The Cross Will Not Stand in Brandon: A Follow-Up to a Previous Post

On September 8^th the congregation of FBC Brandon, MS decided to cancel their proposal to build a 110-foot cross on their property adjacent to Interstate 20. The church had originally petitioned the City of Brandon for an exception to city ordinances preventing the construction of so large a structure, but removed that petition after the issue became so divisive.

I wrote about this example of Baptist iconography in a previous post. Please read it.

I am personally glad that FBC Brandon had the spiritual maturity to back away from the table before this issue went to court. Had the aldermen not approved the petition, the church would have been forced to sue the city for permission to erect a Christian symbol on their own property. I can only imagine how ugly that fight would have been.

This development in my example case on how Baptists have used the cross as a symbol beyond its real meaning further illustrates my point. Just in case I wasn’t clear on that point in my previous post, here it is in a nutshell: The cross of Jesus Christ is not as important as the crucifixion that happened upon it; Christians are to be the crucifixion and the resurrection in their lives and should have no need for ostentatious displays of their Christian symbols.

Here is a quote from FBC Brandon Pastor Scott Thomas on the decision to not challenge the city:

"The Mayor and I met and prayed together and have committed to seek ways that the body of Christ can reflect the Cross instead of Erect the Cross at Brandon. We are committed to sharing the love of Christ and joining hearts to change this community."[1]

YES! YES! YES! That is exactly the sentiment I’d hope a Baptist church would express, regardless of its desire to build a monument to Christ’s execution. The followers of Jesus are called to imitate him and to walk with him in the Spirit of God, i.e. “reflect” the cross. We are commissioned to live cruciform lives that tend toward sacrifice rather than symbolic social statements. As I have told my congregation many times, if we are following Jesus in discipleship we must recognize that we are following him to death. The implicit Christian triumphalism demonstrated in the construction of such megacrosses is just the opposite of that call - it is a sign of social power rather than sacrificial conviction.

For a moment I was so, so proud of my brother Scott. He had pushed back from the table; he had not demanded his way and had not challenged his neighbors in the courts. The church had recognized that their plans were becoming divisive even among the believers in Brandon, and thus should be abandoned. This was truly a good decision and the right thing to do, and according to the abovementioned quote, it was done for the right reasons.

But then, as preachers have a habit of doing, Brother Thomas kept on talking. He said, “Those that have received Christ as their savior are passionate for the cross. Those who have rejected Christ are... Many of them are as passionate against the cross…”[2]

I may, at some level, agree that I am passionate about the cross because I have received Christ as my Lord and Savior. I am indeed passionate about learning to live a cross-shaped life that will bear witness to the world of God’s great love for us expressed through the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of his Son. I am indeed passionate about the cross as the event that brings reconciliation and atonement between humanity and God after being estranged by sin. I am indeed passionate about the Son of God accomplishing on Calvary’s Cross what could not be accomplished through the sacrificial system or the Law.

But I am not passionate about a 110-foot hunk of metal and concrete dominating the skyline of Brandon, Mississippi because of my faith. I cannot speak for those who have “rejected Christ,” but I assume that many of them are against the domineering, culture-warrior mentality that is the foundation of such a construction project. That may indeed be the source of the “passions” that are on display around this issue.

We have certainly come very far from the days when Baptists rejected the presence of the Cross in worship and in architecture. Even in this case, though, once can see the reality of the Baptist position: we are simultaneously people convicted of our calling to reflect the cruciform life of Jesus and to be a witness to the broader society of our conviction the Jesus is the savior of the world.

---

[1] http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013309090022

[2] http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/23377780/no-110-foot-cross-for-brandon

Of Words and Symbols

Today I’m testing some of my math students on their ability to translate English phrases into algebraic expressions. I’ve been teaching them that there are a few key words and phrases that clue us in to how we should build a math problem. For example, when they see the words “less than” in a phrase they should remember to reverse the order of the information they’ve been given.

I’ve learned through my years of teaching mathematics that such lessons are some of the most valuable in the entire curriculum. Often students grow frustrated with the “alien” language of mathematics and suffer academically because of it. They do so much better when they realize that the language of mathematics is the same as the language of their lives. Once that fundamental connection has been made the students can rightly become little mathematicians.

The lesson I’m testing on today is precisely the intersection of words and symbols. This is the moment when students hopefully connect the English words with the algebraic symbols, recognizing that the latter are shorthand versions of the former. This is the intersection of symbol and meaning for them, a lesson that is crucial for their success in later mathematics and science classes.

Even more abstractly than algebraic symbols, though, our words and the icons we use hold tremendous power for people. We have perfected the ideas of “branding” and the development of logos to sell and identify objects and ideas. Flags, swooshes, and geometric patterns have all been employed as a shorthand version of identities or qualities in our world, whether they are good or bad.

Our words are also symbols. The sounds we make refer to concrete objects or intangible ideas and are communicated only insofar as the person to whom we are speaking understands what we mean. Our words both refer to and shape reality for ourselves and for those with whom we communicate. Such is the reason the Scriptures treat words and speech-acts as having so much creative and authoritative power. God speaks creation[1] ex nihilo, Jesus is referred to as “the Logos[2],” and the tongue is referred to as “a fire.”[3]

One of my mentors has been emphasizing over the last two years that Christians are to be “a people of careful speech.” He has been weaving this theme into sermons, committee meetings, and personal counseling events in an attempt to raise awareness among the congregation of how powerful words are and therefore how seriously we should treat them. His theme is similar to that of Marilyn McEntyre in her Caring for Words in a Culture of Lies in which she argues that our use of language is an expression of Christian stewardship.[4]

I would add to that argument that the symbols we use must be treated with as much (if not more) care as our words. Symbols do not have the benefit of paragraph explanation, nor can they communicate through body language. Instead, our symbols are silent and ultimately subjective. They have meaning only insomuch as the one observing the symbol ascribes meaning and understanding to it.

There have been movements among Christians throughout Church history both for and against the use of symbols in worship and in the context of Christian society. A prime example is the use of the Cross in Church architecture and worship. For generations Protestants eschewed the presence of the Cross as an icon because it was so closely associated with Roman Catholicism.[5] Crosses were prohibited in Protestant worship for a time because these symbols had come to represent something other than the crucifixion of Jesus - they represented a sectarian position and interpretation of theological foundations.

It is certainly obvious that the Cross has been re-appropriated by Protestants, especially Baptists. The near ubiquitous presence of crosses in our culture and Baptist churches proves that our opinions changed. Is it the actual symbol that changed, or was it the interpretive meaning that we gave it?

Two Baptist churches in Brandon, Mississippi are living out the very thing I’m writing about, that is, the relationship among our words, symbols, and the meanings we ascribe to them. First Baptist Church of Brandon, in partnership with Crosses Across America, is petitioning the City of Brandon for permission to build a giant cross along Interstate 20.[6] The city council is “blocking” the project because the structure would violate standing laws against tall structures in the city that are not billboards or signs. Interestingly, Brandon Mayor Butch Lee commented, “The cross is not a sign or a billboard; it’s a symbol.”[7]

The second congregation that has been on my mind is Crossview Baptist Church of Brandon. Their marquee on the side of Burnham Road reads, “What does Brandon need?” and “The cross is the answer.”[8] First, I have to assume that the question and answer are not referring to the construction of the concrete and steel cross at FBC Brandon. Secondly, I have to assume that the cross referred to is not a literal one upon which the citizens of the city would be crucified. I pray that Crossview is concerned with the need for the citizenry of Brandon to adopt a cruciform life of discipleship.

When it comes to our representations of the work of God we must exercise extra care. There are symbols so laden with historic and theological baggage that it seems we should abandon them and return to the plain, unadorned, and simple worship of our Baptist ancestors. But this is the easy way out, as tee-totaling always is. Instead, let us do the work of using the right words and the right symbols. Let us craft sermons and lessons that fill our churches with the meaning of the Gospel even as we learn to reflect godliness in our lives. Let us not place too much trust in symbols, though, even as we do not place all our faith in words. Neither a 20-story cross nor the carefully recited “sinner’s prayer” are substitutes for the convictions and transformations of the soul brought by the Spirit of God. Ours is the task of preaching the Word and forming the faithful into the likeness of Christ that they may be the true symbols of Christianity.

One final anecdote from my students may help to illustrate my point. I was speaking with my students about the relationship between language and symbols in math and I referenced the “Polo” symbol on one of their shirts. I asked, if you stitched that symbol on some other, cheaper shirt, would that make it a Polo shirt? The class all responded that yes, it would make some cheaper shirt a Polo. For them, the symbol itself was the object of value. They had no concept of the relationship between the brand (represented by the logo) and the quality or styling of the garment. For them, the symbol meant everything and their identification with that symbol was valued over all.

My prayer for the two Brandon churches and for Baptists everywhere is that we would allow symbols to be exactly what they are supposed to be - pointers, markers, and reminders of God’s grace to us. Further, I pray we would be practitioners of careful speech in our preaching and speaking lives. We must resist the devaluation of our words even as we resist the overvaluation of symbols.

---

[1] Genesis 1

[2] John 1

[3] James 3:6

[4] See McEntyre, Marilyn, Caring for Words in a Culture of Lies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

[5] For a great resource on how the Cross was treated as a line of division between Protestants and Roman Catholics in early America, see Smith, Ryan K., “The Cross: Church Symbol and Contest in Nineteenth-Century America.” Church History 70 no 4, 705-34.

[6] http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/23281315/brandon-cross-controversy

[7] http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/mississippi-city-blocking-church-building-massive-cross-brandon

[8] This was true as late as September 6, 2013.

Alcohol in Brandon, Mississippi: A Case Study in Baptist Life

On August 20, 2013, the citizens of Brandon, Mississippi voted on the issue of alcohol in their city.[1] The ballot measure empowers the Board of Aldermen of the city to regulate the sale, transportation, and storage of alcoholic beverages within Brandon.

Brandon is a holdout in the alcohol debate in its county. Neighboring cities Pearl and Flowood have recently passed similar referenda and have experienced economic growth through restaurants and bars. Brandon is something of a peculiarity in the county in this respect, though; the city has a much more church-centered society and has resisted “progress” in the name of a moral high ground.

I blame the Baptists.

A cursory survey of the churches in the Brandon area found 39 that self-identify as Baptist.[2] Many of these are affiliated with the Mississippi Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention. The strong Baptist presence in the city has made the issue a bright line of moral position - you’re either for drunkenness or you’re “againit.”

In the lead-up to the vote several pastors in Brandon spoke out against the issue. The most-quoted voices were those of Baptist pastors.[3] One Southern Baptist Church[4] even displayed signs against the measure encouraging citizens to vote against DUIs. Such is how the issue has been framed in the city: the pro position cites economic development and the revenue that would come from the sale of alcohol; the con side warns of drunk drivers and the dangers of social drinking.

This is the latest verse in a very, very old Baptist song.

Bill Leonard has traced the relationship between Baptists and alcohol through the centuries and notes, “the debate over the use of alcohol is a fascinating configuration of issues related to Baptist biblicism, hermeneutics, spirituality, classism and moral imperatives.”[5] Baptists, according to Leonard, have historically been in favor of the consumption of alcohol, some going so far as to make their own. He writes, “the early Baptists in England and America followed prevailing Protestant sentiments that permitted the use of "spirits" in moderation and in keeping with the common cultural practices of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”[6] During the Second Great Awakening (1795-1837) many Baptists in the United States took up the cause of the prohibition movement to combat what was perceived to be a creeping “barbarism” among citizens of the western frontier.[7]

Baptists went on to champion the cause of prohibition through the revivals they hosted across the country. Again, Leonard comments:

Nineteenth-century revivals and temperance crusades represented an early "ecumenical movement" that brought together a variety of Protestant groups in cooperative efforts to evangelize and "Christianize" individuals and society alike. Revivals called persons to a direct and transforming experience of God's grace through Jesus Christ. Temperance crusades called the converted to live out their faith by rejecting the physical and spiritual pollution of the body, a temple of the Holy Spirit. Evangelical revivalists made abstinence a sign of true conversion, insisting that alcohol inhibited the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Since alcohol was proven to be a dangerous drug and since the effects of its usage varied with individuals, abstinence was the best response. For many Baptists and other Christians, abstinence became a requirement for Christian discipleship.[8]

Abstinence became a plank in the Baptist platform of social and ecclesial life. Many Baptist churches that had formerly prohibited public drunkenness in their congregational by-laws edited those documents to reflect the more strenuous requirement of total alcohol abstinence.[9]

The Southern Baptist Convention was birthed shortly after the era of the Second Great Awakening and soon adopted statements that echoed the prevailing Baptist prohibitionist sentiment of the day. SBC resolutions related to alcohol included language like “do most solemnly protest against its [alcohol] manufacture and sale, and pledge our influence in the exercise of our rights as citizens of this free country, socially, morally, religiously and in all other proper ways, to work for its speedy overthrow, and to this end we invoke the aid and blessing of Almighty God” (1886); “we are unalterably opposed to the sale of intoxicating liquor, as a beverage, either under high or low license” (1890); “reaffirm our truceless (sic) opposition to the liquor traffic in any and all forms and our sympathy with every righteous measure looking to its annihilation” (1898); “The greatest enemy of the cause of Christ which we as a Convention in part represent is the legalized liquor traffic…” (1907); ask a pledge of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors during their [politicians’] official life on the part of all candidates whose oath of office calls for their support of the constitution of the United States” (1923).[10]

Richard Land, formerly of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, summarized the Convention’s position saying, “Southern Baptists' understanding of the issue has been exceedingly unambiguous…Southern Baptists meeting in session have called their brothers and sisters to live "an exemplary Christian lifestyle of abstinence from beverage alcohol and all other harmful drugs" (1984); to recognize alcohol as "America's number one drug problem" (1982); to "reaffirm our historic position as opposing alcohol as a beverage" (1978); to view "personal abstinence" as the "Christian way" (1957); to express their "unceasing opposition to the manufacture, sale and use of alcoholic beverages" (1955); to realize alcohol is a "habit-forming and destructive poison" (1940) and the "chief source of vice, crime, poverty and degradation" (1936); and to "reassert our truceless and uncompromising hostility to the manufacture, sale, importation and transportation of alcoholic beverages" (1896).”[11]

Both Land and Leonard mention that although there is a strong historical trend among Southern Baptists against the consumption of alcohol, a growing minority of church members do consume liquor, wine, or beer either in public or in private.[12] Younger adult Baptists, even Southern Baptists, are moving in a liberalizing direction on the issue. These young adults (and older adults, for sure) are living into the complicated relationship that our theology, polity, and hermeneutics have with one another as Baptists.

It would be easy to settle the issue if the Bible spoke unambiguously about the consumption of alcohol.[13] Those who advocate total abstinence do so with support of various interpretations of the “Spirit-filled” life and passages concerning drunkenness. Those who support moderation or even ignore the issue altogether certainly have the majority of Christian history and tradition on their side, as well as an equal number of Biblical citations concerning the consumption of alcohol presented in a positive context.

The issues involved in the Baptists versus alcohol debate were writ large in the Brandon election. Baptists in the city staked out their predictable territory and lobbied for the defeat of the measure.

It seems that the vote came down to “progress” on the one side and something like Christian faithfulness on the other. The issue was presented in such a way by pastors that it seemed one could not be a Christian (at least a Baptist) and vote yes.[14]

By wrapping the issue up in terms of DUIs, alcohol addiction, and other social ills the Baptists of Brandon revealed their own implicit support of Walter Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel.[15] Because the argument has been moved for so long from theological and ecclesial language Baptists have not noticed that by even taking a position on the issue they are taking a position on the government’s ability to regulate morality. I hold no misconception that the Baptists in Brandon would endorse the social programs that were developed from Rauschenbusch’s work. I do think, though, that an examination of the historical tradition of Baptists’ fight against alcohol just might nudge some believers from their staunch conservatism.

In the end, the measure passed by a margin of almost 3:1. That’s a landslide in political terms. Was the momentum of progress that compelling to voters? Were the Baptist pastors of the city lacking in their persuasive speeches? No. The vote in Brandon demonstrated what has been true about Baptists all along: we are not a settled people on social issues like the consumption of alcohol regardless of the number of resolutions ratified at an annual gathering. Leonard concludes his article, “as Baptists experience the larger Christian culture, nationally and globally, through ecclesial, corporate or familial contacts, they may realize that the moderate use of alcohol is practiced by many conservative believers without being a litmus test of personal morality or orthodox theology.”[16]

There is room in our Baptist life to truly be the Priests we say we are and to demonstrate spiritual maturity on issues like alcohol and economic development. Few things in the life of the Christian disciple are as black-and-white as political campaigns make them out to be, especially when we are disciples in a tradition with no ecclesial authority to tell us which way to vote.

The teetotalers have a point, and they have sound biblical, historical, and cultural support for their position.[17] The “social progressives” who passed the issue have a point, too. They are worried about the morality of keeping people out of poverty and developing their community for the good of all. Certainly some will exploit the issue and abuse the sale and consumption of alcohol. This is exactly why the issue isn’t settled in Baptist life - we cannot reduce issues of such social import to binary choices between righteousness and apostasy.

---

[1] http://www.cityofbrandon.net/?page_id=141

[2] This number comes from a search for “Baptist Churches” on www.yellowpages.com.

[3] See http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/23115236/brandon-liquor-vote-has-supporters-detractors and http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mississippi/jackson/brandon-to-vote-on-liquor-sales-in-city-aug-20/-/9156912/21441120/-/evhwa8/-/index.html

[4] Crossview Baptist Church

[5] Leonard, Bill, “”They Have No Wine:” Wet/Dry Baptists and the Alcohol Issues.” Creswell Theological Review 5 no 2 (Spring 2008), 3.

[6] Ibid, 5.

[7] Ibid, 9.

[8] Ibid, 10.

[9] William Brackney notes, “So pervasive was the temperance movement among Baptists of the period [late 19th and early 20th century] that literally hundreds of documents could be chosen to illustrate its character and flavor.” Brackney, William, Baptist in Life and Thought: 1600-1980. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1983, 3, 49, cited in Leonard.

[10] All of these resolutions and many more are easily accessed at www.sbc.net/resolutions. I could have listed many, many more; this sample serves to demonstrate how early and how strong the SBC’s position on alcohol was established.

[11] Land, Richard, “The Christian and Alcohol.” Criswell Theological Review, 5 no. 2 (Spring 2008), 20.

[12] Leonard, quoting Robert C. Fuller, says, “Writing in 1996, he [Fuller] reported that a recent study "showed that 48 percent of Southern Baptists drink alcoholic beverages despite strong pressure from the pulpit and denominational authorities."” Leonard, 10. Also Land: “Over the last two decades, attitudes toward alcohol use among some Southern Baptists have moderated, however. The greatest evidence of the recent shift in attitudes occurred at the 2006 annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina. At that meeting, the Resolutions Committee brought a resolution that called on churches to reaffirm their historical attitude toward alcohol consumption…That resolution produced more discussion and dissent than any other resolution presented at the meeting. Some messengers were so convinced of their freedom to consume alcoholic beverages that they took to the floor of the convention and urged the body not to adopt the resolution. In the end, according to press reports more than four-fifths approved the resolution, but a small, vocal group voted against it.” Land, 20.

[13] Land believes that the Scriptures do just that. Interestingly enough, his Biblical literalism on other issues falls second to his interpretive and eisegetical intentions for the meaning of the text. See Land, “The Christian and Alcohol.”

[14] http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mississippi/jackson/brandon-to-vote-on-liquor-sales-in-city-aug-20/-/9156912/21441120/-/evhwa8/-/index.html

[15] Leonard, 11-12.

[16] Leonard, 17.

[17] Leonard suggests that there may be movement away from prohibition among Baptists. He writes, “Third, the abstinence emphasis is so strong and so deep in certain Baptist traditions, often because of personal or family problems with excessive alcohol, that many will never entertain another option. Yet the fact that the issue has even arisen (and that this journal requested this article) illustrates that there is renewed dialogue on the matter, and that even some conservative Baptists are reassessing temperance arguments, often in light of biblical exegesis. Whether this represents a new justification of an old historical taboo or a recovery of older biblical hermeneutics remains to be seen.” Leonard, 17.