I would be a bit embarrassed if we were not one of the first to promote this excellent new tome that came forth from the efforts of the Center for Theological Research and the Smith Center for Leadership Development at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Thomas White, Jason B. Duesing and Malcolm Yarnell III edit a book longing for the recovery of Baptist identity and integrity entitled Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches.
The book endeavors to examine how current trends and events have led to a loss of Baptist identity and purpose. The work also attempts to demonstrate how maintaining or regaining the integrity of the local church does not render the ecclesia irrelevant or ineffective. In light of Willow Creek’s recent research that retooling and revisioning needs to occur, perhaps Baptist leaders might be more prone to take a second look at biblical ecclesiology as a corrective to pragmatic marketing techniques. Essays on church membership, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church discipline, and the priesthood of the believers are written by a host of scholars including Mark Dever, Daniel Akin, Malcolm Yarnell, and Emir Caner.
The introduction, ably done by Thomas White, mentions five major challenges to Baptist ecclesiology. It serves as a reminder to some and an eye-opening corrective to others. The challenges run the gamut from a culture of extreme individualism to the emergence of the megachurch. Let me leave you with a quote and a suggestion. I suggest you take time to order this collection and chew on its contents. I am certain not all on the plate will appeal to every reader, but no one will go away without much to digest. The quote might engender a bit of discussion and even a quibble here and there. Still, the conversation over the proffered offering will be well worth the time:
Perhaps the biggest challenge confronting Baptist churches is the “seeker sensitive” movement. This movement positively seeks to remove unneeded barriers to reaching people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time, most seeker-focused churches do not practice church discipline. Few things could be less seeker-oriented than the act of publicly disciplining a member for improper behavior. Most, if not all, seeker churches do not practice the strictest form of Communion, limited to members only, and many do not practice Communion with like faith and practice, commonly called close Communion. Seeker churches tend to practice open Communion, with a few not making any statement at all about the Lord’s Supper being for believers only. Restrictions placed on the Lord’s Table could come across as not being seeker-friendly to many visitors. Controversial doctrines like believer’s baptism by immersion do not receive extensive discussion in seeker-sensitive churches. This clearly biblical doctrine historically has been very important to Baptist tradition but does not fit nicely within the seeker-sensitive tradition.
Bon Appetit!
Joe,
The entire quote that you cited paints with broad, gigantic brush strokes. Over and over again I see words like, “most,” “few,” and, “many.” Statements of sincere opinion, to be sure. But based upon what empirical evidence?
I pastor what most in our area would call a seeker-friendly church. We are the only church in our area (that I know of) that has actively practiced church discipline. Twice (almost three times) in our shore five-year existence.
No, we do not practice members-only communion … but I don’t believe this rejection of this tenet of the Landmarkers to be a bad thing. Are you proposing that such is the way of biblical communion? Now THAT would be interesting.
And I’m still trying to figure out when and where baptism by immersion became a “controversial doctrine.” I hear statements to that effect often these days (a few times on this blog), but am unsure of their basis.
Again, I fear that these and other “blanket statements” like them are often spoken without real personal experience of the context being evaluated. From your description, this sounds like just another book that tries to lay all of the ills of the modern Baptist church at the feet of the “seeker” movement … something of an “old dish” warmed over.
Just to get the quibble going … ;)
while this small bit from the book sure sounds sensational and tantalizing I’m not sure, based only on it, that it hits the target. (I think it really depends on what “seeker sensitive” means according to the authors. Does it refer to churches with contemporary music and a pastor who wears Hawaiian shirts with Dockers? Does it refer to young missional churches with rock bands or DJ’s? or does it refer to liberal churches with liberal theology?)
of course the seeker sensitive movement does not practice church discipline as a whole. certainly church discipline is not a recognized trade mark of those types of churches.
the thing I find curious is that this snip from the book seems to imply this is not equally a problem in traditional Baptist churches. it makes me wonder if the intent of the book is truly about revival or is it a slightly masked charge against “seeker sensitive” churches.
are the traditional churches equally rebuked? they ought to be…because the seeds of the apostasy we see now was sown before guys like me were born.
Geoff:
A reminder this is the introduction and the opening statement (omitted from this quote) suggests the challenges mentioned are undocumented in the introduction. Documentation occurs in the following essays. Much scholarly documentation you might agree or disagree with.
I appreciate your efforts at church discipline – the lack of this practice stems from a host of issues that plague contemporary ecclesiology. Gregory Wills documents this precipitous decline that seemed to emerge with force in the 1950′s among SBC churches. It’s an interesting chapter on development and decline. R. Stanton Norman has an essay on the reestablishment of proper church discipline.
I must admit that the county seat church I pastor does not yet see the biblical imperative for this practice. We’ve established a practice of redemptive intervention and confrontation, but we have not yet made the step to needed correction. It’s a long row to hoe, but one worth working towards.
Thomas White’s essay on a Baptist’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper documents the practice of the Lord’s Supper without needed instruction in both a seeker-sensitive church and a very conservative church. The argument in his essay is not against offering the Lord’s Supper to those of like faith and practice (transient communion), but a nonrestricted view of the Lord’s Supper (Open Communion) that allows any believer.
Emir Caner’s contribution delineates five competing theories among those that partake of the Lord’s Supper. The views run the gamut from those that offer it to any who choose to do so (Covenant Church in Houston, A Baptist church) to locked communion which is open only to church members. Caner quickly dissects the view of my favorite Anabaptist, Balthashar Hubmaier, who wrote extensively on the Lord’s Supper. Hubmaier outlines the characteristics of a meaningful Lord’s Supper opening with the idea that it is a corporate rather than individual experience. I think that is part and parcel of the premise that Thomas White offers in the introduction about extreme individualism.
There are some examples in the text of the move away from biblical baptism. I do think you would find the reading worth your time. I always appreciate your points of view and your tireless work for the gospel. Blessings,
Joe
IF:
I agree wholeheartedly that this part of Baptist and need I say biblical identity needs to be recaptured. I think none of the authors would quibble with your assessment.
It’s interesting to me the Malcolm Yarness has edited a book that tells us we need to reclaim biblical faithfulness and integrity in our churches but spoke out against a completely non binding resolution at the last convention that sought to raise awareness of the need for integrity and church discipline, claiming from the floor that it would be taking a swipe at church autonomy.
This I don’t understand.
Brother Ronk,
First, you may need to re-evaluate your sources. Malcolm Yarness has never spoke out against a completely non binding resolution at the last convention that sought to raise awareness of the need for integrity and church discipline, claiming from the floor that it would be taking a swipe at church autonomy. On the other hand, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell has argued that a resolution on church discipline that does not clearly define the primacy practice of being Baptist would open the door to baptism of infants.
:^)
Blessings,
Tim
Joe,
Hope you are well. I have to say the empirically jaded description Dr. White offers compared to the more aggressively ‘seeker-oriented’ congregations which I have known in my own travels, resonates well with my limited, anecdotal experience. In a strange way, I suppose, I’ve been many times to the Church(s) he describes.
With you, I applaud Pastors like Geoff who manage to be ‘seekerly’ without sacrificing essentials in recasting local church discipline for the modern church. Nonetheless, his exception should not distract us from the rule Dr. White makes.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Joe,
Thanks for the brief review….. as I was reading John Hammett’s description of the “nature of those who were to compose the church”, I believe he has at least dusted off the real essence of ecclesiology by the power of the Spirit.
He said, “While believer’s baptism was the most visible mark of the Baptists, the more fundamental issue for the early Baptists and Anabaptists was the nature of those who were to compose the church. Leon McBeth says, “perhaps the origin of Baptists is best explained as a search for a pure church. They sought a church composed of ‘visible saints’, that is true believers.”
While baptism conducted by immersion is certainly without a doubt what the Christian church administrates, I believe that Hammett’ description is even deeper to the distinctive of Baptist ecclesiology in that those that are ‘born again’ compose the church and are being baptized. Baptism, not part of the Gospel, but servant to the Gospel.
Blessings,
Chris
Right, brother Rodgers. It was the resolutions committee who claimed that this was a swipe at church autonomy. Sorry for misrepresenting Dr. Yarnell.
However, I do not see his reasoning as viable. Need we quote the BFM on baptism when we resolve to have integrity in church membership? I believe that all at the convention who voted are members of Southern Baptist churches. I don’t know any paedo-baptists in our convention. Need a resolution be a treatise?
I hate to jump in here, but Ronk is right. The fact that Dr. Yarnell lended his voice against the resolution on integrity in church membership raises interesting questions.
1. If Dr. Yarnell was concerned about creating a loophole for paedo-baptists, could he not have offered an amendment to the resolution? I am sure it would have been well received.
2. If Dr. Yarnell is going to the trouble to edit a book on this subject, then he could have at least supported a resolution along the same lines at the convention, could he not?
3. If Dr. Yarnell is giving leadership to a book that takes the time to take a swipe at Seeker Sensitive churches, then could he have also directed his rebuke to the Resolutions Committee of the SBC that favors church autonomy over honesty?
In reality, I would likely agree with a lot in this book, although I think that the communion argument is one made on the basis of inference and history, instead of sound biblical arguments. Nevertheless, someone must recognize that the Seeker churches of the SBC have been born from the so-called “traditional” churches of the SBC that were the seeker churches of the 1950′s. Is church discipline practiced in those churches? Are there membership classes, or do they accept members the day they walk the aisle? Are there baptism classes? Is there discipleship? Do they actually know their members, or are they names on a list? I spent my teen years in a large traditional Baptist church in a small Southern town that did not accept alien immersion – it had Landmark tendencies, while not being Landmark. Yet, when a deacon and a deacon’s wife had an affair, it was all swept under the rug and no one made a peep. On the surface, this church would be lauded by many reading this blog. Just under the surface, it was a mess.
The problem is that younger pastors have consistently gotten mixed messages from older Baptists on these issues. They tell us to reform and return to our clear Baptist identity, yet we see that being rarely practiced in traditional churches, nor do we see that Baptist identity articulated in any agreed upon form.
Balthashar Hubmaier would have an absolute heart attack if he walked into a traditional Baptist church today. Said church does not seem to draw the scholarly gaze of Dr. Yarnell and his friends. Maybe we should get the log out of our own eye before we go removing the speck from others. For example, the baptism to member ratio in the SBC is something like 1:44. That is not the problem of seeker churches, nor is it because of a faulty view of baptism (necessarily). Rather, it is because we have people in our churches who are not regenerated, and if they are, they do not take the commands of the Lord seriously. And if they do, they do not understand the empowering with the Holy Spirit that is required to be a faithful witness.
And, lest anyone think that I am an apologist for Seeker churches, nothing could be further from the truth. Our church practices church discipline, discipleship, membership and baptism classes and interviews, and I preach 40 minute biblical messages where I read and exposit long passages of Scripture every week. There is much more I could say on that, but we are NOT a seeker church. I just think that we need our scholars to begin to assess the faulty theology and broken practices of the vast majority of SBC churches. When will that happen? If these issues are addressed, I would love to buy the book.
Peter:
I think you are absolutely spot on. The ecumenical attitude of many today prohibit any sort of biblical discussion about Baptist history and heritage. It’s impossible to continue in the free church tradition and advocate a regenerate church membership without church discipline.
The WSJ had a recent essay that makes church discipline appear autocratic and abusive. There are a multitude of reasons we do not follow the biblical admonitions. It’s definitely worth discussion.
Chris:
Our goal is to acknowledge what God desires: a believer\’s church. This edition prescribes some practices that attempts to bring this issue to the forefront. Inherent in this discussion is the practice of biblical baptism.
Alan,
You bring up many good points. I believe that most Baptist churches fail to practice church discipline because most members don’t really see sin as really all that sinful, and most members have a very low view of God because of the first point.
Baptist historical distinctive and integrity may need to be recovered, or at least identified, but that is not what will change the heart or bring about a regenerate church membership. Frankly, I don’t even think it will help. But on the other hand, when the Baptist realizes the utter sinfulness of sin and in turn recognizes the magnificent life giving majesty of our Holy God, then and only then will those seated in the church pews/seats begin to equal the numbers that are forwarded to the convention.
That change will occur when preachers preach the Gospel of God at every opportunity! I actually had one pastor in a meeting over a year ago get so fed up with my ranting on the Gospel, that he said “I know what the Gospel is…and I don’t need to hear about it all the time”. Well, needless to say, I continue to pray for him and his flock, because his flock suffers from law keeping,…trying to get things just right,….making sure everyone is doing their punch list….working for God like a whirlwind. But, the more they work, the more bitter they get….why, because the Gospel needs to be in front of them everyday to lead them back to love, as we all need.
God help us to catch a clue as Paul was so eager to teach….. “It’s the Gospel stupid”
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Joe,
Your right,….these guys should not have difficulty bringing baptism to the surface. This is not so difficult of a subject though….As Christ births His church and they do not baptize, that is clear disobedience. I particularly love the practice of baptism because it is a blessing to witness the believer participate and begin to understand his or her life in Christ.
When the church decides to put other definitions to baptism is when all eyes move from Christ and begin to gaze on the one being baptized or in some instances even to the quality of the “corporate body” doing the baptizing. I hope these guys dig into and address the “Christ” meaning of baptism and how it serves the gospel.
Blessings,
Chris
Ronk and Alan:
This discussion strikes at the heart of Baptist polity. Any convention resolution only states the heart of the messengers at the moment. The need for precision is a matter of ongoing discussion and really part of the heart of the issue. Note that these essays stem from a Baptist Distinctive Conference held in September of 2006. The context should note the concern is for Baptist Distinctives is ongoing at SWBTS (a yearly conference) and the desire to politicize it based on actions at a later date take away from its import.
The key to discussion is to be on the same page as we analyze the arguments of the authors. It’s a cry for biblical distinctives across the spectrum that are not isolated to the seeker movement solely. It’s a cry for distinctives among Baptist churches. I think the vast majority would agree there is much to be done.
I understand and concur with the need for restoration of biblical identity. I do not think the divide is as wide as some think it seems between younger and older pastors. I would hope some ‘older pastors’ might chime in with their convictions. I know this 46 year old pastor desires to see biblical fidelity and integrity. I’m in one of those churches that used to cover things up, and we are moving to accountability and integrity.
I cannot help but think of Jonathan Edwards in his desire to clean up the Halfway Covenant. His desire was for a regenerate church. His members thought otherwise and overwhelming voted to remove him from the pulpit.
I do know Dr Yarnell personally, and I’ve never seen him be anything but both gracious and firm. I do not speak for him, but I will tell you I strongly supported a resolution at the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention that addressed regenerate church membership.
Bart Barber chaired the committee that adopted a resolution that stated a desire “to renew their commitment to regenerate church membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members of local churches,” with the aim of glorifying God, edifying his people and more effectively evangelizing the lost.
The statement also affirmed baptism only of believers by immersion, renewal of the practice of redemptive church discipline, review of membership rolls and accountability among members, celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a meaningful memorial, and development of congregants capable of responsible self-governance.”
Chris,
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly with your emphasis on the gospel. I have had people get fed up with me a bit as well.
Joe,
It sounds like the SBTC is making some positive moves in that regard. I applaud you. Again, my issue is not with the overall thrust of the focus of the book, but rather with a seeming focus on Seeker Sensitive churches alone. Maybe I misread. We all need this message, even our traditional churches. While I disagree with a strict perspective on Communion, I do so on biblical grounds and not from a desire just to be inclusive. Other than that, these are positive steps – let’s just apply them evenly and not to make ideological points.
I am curious about a question, because I have heard it answered many different ways.
When one thinks about the definition of “seeker-sensitive”, is the definition referring to the seeker as an individual that is in Christ, or an individual that is hostile to God?
How a pastor or teacher answers the question has impact on the understanding and preaching of Hebrews 11:6.
Blessings,
Chris
Alan and Chris:
Chris, my friend you do like to stir it up. It also has extreme ramifications for the third chapter of Romans as well. That is for another time.
it’s interesting as well – and I wanted to wait for permission to post this -that the author of the SBTC resolution entitled “Reaffirming Regenerate Church Membership” was Dr. Yarnell, and if I am correct it was adopted wholesale by the Resolutions Committee
I communicated with Dr. Yarnell (who said he had attempted to work with Tom Ascol on the attempted resolution at the convention with no success) and he said to me privately – and I quote – “Any resolution lacking believers-only baptism by immersion might as well have been written and adopted by Presbyterians or Roman Catholics or the Lion’s Club.”
Here’s a copy of the resolution -
Reaffirming Regenerate Church Membership
WHEREAS, the Baptist Faith & Message asserts that the Scriptures are “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” (Article I); and
WHEREAS, a New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (Matthew 18:18-20; John 3:5); and
WHEREAS, a New Testament church is formed through covenant by a group of Christians intentionally gathering in the name of Jesus Christ and under his lordship (Matthew 18:19-20; Colossians 2:10, 19); and
WHEREAS, baptism of only believers by immersion in the Triune name is the only proper means of entering a local New Testament church and is thus the indispensable beginning of regenerate church membership (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:41); and
WHEREAS, regenerate church membership is preserved by the practice of redemptive church discipline according to our Lord’s command (Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Corinthians 5, Titus 3:10-11); and
WHEREAS, the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated in a worthy manner as a memorial of our Lord’s atoning death, providing continuing evidence of regenerate church membership (1 Corinthians 11:23-29); and
WHEREAS, regenerate church membership is necessary for the responsible practice of congregational church government (Matthew 18:17, Acts 6:3-4, 15:22); and
WHEREAS, the local church has been commissioned to make disciples of all nations through proclaiming the Word, by going, baptizing and teaching all things that Christ commanded, thus propagating regenerate church membership through evangelism (Matthew 28:16-20); and
WHEREAS, the New Testament ideal of regenerate church membership has long been a cherished Baptist principle as described by the Baptist Faith & Message (Article VI); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that we, the messengers to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention meeting in Arlington, Texas, November 12-13, 2007, humbly urge our beloved churches to renew their commitment to regenerate church membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members of local churches; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we humbly urge our churches to renew their commitment to the congregation as a covenantal assembly entered only by immersion of those who evidence a credible profession of faith in Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we humbly urge our churches to renew the practice of redemptive church discipline, reviewing their membership rolls and kindling fraternal kinship and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we humbly urge our churches to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a meaningful memorial celebration according to the New Testament, and develop congregants capable of responsible self-governance; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that we humbly encourage all of our beloved Southern Baptist churches to seek to fulfill the New Testament ideal of regenerate church membership for the glory of God, the edification of His people, and the more effective evangelization of the lost.
Brother Joe,
You know I love you, my brother!
I was not really trying to stir things up a great deal(maybe just a little), but the concept of seeker, is kind of like saying that “all seek for God”. I was trying to give others an opportunity to ring in on a definition.
Since no one else seemed to want to answer the question (probably too simple for most on this blog), I doesn’t appear to me that scripture ever alludes to anyone seeking God, except for those that are in Christ. So I guess, if you are a “seeker-sensitive” church, you must be seeking the saved?
As you have so aptly pointed out….Romans 3:9-11 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; (10) as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; (11) THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD….
I just think it would be interesting to see what “seeker-sensitive” oriented churches are seeking as they seek.
Blessings,
Chris
meant to say…. ‘it doesn’t appear’ (second line, second paragraph)
Chris,
Perhaps it’s best to view ‘seeker-sensitive’–right or wrong, biblical or nonbiblical–the way the authors are employing the term as well as the way it is used in various discussions. To suggest that “…a “seeker-sensitive” church…must be seeking the saved’ may be a clever way of putting it, but it offers little, at least in my view, to further understanding of either the authors’ concerns or regenerate church membership, for that matter.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I not really sure if it is clever or not, but I am genuinely interested in knowing how that one defines the seeker, since its authors use it in their discussion.
I guess I am trying to understand the definition of the term from the viewpoint of how a seeker-sensitive church promoter would view it; or would they say there are multiple definitions of the term themselves. Do they believe they are evangelizing the lost or maturing the believer? I am not defending the practice, just looking for clarity of definitions.
Any ideas,
Chris
Chris,
Though I’ve drank my share of ‘seeker’ stuff in the past, I’m no longer addicted to their brandy. It’s probably easy enough to discern how Dr. White is using the term and thus Joe may be able to assist. I’m not yet privy to the source.
I cannot conceive, however, ‘seeker-sensitive’ applied to the Church itself, unless in some specialized sense. From my understanding, ‘seeker-sensitive’ historically is used as some type of overarching strategy which tears down barriers that inhibit people from ‘attending church’ and thus designed as outreach to unbelievers.
In its best sense, I cannot raise my little toe against such. Would one want to create barriers that intentionally inhibit people from ‘attending church’? Not in my view.
On the other hand, if Biblical parameters do not serve as standard for what defines barriers for the church, an absolute, ecclesiological nightmare will result.
That, I think, may be what Professors White and Yarnell lament–not easy attendance but easy membership. The former is to be accepted but the latter rejected, yet both appear to be staples in far too many ‘seeker’ bodies. As I mentioned earlier, I personally find the description in the quote Joe gave all too familiar in the circles I’ve run over the last few years.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Peter,
I don’t disagree with what professors White and Yarnell have put forward….it helps bring forward some of these more basic tenets of ecclesiology and I think they are right on for the most part. If a local body of Christ does not have a grip on these minimal items, then it will surely result in a lack of discipleship and as you have espoused, “an ecclesiological nightmare.”
Be that as it may, an ecclesial body has an extreme difficult time officiating a regenerate church membership. On the other hand, biblical leadership is commanded to tend its members (sheep). The assumption that one officiate such a group results in the same problem that Peter had with Jesus during his days of discipleship. Yet obediently, and more powerfully, a Pastor (like Jesus was teaching Peter) within an ecclesial body can feed his sheep being filled with the power of the Spirit of Christ (guaranteed 100%). John 21:14-22.
It is one thing to realize that the church herself “is” only regenerate (that ‘being’ the only result of Christ’s work) or that the ecclesial group must “see” the church is regenerate (what man ‘attempts’ to officiate). Both situations seemingly the same, but Christ only calls obedience to one, “tend my sheep”. How that situation is handled is what Jesus was teaching Peter concerning His body, the church.
The church is never a mixed bag of those that are in Christ and those that are not as some may espouse, it simply can’t be. Jesus makes it clear that the church is only those that are His, and they exist in the world. We must, as Jesus taught, not get to concerned with our officiating, but lean toward tending (bosko) the sheep of God that He calls. That is difficult for any Pastor that is human, because the overriding tendency is to officiate, not tend. This difficulty abounds because we are sinners.
As the Pastor tends (bosko) the flock being filled by the Spirit of Christ, then the sheep hear the Master’s voice instead of the voice of the one serving the master. We must learn the difference, or like many resolutions of the past,…. they will never really be understood.
Blessings,
Chris
Joe,
You referenced this quote: “Any resolution lacking believers-only baptism by immersion might as well have been written and adopted by Presbyterians or Roman Catholics or the Lion’s Club.”
I see his point, HOWEVER, a resolution wasn’t written by presbyterians or catholics or any other group. The resolution lacking this caluse was written by a BAPTIST and supported by BAPTISTS. This kind of thinking seems absurd to me. If the SOUTHERN BAPTIST convention stands behind a resolution, it is BAPTISTS who are affirming it who are in a convention that happens to have a statement of belief called the Baptist faith and message which already covers believer’s baptism by immersion.
My question is why is it necessary in a resolution made by members of a convention where this is already presumed? Believer’s Baptism by immersion is, by the BFM’s definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist (in part at least), right?
This was my original point. Why speak against it? Where are the presbyterians and catholics in our convention? What are these men afraid of happening?
Would Baptist Press be running the headline: “Baptists open the door to paedobaptism and a pathway to Rome by passing Integrity in Membership Resolution”?
The problem is simple. Our assumptions are slowly draining us of life. Let’s ask an alternate question. Could you agree on the resolution above? I have my assumptions but . . .
Chris:
I don’t intend to rain on the Peter parade, but I do have a question regarding your logic – does not tending include correction toward restoration which would and could include in severe cases an exercise of Matthew 18?
Brother Joe,
Bingo…tending (bosko) is the real mode for how Pastors edify the body of Christ. All local assemblies must hold to Matthew 18 as the greatest test of love to their members. The thrust of the passage is forgiveness “seventy times seven”. The Lord forgives our debt. I have always contended, that if a church is not living Matthew 18, they have very little unity.
Peter furthered his understanding of this to us in his letter chapter 5:1-3, by alluding to oversight not ‘anagkastos’ in quality, but through the will of the Father.
I’m not saying we love people “backpedaling”. I believe the things that are brought forward in the post are elementary. I’m surprised that things like repentance and baptism are in question by Baptists. The church is not anything but justified repentant sinners that go about baptizing and making disciples. Building unity and exercising the Spirits gifts seems to be the difficulty.
Blessings,
Chris