Posted by Helen on: 06.14.2007 /
Chuck Colson spoke at the Southern Baptists 2007 Pastors Conference last weekend.
The Associated Press Associated Press wrote about his speech. Some of the blogs I read have commented on the speech – understandably since he specifically mentioned atheism and the emerging church – using the Associated Press article as a resource. For example, Hemant and Mike Clawson have written about it.
I was going to do that too. But then I remembered I always encourage people to go to the source. Hey, maybe I should take my own advice and read the speech myself before commenting on it. I couldn’t find a transcript but the the video of it is available. Here are my own comments, having listened to the speech.
Colson identified two threats to Christianity. The first is from the East – Islam. He said the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christians are willing to die for their faith. Islamic people are willing to kill for theirs. Christianity teaches the gospel advances by love. Islam advances by conquest.
When Chuck Colson compared the two belief systems I’d say he idealized Christianity somewhat and was only describing a particular form of Islam.
The second threat is from within. He said “relativism has invaded American life” and “Society has abandoned truth and embraced the idea that all claims to truth are equal.”
He then started to talk about what he called ‘neo-atheism’. He named recent neo-atheist books such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. He pointed out how well some of these books have been selling. He said atheists used to debate whether God exists but this neoatheism is “all out war”; it is a “vicious attack”; it “is a virulent strain of atheism which seeks to destroy our belief system.” He said Dawkins, in The God Delusion says the state should make it illegal for Christians to teach their faith to their children, because their faith is dangerous. (I’m not sure if Dawkins exactly says that because I haven’t read his book yet)
I don’t know why he put neo-atheism in here. It’s a category error because if any group upholds the validity of truth claims as staunchly as Colson and Christians who think like him, it’s neo-atheists! They are not relativists at all! They deplore relativism as much as he does. They simply disagree with Colson about what the truth is.
After this Colson gave four charges to the church:
1. Understand what Christianity is.
Here are excerpts (not his exact words but close)
Christianity is not just a personal relationship with Christ.
Christianity is a way of seeing all of life and all of reality; a way of understanding ultimate truth.
We reduce it to a decision to be saved, and discipleship but it is far more. It’s a worldview — Jesus announced the Kingdom. A way of seeing every aspect of life under the Lordship of Christ.
Underlying this — there is truth; God is knowable. We can see God’s truth is revealed and is knowable.
I didn’t like how he defined it completely as “a way of seeing” and “a way of understanding”. However, later on he talked about going into the prisons, which implied it’s not just people sitting around having philosophical discussions.
Also, the last statement implies people can be certain about God, which I disagree with and which, besides, leaves no room for faith. As I’ve heard Jim Henderson point out a few times, when Christians get so certain no faith is needed they have gone beyond what the Bible says, because the Bible says believers live by faith.
2. Teach and equip ourselves in what we believe and our kids.
Here he points out that Christian children are relativists and it’s because many of their Christian pastors and parents are relativists too. He told a story in which seven out of eight middle school students who were leaders of a Christian group said they couldn’t teach that Christianity was true but Islam and Buddhism weren’t. They were told to ask their pastors and parents about it. When they returned they still said the same because their pastors had said “truth is only a perspective” and their parents had said “you can’t say that – it will offend people”. Chuck Colson said
What is wrong with us when kids are raised to think “there’s no such thing as truth”
It’s the end of the gospel if we can’t make a truth claim today
I can’t relate to the ‘we’re lost without our truth claim’ argument – which I’ve heard from other conservative Christians too. I’m doing fine with my doubts. Atheists seem to do fine without faith. It just doesn’t seem based in reality to me. On the other hand I realize that it does follow from what conservative Christians believe.
3. We need to revitalize the gospel.
He started out this section saying
Young adults, when asked about church & Christianity, say all the doctrine is kind of dull, dusty and boring. They’re looking for something more challenging and exciting. That started the emerging church. It’s abandoning truth and just wants to have conversations in coffee shops where we tell our stories and hear the stories of others.
That really is an unfair stereotype of the emerging church. They also have conversations about ‘what is the gospel?’ (which I assume Chuck Colson wouldn’t like either because he’d argue that’s not up for discussion) and they have them on blogs as well as in coffee shops ;-).
Ok, ok, they also care about social justice and are active in their communities and around the world – I was just kidding! And many of them not only care about truth but would agree with Chuck Colson on what the essential truths about Jesus are.
Chuck Colson went on to say
The gospel is exploding in the 3rd world where the pure, orthodox, basic truth is taught and is untainted by consumerism and materialism. People there are really excited that a God-man came and hung on the cross and died for their sins.
We take it for granted — but it’s not just dry dusty doctrine. if we explain what happened, kids will get excited. I’ve spent 30 years preaching it in prison — Jesus had no power, influence, anything. He was busted — beat and whipped. He could have plea bargained but he didn’t. He hung between 2 thieves — one got it, one didn’t. [Then after three days of rotting in the grave he came back to life - I didn't write this part down so it's more paraphrased]
Guys get so excited they rise up and cheer for Jesus because they can identify. He wasn’t white; he was olive-skinned. He comes for the suffering and hurt — when I get to “setting prisoners free’ they jump up and shout. In prison there is nothing to look forward to. And 2/3 of those released come back again. When someone comes in and tells you the revolutionary radical message of Jesus Christ who announces his kingdom & reign and comes for the poor and suffering — that message is exciting in the prisons.
What do I do to recharge — I go into prison. I always come out excited. If you’re lonely or bored, call us and we’ll take you into the prisons with us.
Reseachers who did a study in the prison in Texas with our program were amazed – they said “these are the most happy excited people we’ve known”. The normal recividism rater is 67%. In our program it’s 8%.
I know I criticized another study recently – but these numbers impress me. It fascinates me that the Associated Press article includes nothing about Chuck Colson’s prison ministry remarks, while mentioning other parts of his speech. Isn’t it newsworthy that his ministry is helping prisoners find hope and stay out of prison once released?
Chuck Colson finished this section of his speech with
Want to get excited? Join us and you’ll see why Christianity is exploding in 3rd world and among poor.
Immediately after saying he is the maker of heaven and earth he upholds the cause of the oppressed, provides food for the hungry, sight to the blind, sets prisoners free, loves righteousness, helps the aliens and widows and frustrates evil.
Our God has a special concern for the helpless and suffering and poor and prisoners — and when we go to them we get the blessing when we see the power of the gospel light up their lives.
I can get you into prison with me — maybe I can even get you out too!
4. We must engage the culture.
Here he said
The gates of hell won’t prevail, Jesus said. If you’re sitting in church and everything is going well: all your committees are working, there’s no split over music…Satan won’t bother you. But “the gates of hell won’t stand against us” means Jesus is promising when we attack Satan he won’t be able to resist us. Gates are for defense — if we’re not bothering Satan he won’t bother us. We need to engage the culture to make disciples (as the Great Commission says) but also take the gospel into every single walk of life. As we Christians do that the gates of hell can’t stand against us because we’re on the attack. Get into that culture.
I don’t really like war imagery; I think it encourages Christians to think of outsiders as ‘enemies’. But I like that he said, get outside the church walls.
He wrapped up his speech with a recap on Islam, followed by:
The Culture War and atheist attack is grave but do not despair — ever — no matter what happens around us. Despair is a sin because it denies the battle is God’s. All he’s asking us to do is fight the good fight, defend truth and overcome evil with good. The results will be in his hands.
Ok, so that was a typical conservative Christian message of encouragement to end with. Chuck Colson is an excellent speaker, imo – he delivered this very well and I expect it was very well received by the pastors.
I understand why this is being blogged about by atheists and emerging Christians. But it would be interesting to see some other people comment on the whole speech, rather than just the AP article about it. I would think there’s a lot for emerging Christians to like in that part about the prison ministry and who Jesus came for. But – evidently – the only way to find out that part even exists is to listen to the speech yourself. Don’t look for it in the secular news articles. Or even in the Baptist Press article. For some reason they left it out too.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
1Thanks for the total review Helen. That was very helpful to see Colson’s comments in context – though I still mostly disagree with his statements.
Most Christians at least are already very aware of Colson’s Prison Ministries. We respect him for that. But that doesn’t change the fact that most of us emergents are very turned off by his “Culture Wars” language. Both the EC and Colson talk about “engaging culture” but Colson thinks of it in terms of a military engagement while we think of it more in terms of a marriage engagement. One is based on attack and enmity while the other is based on love and the recognition that the gospel and the culture in which it is incarnated are inseparable.
BTW, this isn’t the first time Colson has attacked the emerging church. You might be interested in Brian McLaren’s “Open Letter to Chuck Colson” written over three years ago in response to an article by Colson trashing us “postmodern Christians”.
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks for your comment, Mike.
Yes, I realize that Chuck Colson’s comments about the emerging church were very unfair. It doesn’t surprise me to hear this isn’t the first time he’s spoken similarly since I know Christians who think like him have been saying these sorts of things for a while.
I like your marriage vs military engagement analogy although I can imagine someone who thinks like Chuck Colson coming back with “Do not be unequally yoked…” and considering your methods of engagement to be just that.
I thought it was interesting he said Christianity advances by love, but Islam by conquest – yet then used war language and talked about the gates of hell not prevailing. To me that’s consistent with a conquest mindset after all.
Comment by: David H
3Chuck Colson is an impressive man in many ways. And it is hard not to like a conservative Christian who fights for social justice and is so passionate about what he is doing. However, I sometimes get the sinking feeling that he hasn’t changed in some fundemental ways from the man who followed Richard Nixon blindly. When I read the material from the top it seems as if he has merely exchanged a paranoid president for a “true belief,” but both have control of the world as their intended goals.
I don’t think we need look far in this country to find Christians far more intent on killing for what they believe than dying. It isn’t that they are opposed to the sacrificial part, they just prefer it be someone else making that sacriice. And one need only listen to the latest reports out of Iraq and Afghanistan to know that at least some Islamists believe it is holy to die for what they believe.
If you make that lie a foundation of the faith you are preaching to others, you don’t really need to worry about the outside agressors like Moslems, Aetheists and “soft” Christians. Your bigger problem lies within and even the blind can see it.
Comment by: benjamin ady
4and this from wikipedia
So who/which advances by conquest? I’m a bit confused here. Which Muslim nation has spent US$434 BILLION invading a Christian nation?
Comment by: Helen
5David, thanks for your comment. That’s how I felt when I listened to the prisoner part of the talk: it’s hard not to like this man for the way he cares about prisoners and wants to give them hope and new lives.
On the other hand I don’t want to minimize the problems with his approach to Islam, atheists and emerging Christians. Which is what the AP picked up on.
Benjamin, this is exactly what so many people find scary – this blending of conservative theology with foreign policy; this lining up of Bible war imagery with how we treat other nations/groups in the twenty-first century.
I’ve heard people say the problem with Islam is, it sanctified 6th century ways of thinking. But Christians who take the Bible as literal and authoritative go back even further than that – imo.
Comment by: Rachel
6Excellent point, Benjamin! That was one of my first thoughts when I read the Colson excerpts – Colson supported the Iraq War!
I feel the same way, Helen. Chuck Colson has a long history of speaking up for those on the margins and I greatly admire him for that. That’s one of the things that makes his attacks on the emerging church so frustrating and hurtful and confusing. It seems that if he would stop to truly listen to the emerging community, he would see how much we have in common. But that doesn’t seem likely, as his dialogue with McLaren referenced above did not seem to change his mind at all. (BTW, Colson also had a similar back and forth with Jim Wallis a few years back: An Open Letter to Chuck Colson)
The earliest Christians absolutely took the words of Christ literally and authoritatively. The result was that they rejected violence of any kind under any circumstances and they were known for their care of the poor and marginalized. All that changed in the fourth century, when Christianity was used to sanctify Constantine’s vision of holy war. As Tony Campolo says, with the conversion of Constantine, the church became the Moral Majority.
Comment by: Helen
7Rachel wrote:
It makes sense to me that Constantine changed Christianity. And I’ve heard ancient writings which indicate various good things about early Christians.
However, even the Bible indicates differences of opinion on what Jesus meant and the gospel record itself shows Jesus having to remonstrate with one of his closest friends and followers about violence (when Peter cut the soldier’s ear off).
So, the ideal is one thing – the actual reality is often another.
But I think your point is that Constantine made violence ok in a way it never was before, for Christians. And I can well believe that could be true.
I understand that but – with all due respect – I can’t help thinking that it would be best if the emerging church spent less time telling us how frustrated and hurt they are.
It doesn’t seem very Jesus-like to me. It doesn’t indicate the strength of character I think people need to get out there and do what Jesus wants them to do. Did Jesus talk about being misunderstood anywhere near as much as the emerging church does? If he had, how many of his words which people value would never have got said because he was talking about how misunderstood he was instead?
Comment by: David H
8Given Colson’s history I have been troubled by his involvement with prisoners. I have been thinking about this for a couple of days. As the child of a sexual predator who is also a pastor I understand personally that there may be more to working with people on the margins than an over-whelming desire to help.
I don’t know much about Colson other than what I have read. I never met the man. But his fixation on power — either by being close to powerful people or as a spokesman for a religious sect that mixes religious beliefs with national politics — just gives me pause.
A similarity between prisoners and religious zealots is their willingness to take orders. It is something Colson should know well if G. Gordon Liddy is to be believed. In Liddy’s autobiography “Will,” he says Colson plead guilty to a crime that was never committed as part of a deal to testify for the government against the other Nixon conspirators. Liddy saw it as part of Colson’s conversion and said: “… everyone who ever knew this guy is in trouble. If he would run over his grandmother for the president, what would he do for Jesus.”
I can’t help wondering if there is something more to Colson than simply wanting to help the downtrodden. Especially when he can’t seem to muster a lot of love for certain other sectors of the world. Maybe that is just the cynic in me talking.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
9Helen, this is a conversation that many emergent types have among ourselves – about how we need to move past negativity and deconstruction to something more positive. And I agree with that, but at the same time new people are joining this conversation all the time and they’re all coming with their own hurts and baggage and often bitterness that they need to work through first before we tell them to just “get over it” and start being more constructive. In a lot of ways the EC is like a post-evangelical recovery group – there are people who have been fired from churches (like me and Julie) or have been rejected by friends or family because of their questions and their views and they need a safe place to tell their story and to heal.
So anyhow, I agree that the EC needs to spend less time complaining about being misunderstood and just get on with things, but I don’t want to rush people through their process of healing either.
Another angle on this is that the EC spends a lot of time defending ourselves against misrepresentation because we know there are others out there who desperately need to know that this kind of Christianity exists and they might not find it if all they ever hear about it is what people like Colson tell them.
Comment by: Helen
10David H, you might be right, but I tend to think that being in prison himself gave Chuck Colson a deep affinity for prisoners he’s never forgotten and he genuinely wants to help them deal with the horrors of it.
Mike, thanks – yes, I understand what you’re saying. All those things are considerations.
I think what bothers me is when people I perceive to be leaders seem to be role-modelling ‘let’s talk about how misunderstood we are’ rather than ‘let’s move on’. I think it’s up to leaders to balance a) validating the past experiences of new people in order to help them heal b) role-modelling a positive constructive approach c) getting the word out (without whining – sometimes it’s not what you say but the way you say it) that the emerging church has something different to offer.
It might actually work in your favor to have high visibility people dissing you. Some listeners will be curious and think “Hmmm…the enemy of my enemy must be my friend! I’m going to find out more about this emerging church thing” Don’t people say all publicity is good publicity?
Comment by: Dan Barnett
11Helen, Thanks for the link to your post. I think I understand from your paraphrases where he is coming from, but also cringe at some of his points. On the war-talk: It is vital to know that we christians are in a war. We are God’s instruments to defeat Satan. It sounds bad when you say that the people outside the church are the enemy. I agree with your take on that. We have to remember that the battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of Darkness(paraphrasing Eph. 6:12). I don’t like how he makes atheists the enemies and threats to our mission as Christians. I believe they are part of our mission. If we are not in conversation with them to either better understand how to evangelize them and ultimately to lead them to a saving knowledge of Christ, then our conversations(in my opinion) are vain. We aren’t left here on Earth to make friends, although we are first to Love God and love people, we are left here to make disciples as was Jesus last directions to his followers. Thanks again for the link.
Comment by: Helen
12Thanks for your comment, Dan.
Comment by: Doreen
13Helen wrote that Colson said
I couldn’t get past that to try and comprehend the rest of what he said. I’ll go with Augustine: “If you think you know God, that which you know is not God.”
I have to also say that I looked into volunteering for Colson’s prison ministry. The faith statement you have to sign is so restrictive, I could not qualify. (And being openly gay was only 1 disqualifier.)
Comment by: Dan Barnett
14His prison ministry is an evangelism ministry with service being the tool. He isn’t going to use people in his evangelism who don’t hold his beliefs. I’m not defending him, I’m just showing how that complaint seems invalid.
Comment by: Rachel
15Dan, that seems to me like a rather harsh thing to say. Personally I did not interpret Doreen’s comment as a complaint. I heard it as a simple statement of her experience. Although I can understand why she might want to complain about finding herself excluded from a ministry and service opportunity. At any rate, it doesn’t seem respectful to call someone’s position “invalid.”
Comment by: Dan Barnett
16Honestly, I couldn’t think f the right word and that one popped in my head. My main point was the reasons for exclusivity.
Comment by: Helen
17Doreen, I think it’s neat that you’re interested in ministering to prisoners.
Maybe there’s a group out there less restrictive, who would love to have you join them.
Or maybe you’ve found other ways to minister which keep you fully occupied.
What I’ve found – and this is an observation based on my life, not a criticism of Doreen or Rachel in any way – is that if I find a closed door in the form of a statement I can’t go along with, there’s no need to keep pushing against it because there are so many other open doors.
I see where Dan is coming from – if you’re primarily declaring a message then you need the people who join with you to believe in that message. But I didn’t sense Doreen was exactly complaining either – she might have simply been making an observation.
Comment by: Rachel
18Well said, Helen!
Comment by: Helen
19Thanks Rachel!
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
20Thanks Helen, I wasn’t complaining at all. I’m not about complaints, I’m about change.
Fortunately there ARE other prison ministries out there, where someone, for example, who isn’t sure if they believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, can still visit & minister to prisoners.
Comment by: Helen
21Hi Doreen, yes, I don’t think of you as a complainer :)
I’m glad there are prison ministries which people can participate in who don’t meet the requirements of the prison fellowship program.
Comment by: samlcarr
22Helen, sorry i’m really late into this discussion. I visited after reading your exchange with Ivan at jesuscree – who happens to be a friend of mine…
I find Colson quite fascinating. I think he is extremely calculative as any good politician should be and is also very right wing in his conservatism, and this is slightly masked by the ‘orison ministry’ that is real and well done in its own right.
The worldview approach is the most fascinating aspect. There is only one right way to view the world and this is it!
Comment by: Helen
23Thanks for your comment Sam (?). Ivan seems like a neat guy. It was fun to run into him on Jesus Creed.
I find people fascinating in general :)
Yes, Colson is one of the key players in the Religious Right, so it seems to me.
Comment by: nathan
24Emerging Church=The New Rightist Whipping Boy
Gotta have an enemy or their is no purpose.
Comment by: Helen
25Hi Nathan, the Emerging Church does seem to get criticized a lot by the conservative Christians.