual Friends.”

*A Review of: Thabiti M. Anyabwile, The Decline of African American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity

“The Decline of African American Theology” is an important contribution to the ancient/modern study of African American Christianity. Author Thabiti Anyabwile, Sr. Pastor at First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands, writes from his perspective as a founding member of the Council of Reforming Churches (CRC).

The CRC is an association of churches subscribing to the historic five solas of the reformation, the core doctrines of grace commonly known as the five points of Calvinism, and the system of theology summed up in such catechism/confessions as the historic Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, The Westminster Confession of Faith, and Heidelberg Catechism. Their purpose is to see biblically reformed theology sown, take root in, flourish among and eventually become the dominant theology within the black church and African-American community. Understanding this framework is essential for understanding Anyabwile’s writing.

The book itself attempts something that has rarely been pursued: a full account of the course of African American Christian theology. Anyabwile organizes his historical survey according to six core theological/doctrinal categories: revelation (bibliology), God (theology proper), man (anthropology), Christ (Christology), salvation (soteriology), and the Holy Spirit (pneumatology). Additionally, each chapter is organized into five periods: early slavery era through abolition (1600-1865), Reconstruction to the “New Negro” movement (1865-1929), depression to WW II (1930-1949), the Civil Rights Era (1950-1979), end of century to post-modern era (1980-present).

The book’s premise is to trace the development of African American theology from its earliest manifestation to the present. The premise continues by stating that secularization overtook the Black Church replacing its evangelical and Reformed theological upbringing. Finally, the book purposes to call the black church back a proper theocentric (as defined from a Reformed perspective) view of itself and the world.

Each of Anyabwile’s chapters starts strong with in-depth, primary source material on a rather diverse group of African American believers from the North and South during the slavery era. Having examined the identical terrain in my book “Beyond the Suffering” related to African American soul care, I can attest to the thorough research work the author does. However, at times it seems that evidence that supports the premise of an early, almost exclusive Reformed theology among African Americans is presented in the absence of evidence for a less Reformed, more “Arminian-Wesleyan” early perspective.

As Anyabwile moves through each subsequent era in each of the six doctrinal categories, the coverage becomes somewhat less extensive and somewhat more selective. That is, examples from later areas are selected that exclusively highlight the movement away from the early, Evangelical, Reformed theology proposed in early African American church history.

While not disputing or doubting that the African American church has to some degree moved away from its early Evangelical roots, this selective presentation tends to minimize the many ongoing historical examples of stalwart Evangelical and/or Reformed theology in black church history. In other words, by a somewhat selective citing of negative examples, the reader is left with the impression that few if any African American churches/pastors/denominations have remained true to their Evangelical theological legacy. In fact, in these five later eras, and in the current era in particular, only one positive example (Tony Evans—and he is somewhat chided for his somewhat non-Reformed theology) is cited.

My own study of the current theological scene in the African American church, and my own engagement with a plethora of African American pastors, counselors, lay leaders, and churches indicates that there is no one monolithic non-Evangelical, non-Reformed stereotype of the modern black church. A countless number of examples of current black pastors, some well known and many others ministering in obscurity, could be provided to counter the sense that the typical modern black church has lost its theological moorings.

The final chapter does something that books like this often fail to do—it provides suggestions and solutions for moving forward. All too often historical books like this, especially those critical of the current scene, focus on the negative without any input on how to make positive changes. Anyabwile is to be commended for going far beyond that and offering a constructive agenda toward greater theological fidelity in the African American church.

“The Decline of African American Theology” should be read by anyone concerned with the current state of African American theology. In my opinion, it should be read with the realization that “another side” could be presented that perhaps provides a more balanced and fair perspective of the overall picture of black theology today. That said, this is still a well-written, necessary, engaging, and thought-provoking work.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction, Soul Physicians, and Spiritual Friends.

Some of my more recent blogs may leave some of my readers scratching their heads. You may be asking, “How is the pro-life movement related to the purpose of this blog?” And you may ask today, “How are politics related to the purpose of this blog?”

Changeless Truth for Changing Times

The purpose for the blog “Changeless Truth for Changing Times” is to ponder how the ancient paths of biblical wisdom, and the wisdom gleaned from church history, can make a relevant difference in our lives today.

To date, many of my blogs have focused on applying ancient truth specifically to relational life—counseling, spiritual growth, multicultural relationships. I intend to keep this focus.

I also intend to expand my focus. The Bible and church history have relevance for how we view slavery, racism, abortion, and protecting the unborn. And, the Bible has relevance for how we view politics—which is people—how people are governed by other people.

Now, before you wonder if my blogs are going to veer off into political-speak or become focused on recommending a candidate—there’s no need to fear, balance is here!

My Purpose and Plan

This article will not be recommending a candidate for president or even a party for the presidency. Rather, I want to do three things:

1. I want to summarize quite briefly a few statements by Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, and Barack Obama about their view of religion and the political process.

2. Then I want to summarize how the media has covered their statements.

3. Finally, I want to critique the media for failing to be fair and balanced in their coverage and statements about these three candidates.

This is really the heartbeat of all my blog posts: presenting the best I can one biblical perspective (not the right perspective, but my current best attempt) that is as fair and balanced to the biblical, historical, and current realities as possible.

A Very Brief Summary of Some of Mike Huckabee’s Statements about Religion and Politics

Likely you have read political columnists and heard arm-chair pundits excoriate and rip to shreds Mike Huckabee for a statement that he made ten years ago at the National Pastors’ Conference explaining why he entered into politics.

“I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. . . . I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

Governor Huckabee was not making a political speech. He was not at a political event. He was making a religious speech at a Christian event—a pastor’s conference. And, he was not running for president in 1998. In fact, he was not running for anything when he spoke. He made a statement that most Evangelicals would identify with—final answers to life issues are not found in human political solutions but in the life of the Spirit brought by a personal relationship to Christ. Admittedly, the intent of this statement was to indicate that his views of politics and political answers were shaped by his Christian faith (more on this in a moment).

But . . . to read his critics, you would think that Huckabee wanted to be Pope Huckabee now instead of President Huckabee.

Yet, his critics refuse to hear his follow-up and refuse to examine his record.

Huckabee said on NBC’s Meet the Press in December, 2007,

“It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptist.”

Asked further about his comments, he stated in a December 30, 2007 issue of Time,

“The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else’s faith or to restrict anyone,” Huckabee said. Those skeptical of the role of faith in his presidency, he said, should look at his record in Arkansas. “I didn’t ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple. You know, we didn’t do tent revivals on the grounds of the capitol.”

Have you noticed that when people write and speak about Huckabee, they always introduce their words with, “Mike Huckabee, former Baptist Pastor . . .”

Mike Huckabee served as Lt. Governor and then as Governor (ten years) longer than Bill Clinton served as Governor of Arkansas, and longer than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton served in the Senate. So why don’t the pundits introduce him as, “Mike Huckabee, long-serving Governor of Arkansas . . .”?

My point is not to support Huckabee’s statements or to endorse his candidacy. My point is to examine how the secular elite media respond to his views of politics and religion compared to how they respond to similar such statements made by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

A Very Brief Summary of Some of Hillary Clinton’s Statements about Religion and Politics

Biographer Paul Kengor has written a well-research spiritual biography of Hillary Clinton: God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. In his book, Kengor quotes Hillary’s own words and the words of her spiritual mentors to demonstrate that her liberal United Methodist religious views thoroughly shape her political views.

Here’s one example. Note that it took place in a political arena, not in a religious arena as a religious speech. Mrs. Clinton gave a major address in April 6, 1993 (while Bill was President and while she was charged with the political role of developing a national health care plan), at the University of Texas at Austin, as part of the college’s annual Liz Carpenter Lecture Series.

It was at this speech that Hillary introduced the phrase to the public: “the politics of meaning.” Where did she learn this concept? From her liberal Christian spiritual mentor Don Jones who in turn learned it from liberal theologians like Tillich.

What did she mean by the “politics of meaning”? In her speech she noted that America was trapped between two great political forces: Republican market economics and Democratic governmental policies. She noted that missing in these equations was an adequate explanation for the challenges facing the nation.

What then, would provide adequate political answers? She was asked that question in an article written by Michael Kelly in the New York Times Magazine that ran on May 23, 1993. She eventually acknowledged to Kelly that her source for a “politics of meaning” arose out of her Christian Methodist heritage.

“The very core of what I believe (about the politics of meaning) is this concept of individual worth, which I think flows from all of us being creatures of God and being imbued with a spirit. Some years ago, I gave a series of talks about the underlying principles of Methodism. I talked a lot about how timeless a lot of scriptural lessons were because they tied in with what we now know about human beings. If you break down the Golden Rule or if you take Christ’s commandment—love your neighbor as yourself—there is an underlying assumption that you will value yourself, that you will be a responsible being who will live by certain behaviors that enable you to have self-respect, because out of that self-respect comes the capacity for you to respect and care for other people.”

At this point, Hillary then offered Kelly specific political examples and applications. These political solutions based upon Methodist biblical convictions included policies such as increasing the minimum wage, governmental run and paid for day care, and tax code changes. While Hillary, in a political forum, did not say, “Let’s take the nation back for Christ,” she surely was saying in this political forum, “My liberal Christian Methodist convictions lead me to suggest that we govern the nation according to my view of Christ’s Golden Rule.” How is that so different from what Mike Huckabee is crucified for by the media?

Again, this is not to criticize or to praise Hillary Clinton and her views. This is to raise a question. How is it okay for Hillary to base her political philosophy on liberal Christian Methodist positions presented in a political forum at a political speech, but it is wrong of Mike Huckabee to say in a religious forum in a pastoral sermon that his life views have been shaped by conservative Christian Baptist thinking?

Does anyone else see the unfairness here in the media’s responses to these two candidates and comments they made in the 90s?

And why is Hillary not introduced as, “The United Methodist Sunday School teacher who was mentored by the liberal Christian Don Jones . . .”?

A Very Brief Summary of Some of Barack Obama’s Statements about Religion and Politics

On January 21, 2008, the Associated Press reported on a political speech given by Barack Obama at a rally kicking off a weeklong campaign for the South Carolina primary. He tried to set the record straight from reports circulating on the Internet that he is a Muslim.

Here’s how the AP reported it.

“I’ve been to the same church—the same Christian church—for almost 20 years,” Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I’m in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America . . .

His aides, according to the AP story, “decried an incorrect news report that Obama was educated in a Muslim madrassa.” Additionally, his “campaign representatives blanketed South Carolina churches Sunday with literature that touted Obama’s Christian faith.”

According to the AP, “One piece features photos of Obama praying with the words ‘COMMITTED CHRISTIAN’ in large letters across the middle. It says Obama will be a president ‘guided by his Christian faith’ and includes a quote from him saying, ‘I believe in the power of prayer.’”

A second campaign piece includes photos of Obama with his family and a caption that says they are active members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It explains how as a young man Obama “felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life.”

Need I say it again? My point is neither to praise nor to criticize these statements by Barack Obama. Instead, my point is to contrast how his statements are reported compared to how those of Mike Huckabee are reported.

When Huckabee ran a commercial in Iowa that ran on Christmas day wishing everyone a “Merry Christmas” the media went nuts. You would have thought that he had just said, “If I am elected then every person must bow down and worship Jesus.”

And yet, in a political piece, Obama can say in all caps, “COMMITTED CHRISTIAN” and not once did the AP report this as a bad thing.

Obama’s campaign literature even touts that fact that if elected president he would be “guided by his Christian faith.” Imagine if Mike Huckabee said the same thing tomorrow!

The Point

Somehow in our society it is now all right for liberal Democrats to blatantly say in the political arena that their liberal Christian faith will guide their presidency and be the foundation for their governmental policy making. Yet, somehow in our society is it now all wrong for conservative Republicans to say in a religious arena that their conservative Christian faith will impact their thinking on answering the problems people face today.

Does anyone else think that there is something wrong with this picture?