photo credit: mnadi

It’s not that you have a place “around the table” of Christianity, for there is no table. There’s a person, Jesus Christ. We don’t gather around, rally around, an abstract idea or a metaphorical table but a person. He is the what we gather and rally around. We should then ask ourselves whether we have a place around Jesus to discuss the things of Christianity, not whether we have a place at an abstract “table.”

Several semesters ago during the presidential forum at Southeastern (SEBTS) the question was asked of President Danny Akin whether Arminians had a place at the table of Southern Baptists. His response was to the effect that if you can affirm the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M), you have a seat around the Southern Baptist table. You see within the BF&M is contained the basics (and not so basics) of what it is to be a Southern Baptist and on many counts what it means generally to be a Christian. What Akin is driving at is if you cannot afirm along with those with whom you wish to fit in that which they affirm, you have no place around “the table.” A place at the table is contigent upon like affirmation.

So, to find out if you have “a place at the table of Christianity,” ask if you affirm the basic teaching(s) of Christianity: the gospel. I am a sinner in need of a savior. Jesus Christ is that savior. From there, there is much to learn as the whole of the Bible testifies to; but starting here, one gains a seat around Jesus Christ whom we love and worship. He’s the around-which we should be looking to gather.

It is with this understanding of Christianity that we can proceed to enjoy the multiethnic beauty of Christians that make up his body. One musn’t have completed seminary to have a voice. Neither must one be Caucasian, nor must one be non-Caucasian. You gather around him because you love him, and you there (read: at him) find others around him much (un-)like yourself. What this all means completely I’m not quite sure; but that’s OK. It’s a good place to re-orient one’s thinking to.

(Reading The Mission of God has inspired this post [Chapter 1]. Yes, you should own it. Thanks, JBA!)

Below are Akin’s thoughts prefacing an article which he included in his email:

The secular media and some pollsters are: 1) arguing that many evangelicals are considering voting for Senator Barack Obama and 2) attempting to provide a rationale for why they could morally justify voting for him. Attached is a lengthy and compelling argument by Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University that puts to rest such “foolish talk.” Read this thoughtful response and see if you can find it morally conscionable to vote for “a president of death.”

I would likewise encourage you to read Professor George’s “thoughtful response” which you can find in-full on Dr. Akin’s blog at the following address: http://betweenthetimes.com/2008/10/14/why-faithful-evangelicals-cannot-vote-for-barack-obama.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He serves on the President’s Council on Bioethics and on UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST). George is a Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey.

With Dr. Akin’s permission to “send it to whomever” I have created a PDF which you can use to attach his entire email and the article by Professor George to an email of your own and/or to print to share with others.

Download PDF (48kb)

I was listening very carefully when C.J. preached. Sometimes at a conference like this people are very enthusiastic and demonstrative in their response to the preaching. But tonight as C.J. preached, there was a holy silence in this room. There was not much stirring because we were standing on holy ground. I’ll never, ever look at the Garden of Gethsemane the same again.

Download the entire message at the SEBTS chapel schedule page.

Here are links to Akin’s paper:
PDF
Online (Google Documents)