An Open Letter To  A Preacher

February 16, 1997

Frank,

     I watched the sermon this morning on television which I
saw in person last week.  (I know some of the broadcast came
from the 11 o'clock service, but was struck with how closely
you adhered to the script, if you will, of the first one. Do
you memorize your sermons easily?)

     Last week I thought it to be a pretty decent sermon, but
hearing it again simply requires that I write about it. As a
matter of fact, when I heard you this morning ask the
congregation whether they could tell Christians, believers,
from others in the workplace I started making notes.

     The question followed the observation that the more we
are of this world, the less we are of Christ. Simple, astute,
unassailable; you might more effectively have entertained this
concept with Paul's observation that to be spiritually minded
is life, and to be carnally minded is death.

     At any rate, this led to the question I mention.
(Actually, I don't recall you asking that rhetorical question
about identifying believers in the workplace in your 9:40
sermon last week; I might have responded verbally if you
had.) I'm not sure you really considered the question before
you asked it; I don't think you would have used it had you
done so, because I don't think you intentionally mislead
people.  Still, let us consider the path that the
congregation's thoughts should travel, if you were successful
in your efforts to "influence or persuade" with your
rhetoric.

     "Of course!" is the emphatic answer to your question; of
course members of First (Baptist) of Anywhere Amerika can
tell Christians in the workplace. They're the ones who don't
swear, or drink, or lie or cheat or steal; you know, you can
talk to a Christian and exchange brief testimonies and
establish a bond; easy to do, you know, because you're
brothers in Christ. Of course a Christian can recognize a
Christian; they're even pretty good most of the time at
spotting imposters, people who profess to be Christians but
who just didn't quite make the grade, maybe they tried to
believe but just couldn't muster up the heart to really do
it, that's one of God's great mysteries, you know, grace and
all that.

     Yes, Frank, I don't think you can deny this is the
answer to your question. (Or maybe you will try to use the
excuse that it is being misinterpreted by me, even that it
was a simple, understandable mistake on your part and you
certainly didn't mean to mislead by it. And yes, Frank, that
is just what the devil wants you to do, to keep comforting ye
his people, to keep persuading that the ordinary mind he
seeks to inculcate in every human being is in fact a
spiritual frame of mind. I just looked, and don't think I
made a note of it, but you even mentioned that God's thoughts
are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways, while every
word you said did in fact if not in intent lend credence to
the common assumption that it is all right for us to take
solace in our ordinariness, to assume that so many 
people can't be so wrong about something so important.)

     Of course the obvious truth of that matter is that that
behavior, that circumspection which actually is incumbent to
(what we might call the ordinary) Christian's peace of mind,
is exactly the type of mental/spiritual behavior we should
know intuitively is abhorrent to God; it is exactly the type
of ordinary mind leading to wrong judgment that resulted in
the death on the cross mind you of His only Son.  Judge not
is written bold in my mind, and I don't think you would deny
it to be a foundational truth to God's will for all who
suffer the common condition of mortal humanity. Don't covet
is right up there with it, and look what attention mankind is
paying to that one. (But I'm starting to preach, which is not
my intent; my intent is to point out the effect of your
preaching.)

     You made a big deal out of the John 6 "miracle" of feeding
the multitude, carefully wording your sermon to make clear
(and I really didn't catch it last week) it was a matter of
Him breaking the five loaves, and breaking the five loaves,
and breaking the five loaves, with "His hands" I remember you
saying. You even brought the Greek into it, a favorite way
for baptist preachers to show your superior knowledge to
correct the misconceptions of the ignorant. When He "broke"
the bread the Greek indicates instantaneous action, you said,
and when He "gave" the bread, the Greek indicates continuing
action. You didn't indicate if that was poor grammar, but I
suspect if we were spiritually minded to the degree that we
could understand God's Word to us, this might be a clue to
breaking the code. I mean, if we don't know God's thoughts
and can't know them even if we "master" His word (and i guess
that you as a "doctor" of the word, so to speak, are a step
above mastering it, His Word to us about Himself), how can
one dare profess to be spiritually minded, much less prove
it?

     You mentioned Jesus' declaration to Pilate that His
kingdom was "not of this world". Your rhetoric at this point
in the sermon surely was intended to influence the
congregation into believing (perhaps accepting would be more
apt a word) that we cannot expect things to be much different
from the way that they are now.

     In fact, that was the thrust of your sermon. (And I
don't know if you realize how you jeopardized your
foundational logic by informing the congregation that the
Sermon on the Mount was "God's manifesto to believers". "A
public declaration of motives and intentions" my Webster
calls that; a declaration in which Jesus in part gave The
Lord's Prayer to the world in which we are to pray for God's
kingdom and will "on earth as it is in heaven". Of course!
things could be much different.)

     Can you imagine any government in the world writing laws
like the Sermon on the Mount gives?, you (rhetorically) asked
around this time in your sermon. (And I don't suppose you
observed me rather violently nodding my head to this question
which you even repeated; at some point this past week I
communicated to someone that I should have answered Yes!,
loudly, of course I can imagine that!

     You really can't even imagine it, Frank? How I pity you
if that is the truth.

     To show love and dispense grace, you repeated at least
three times, is what God's will for us is. You even earlier
referenced I Corinthians 13, the great Love chapter of the
Bible. (Would you, Frank, if obligated to list in order of
importance the chapters of the Bible, put chapter 13 of that
book ahead of chapter 15, as I know has been done before, and
not by someone of whom the people and authorities might ask,
from whence cometh his learning?)

     Love is certainly important; Jesus said the two great
commandments are about love, and even that God is love. He
also said we must worship Him in spirit and in truth. In
truth, Frank, I'm afraid you and your congregation don't know
much about love, and even less of grace. Spurgeon said that
"grace, like light, reveals our impurities". Baptists have
let ordinary mind lead their hearts and minds into strong
delusions, and you're making a bad situation worse.

     I guess that was part of a sermon I'm preaching, for
which I apologize; I do this because I believe it is God's
Spirit which moves me to write this, and His wisdom which
actuates any truths contained herein, not the wisdom of the
world, which we know the Bible says is foolishness to God.
And yes, I don't deny I have enough fool ideas (like
imagining laws legislating morality) to qualify as foolish in
the world, which might help qualify me to show you God's own
truth, and the spiritual mind which is found in Christ but
not in Christians, who believe in and practice what the
preacher I most repect in this world called "relative
perfection".

. . . . . I had intended to send someone a letter telling him
that from what little I had heard about his preacher, I could
tell him that he has what we might call a "culturally sound"
mind. My Webster gives "normal and healthy" as one definition
of sound; let's focus on normal: Normal is what I call ordinary,
and ordinary mind is what I call the enemy.

     The bottom line to that letter (I'll just
attach this file and submit a copy to him electronically) was
going to be that, for that matter, if he didn't have a
culturally sound mind he wouldn't be the preacher at that
church. Not to day, as Jesus was apt to say.

     This is just to say that if my wife wants to keep going
there, I'll go along, for her sake. But I don't want you or
anybody (that's why I'm going to post this on the Internet)
to think that I consider myself related spiritually to you or
your congregation; and if I shake hands and smile and talk
and go through all of your social motions and even honestly
love you, it doesn't mean I think you've got anything like a
good chance of going to heaven.

     Good luck, and (as you're inclined to say, Frank) I
really mean that.

To the God's Truth Page
To the Table of Contents
To SAFE's Home Page