We have a trumpet vine we planted on our back fence that began as a sprout but now lives as a spread. It has engulfed the entirety of the back forty. Our intent in planting the greenery was admirable, but we did not anticipate unintended consequences. Most maladies do not engulf us but tend to creep up on us. Many times the onset is not caused by some surreptitious sneak attack or even a deliberate infiltration. Negligence often leads to carelessness. Reality suggests that unless some quick action is taken to trim back the trumpets we’ll lose the fence as well.
My entry into the blogging world ( here ) was precipitated by what I saw as a creeping malady that is engulfing the biblical identity of the church. Pragmatism, modernism, postmodernism, pluralism, consumerism, and even cultural captivity have led to a view of the church that is often deficient and insufficient. The solutions to such creeping suffocation in the life and purpose of the local church have ranged the gamut from parachurch organizations to a call for Revolution. Such a statement does not devalue the ministry impact of some parachurch organizations in their stated mission (Focus on the Family, the Navigators, and Campus Crusade for Christ come to mind). It does suggest a necessity for such parachurch offspring to fashion doctrinal statements that are broad enough to appeal across the spectrum. Parachurch organizations also exist at times because local churches out of modernistic impulse became a farm system which gave away missional activities to other entities that could do the task more effectively and efficiently. This is the heart of David E. Fitch’s tome The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism and other Modern Maladies ( here ).
“The main thesis of this book is that evangelicalism by virtue of its marriage to modernity has not only failed to engage the current cultural shifts of postmodernity, it has indeed structured our churches out of meaningful existence (17, Fitch).
Although Fitch does miss the mark at times, his thesis does demonstrate this is the template many churches adapt and adopt. This is not the time for a heresy hunting expedition to diss parachurch organizations and parody them as a bane to the existence of the local church. Their intention is well-meaning. The unintended consequences, however, are often catastrophic – in some cases to go so far as to imply the church is not an indispensable part of God’s plan for redeeming the world.
I personally do not believe this was a malicious attempt by the evangelical community to create the condition. In many ways it has happened by default. It reminds me of David Well’s statement in his classic confrontation with creeping theological illiteracy No Place for Truth (here):
I have not the slightest doubt that my attempt at doing this will appear quite ridiculous. I will look to some like the foolish dog that squats on the front lawn, and to everyone’s displeasure, bays at the moon. But bay I must.
Russell Moore’s contention on his last audio post (part6 ) drives my point to the freeway of theological thought. He explains how throughout a generation Baptists have devalued the importance of baptism. Then shock and awe appears when you meekly suggest baptism might be important to the identity of the church. Others immediately surmise you are a Landmarker.
Part of the condition created by the inadvertent deconstruction of the local church is a suspicion and at times derision of those that attempt to craft a more definitive ecclesiology. Shots across the bow are quickly unleashed if anyone attempts to launch into a deeper stream of emphasis in the currents of a local Baptist church. Many times this is a sincere attempt to suggest such emphases devalue and even derail missional and evangelistic enterprises (a notion I disagree with but do notice). Some of this is a postmodern perspective that criticizes such attempts to suggest there is a clear word from God. At times it may be a subtle jab that hints it is an act of illegitimacy and irrelevancy to contend about certain points of doctrine. Discernment is often seen as intolerance about minutia or tertiary issues. Pronouncements from propositional truth (the Bible) are quickly corrected with a call to tone it down because such strong statements seem arrogant and might hurt someone’s feelings. Experiences are often called as Exhibit A to tear down theological constructs. My aunt Suzie was one of those so don’t you dare go there.
My Father-in-law was a United Pentecostal preacher. I loved and admired him. I tried to honor and respect him, but I also contended against false teachings that could spread like a trumpet vine. His embrace of modalism devalued the Trinitarian nature of God. Modalism is the concept that God reveals Himself in three modes at different times. He was the Father, then the Son, and now the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. This teaching spilled over into baptism. Baptism was instituted in the days of Jesus – so should be only done in the name of Jesus. Baptism was also necessary for regeneration. Now I had hearty debates but nothing of the kind that Spurgeon brought forth ( Spurgeon). He definitely pulled no punches.
There are those that suggest to correct such errant views of baptism is the height of intolerance. Yet a refusal to engage a man I deeply loved and admired would strike at the heart of the gospel. Many times the discussions that evolve over doctrinal issues are not just semantics. Instead they are contending for a sure and secure foundation for the faith God has given us to guard. It is why I eschew the label ‘evangelical’ and embrace the name ‘Baptist’. Again I may be baying at the moon but I tend to somewhat agree with D. G. Hart’s assertion in Deconstructing Evangelism here that
Instead of trying to fix evangelicalism, born again Protestants would be better off if they abandoned the category altogether. The reason is not that evangelicalism is wrong in its theology, ineffective in reaching the lost, or undiscerning in its reflections on society and culture. It may be, but these matters are beside the point. Evangelicalism needs to be relinquished as a religious identity because it does not exist. In fact, it is the wax nose of twentieth century American Protestantism.
Behind this proboscis, which has been nipped and tucked by savvy religious leaders, academics, and pollsters, is a face void of any discernible features. The nonexistence of an evangelical identity may prove to be, to borrow a phrase from Noll, the real scandal of modern evangelicalism, for despite the vast amounts of energy and resources expended on the topic, and not withstanding the ever growing volume of literature on the movement, evangelicalism is little more than a construction. This book is a deconstruction.”
My point is not to argue about the need to ban the term (that debate awaits another day). Instead I just want to emphasize the downside of the term “evangelical” up against a more specific doctrinal Christianity. Of course Hart’s contention has been met by the accusations he is stark, raving mad. He is not, however, the only one to come to such conclusions. Lewis B. Smedes, the Reformed ethicist at Fuller Seminary, said “evangelicalism is a fantasy.” His contention was that it was the local church that was created to fulfill a mandate not some movement or coalition. Likewise, Nathan Hatch opined that “there is no such thing as evangelicalism” and that in his estimation it is “problematic for theological integrity.” Iain Murray demonstrates how the attempt to forge Christian unity from the 1950’s to 2000 consisted of two broad movements: ecumenism and evangelicalism. The mantra repeated at the time was a centrist claim for cooperation without compromise. Murray does an admirable job of demonstrating how evangelical concessions soon seriously weakened the biblical basis for unity. A John 17:21 type of “that the world may believe You sent me” is a unity of people who receive all Christ’s words; a unity in truth which unregenerate men hate but sanctifies those who believe; a unity in Christ which binds his members together in love (as the whole context of John 17 shows).
Timothy George proposes that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is constantly pulled between the poles of identity and adaptability (George 1993, 277). An exclusivity in either of the poles leads to isolation in the former and theological desolation in the latter. The call for a distinct Baptist identity is not a call to dismiss missional activity and hunch down in fundamentalist fortresses and sing Kum Ba Yah until Jesus comes. Neither does a caricature of missional and even Evangelical Christians mean they are affiliates of John Shelby Spong. It’s really about a trimming of the trumpet vine. The discussion at hand is what kind of church if any will God use. Some suggest the church is irrelevant and unnecessary. Others believe a complete overhaul is needed. Many proclaim missional theology merged with postmodern theology is the way to go. I both defer and differ. I defer in order not to make unwarranted charges about the motives or intent of those that believe differently than me. I do want to bay at the moon for just a bit. Excuse my yelp but I do believe that what is needed is a healthy dose of an antidote to what ails us. It’s my contention that a return to both biblical and Baptist distinctives is the best prescription for this day and any other day. I know some might suggest such an outdated suggestion belongs in the vault with Training Union and BYPU. I just wish we still had training union and we might not be in the identity mess we’re in today.
We need both roots and shoots to allow the church to be at its best. Roots are needed to draw deep into a fervent relationship with Jesus Christ expressed in the healthy expression of a local church. Shoots are needed to expand as local churches fulfill the Great Commission and the Great Commandment. There’s more to say but I must conclude – I have some pruning to do.
This is good stuff. I wonder when we will learn that we need our identity in the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Himself.
When we violate those two for a man made identity, we miss God and His mission completely.
I really enjoyed reading this one!
Brother Joe,
Roots and Shoots! Very well said!
“Pronouncements from propositional truth (the Bible) are quickly corrected with a call to tone it down because such strong statements seem arrogant and might hurt someone’s feelings. Experiences are often called as Exhibit A to tear down theological constructs. My aunt Suzie was one of those so don’t you dare go there.”
Is that not where we find ourselves whenever a debate turns to “this is what the Scripture says”? Once a statement is made which basis is found in scripture, it seems someone always responds with a personal experience as to why the statement must be incorrect.
Blessings,
Tim
Joe,
Much upon which to reflect. I fundamentally concede that ‘evangelical’ is thoroughly ‘deconstructed’ if you will–and sadly, much of the movement’s heart along with it.
The problem is, there is little place to turn. No one yet seems to have coined a new term that potentially makes the status of a ‘hook’ Do you have any ideas?
At least one theologian of late uses repeatedly ‘free church believers’ which, I find, possesses the right tools to frame the shed. ‘FCB’ is concise, flows and it is wed to faith community. That is, it rightfully possesses a built-in ecclessiological hammer, like the NT “saints” “disciples” “Christians” “The way” etc. Because it is wed to a specific ecclesiology, however, it draws attention to itself as ‘exclusivistic’ or now even ‘isolationistic.’
Hence, even though I am seriously considering embracing this term as one I believe captures better the ecclesia of the NT, we must be prepared to exhaustively distinguish FCB from the protestant Visible Church Catholic Dagg referred to–Landmark. That will be the most formidable challenge of those like my self who appreciate certain theologians and are ready to embrace this label.
Grace Joe. And thanks for pushing us to think a little out loud. With that, i am…
Peter
Thank you, Joe, for this fine piece.
Tim G:
I think the major problem is we have collective amnesia.
Tim R:
I’ve thought about my own tendency to “trumpet” my experience as the reason for my belief. I don’t think such is always illegitimate – but there is a more sure and certain path suggested by Peter which is of course men of old moved by the Holy Spirit to write Holy Writ.
Peter:
Enlightening thoughts and much to chew on. I have pondered the dilemma that such rootlessness of deconstruction brings and have not yet seized completely a term. Your suggestion perhaps could catch on as a collective hook.
joe,
you’re smart.
david
joe,
also, a couple of distinctives that are not being left out are that baptists love fellowships over meals.
and, sb pastors love fried chicken.
david
Joe,
A good word….
I know you have some ties to farming :), so this root thing is a great picture….seems like our Lord liked this approach as well.
Makes me proud (in the best of ways, of course) to be a fellow West Texan.
Go Horns!
-Chris
Malcolm:
Thanks for stopping by. I want to commend you over these past few days for your Christian demeanor and decorum. You have demonstrated the fruit of the spirit
David:
I expected you to offer me a chicken dinner :-0.
Blessings bro.
Joe
Chris:
All this agrarian analogies and favorable comments about West Texas and then you blow it with some remark about Bevo!
Hey gang – pastoral duties await, I’ll catch up later.
Joe,
Good work in expressing your perspective. My issues are not necessarily in your perspective – as a Baptist I agree with 99% of your expressed views. I guess my issues arises in your beliefs as expressed as absolutes.
As a statement of perspective, I do not hold to a Kierkegaardian existentialism. Truth is not stated by the individual perspective, it is revealed in a person who said “I am the Way, The Truth, and the Life.” This same God instructed His people to write down His truth in a Word that is true for it is God who said it. There is no “private interpretation” of Scripture, for the Holy Spirit inspires all of us. The problem does not rest in God – the problem rests in us, depraved humanity attempting to read and interpret the Word and then applying it to our our daily lives. Even within our own churches there is diversity of thought surrounding various extraneous doctrines and have been for hundreds of years. Even within those people labeled “Baptist” there are a mixture of interpretations that center around the same book yet different views such as Missionary, Free Will, Independent, Southern, American, etc., etc.
The infallibility of God is such that someone is right, and someone is wrong. Someone is practicing something “spot on” before God, while another is not. No problem with me so far. Witness I am not talking about those doctrines that are absolutely required to receive God’s forgiveness, His grace and mercy: Christ came, lived, died, and rose again. He is unique in that by only He can forgive sins, and grant mercy to sinners and no other – He is exclusive. Post-modernism would deny the exclusivity of Christ, holding in a god of one’s own imagination. My issue arises in the absolute certitude in terms of those doctrines you emphasize, and those you do not.
In example, the Baptist distinctive of congregational polity is a distinctive which seems to be disappearing. It has certainly disappeared in larger to mega-size churches, and is only recognized in a miniscule way by our conventions. In example, when a vote arises before the body of the Convention to describe/define the status of the BF&M arises at the convention, the establishment guys go apoplectic. Are not Baptist distinctives such that would allow a convention of messengers to give a non-binding “mind of the convened” direction to the entities without caterwauling? Could it be that we are losing this distinctive to post-modern tendancies or the desire to “protect” the masses from something?
What about Sunday? It seems that the BF&M (in a well-documented change) weakened our historical Baptist understanding of Sunday being a Christian holy day devoted to worship and rest. And yet I dare say that most of us preachers slip out of Sunday meeting, and drive like crazy men to beat someone to our favorite Sunday feast place. We curse the places that would take away our flocks so that can do mundane work, all the while they are taking our order from us so we don’t have to cook or do dishes on Sunday. What would our Baptist forbears say about that?
Now here is the crux. You cannot say that any one of these historical distinctives are unscriptural – our Baptist forbears believed in them all. Yet I submit to you that perhaps you pick and choose which one which one you will follow, and which one you reject by your actions and words. And by that then you are indeed in error.
Anyone of us can be in sin at any time. We need each other to “spur us toward good works.” While I believe strongly in those things that are Baptist distinctives, I am not a post-modern because I may come at a distinctive in a another way. In all ways let us glorify God in all that we do.
Sorry for the long post.
Rob
Rob:
Thanks for an intriguing post. I appreciate your well-thought out response. Perhaps some of my confusion stems from exactly how I am to respond to your point of view. I’m not certain how this squares with my concept of pruning but I will at least make an attempt to interact with a couple of points. If I’m out in left field (not usually a metaphor that flies my way) please forgive my errant response.
Postmodern deconstruction is an atmosphere we all breathe whether knowingly or through its usual subversive attacks. The distinctives you mention are both ones I personally cherish and attempt to practice. It’s also an example of how one can affirm the BF&M 2000 and see it as a minimum statement. I completely concur with your concept of the Lord’s Day, and I believe the BF&M does not go far enough in attaching value to this concept. I asked an innovative church planter one time about church on Saturday night and the practice of Sabbath in individual lives. His response was I’ve never even thought about it. It’s this pragmatic and unthoughtful adoption of current practices that devalues our biblical heritage. I’m not saying I’m agin it – I’m just wondering how it ought to be fleshed out.
I also agree with your view on congregational government and am set to abide by the view of the convention. I also don’t think caterwauling is an adequate description of the response. I think the statement adopted was too vague and nonspecific to really mean much of anything.
Certitude is not always the vice others consider it to be. Why study to show ourselves approved if we are not going to arrive at some place of solid terra firma? How can we dig down and build our lives on the rock if we think the concepts are all tertiary and shifting sand? I’m not advocating an arrogant triumphalism that dismisses hermeneutical principles, and I do propose a humble orthodoxy. It’s just that it seems the whole gamut of what Baptists seem to consider as distinctives now seem to blow away with what is considered gracious tolerance.
Blessings,
Joe
Pingback: The Back Story to the Great Commission Resurgence « Provocations & Pantings