« The Call of Baptist Identity (Part 1) | Main | Rev. Johnny Hunt to be Nominated for SBC President »
The Call of Baptist Identity (Part 2)
Posted by SBC Today | May 5, 2008
Ecumenicals and the Narrowing of Parameters
I am not a blue blood in the SBC. I was raised in the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ [Christian Church]. As a child I was immersed in order to receive salvation. A series of events led me to visit a local Baptist church, which I had been warned against my whole life. Some time later, I approached the pastor about becoming a member, which to my surprise, he denied my membership unless I would submit to, what he termed, true baptism.
This sent me on a scriptural search seeking clarification on the true purpose of baptism. It soon became evident that the baptism I had received was not a New Testament baptism because it was taught that it was the vehicle of grace. The baptism that Christ commanded was not a baptism resulting in salvation, but a baptism that followed salvation. I concluded that though my salvation was a proper salvation, my baptism was an improper baptism. I had one of two choices; I could justify my “immersion” as being ‘close-enough’ or I could fully surrender to the Lordship of Christ and receive a proper baptism. For me, a proper baptism was not a matter of “doing my duty,” it was a matter of surrendering my will to my Lord. To fail to submit myself to a proper baptism was not only a failure to submit to the church I was attending, but a failure to submit to Christ whom I had confessed as Lord.
Proper baptism ultimately was not a matter of submitting to the authorities, but it was a matter of submitting to the One who claimed to have been given all authority (Matthew 28:18). He not only commanded the ‘how’ of baptism, but also the ‘why’. To fail to realize this was to fail to properly acknowledge Christ as Lord. Of course, being distinctively Baptist is not simply a matter of baptism, but it is the submission of all my personal agendas to the confession that Christ is Lord. All doctrinal distinctives are necessarily a matter of Lordship. I obey because He is Lord and I am not.
I, to this day, am immensely grateful for a pastor who had the courage to be willing to deny the opportunity to “add another one to the roll” because of his conviction concerning New Testament baptism. In my search for an understanding of biblical baptism, I learned that the ordinance is not just about doing my duty; rather it has implications that are inseparable from other cherished doctrines. I was delighted to see that indeed salvation is entirely a work of Christ alone and is not dependent upon any work that I might accomplish. If salvation then is truly by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, then so must be the security of my salvation. In short, since the ordinances are inseparably married to other doctrines of Christ, for me to believe a falsehood about the ordinance led to a wrong belief about to Whom the ordinance testified.
Today, there are many who assert that if a given doctrine speaks to anything beyond salvation, then it is not necessary and may even be detrimental to speak about a particular doctrine outside of one’s own local church context. Many would say that my initial baptism was legitimate (even though it was taught to be a regenerative act) just because it was by immersion. To justify an improper baptism is to offer a theological statement declaring the ordinance to be unimportant.
This idea would be espoused by many who would welcome a more ecumenism into the SBC. Today we face the move of a new ecumenism that threatens to dispose of the distinctives that many of our Baptist forefathers gave their lives for. This leaves the person who is wrestling with the decision of whether to join the ecumenical movement or to remain distinctively Baptist in quite a quandary. To fail to join the ecumenical movement is to invite ecumenists to paint the distinctive Baptist as divisive, intolerant, and unloving. These accusations garner quite an emotional appeal. On the other hand, to join the ecumenical movement is to say to many of our Baptist forefathers that the persecution they suffered was, on their part, ignorant at best and evil at worst.
The danger the ecumenical movement offers is that which they so readily accuse the convictional Baptist of perpetrating. Allow me to illustrate. Every summer, our town has a 4th of July celebration, complete with hotdogs, Cokes, fireworks, and probably apple pie. This little party is sponsored every year by the local ministerial alliance. It is one of the two most opportune times to share the gospel as the town gathers in one localized place. I faithfully loaded up a trunk full of gospel tracts and took my church members who were willing to the celebration, having one purpose in mind; to share Christ with the lost.
Within one hour of our walking around handing out tracts and asking people if they knew Jesus, I was approached and was threatened to be arrested for sharing the gospel on private property. The one who threatened me was not an atheist, but a fellow pastor. The property I was trespassing on was not the Wal-Mart parking lot (where I have often shared Christ without threat) but a church parking lot.
Within a few minutes I stood before representatives of the local ministerial alliance who continued to threaten me with legal action. The council was made up of pastors from various denominations, all of which I had come to know. The following day, I sent an appeal to the president of the ministerial alliance, himself a Southern Baptist, and asked why I was not allowed to share the gospel at such a wonderful and opportune time. I was given three reasons.
First, my tract had not been approved by the ministerial alliance. They had the legal right, but if unity is their true desire, then why was not my orthodox message acceptable? So much for autonomy in the ecumenical alliance.
Second, my forward approach was too divisive. The covenant of the alliance is that they would set out tracts on a table and allow people to pick them up and ask questions, but they were not to “put people on the spot.” This seems to be an extra-biblical theology because, though the apostles did not seek to be offensive, neither did they fear being labeled as such. For the church to compromise presentation for the sake of societal toleration is a practice that cannot be shown in Scripture.
And third, I had not submitted myself to the authority of the ministerial alliance. The ecumenical had narrowed the parameters of those who could share Christ. I was one of the ones excluded because I failed to submit myself to their authority. That assumed authority seems to be quite close to a top down ecclesiology. The ecumenical had waged war on those who are identified with doctrinal distinctives and evangelism was the first casualty.
So, just what was my approach at this celebration of freedom? I would walk up to an individual, ask them if they would like a free pamphlet, and then ask them if anyone had ever shared Christ with them. The material did not list the name of my church nor did it use the word ‘Baptist.’ It was simply a tract that explained the Gospel in terms of repenting of sins and placing faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ. The fear of the ecumenist is that distinctiveness will keep someone from responding to the Gospel. This fear is so real that it leads to a greater error; no one responds to the ecumenical gospel because when all of the compromises have been made, there is nothing left to respond to.
Recent news has been released that the Southern Baptists have had a membership drop for the first time in years. The question we must now ask ourselves is, “why is this occurring?” Some say that it is due to the fact that the Convention has been too bold and divisive in some of our statements. Others have said it is because we are not making the Gospel relevant. May I offer another suggestion? The ecumenical movement has led us to attempt to remove so many of the barriers that keep lost people from coming to Christ that we have removed the Stumbling Block and the Rock of Offense. Now we invite the world to come without realizing that an offenseless message and a powerless cross leaves nothing for them to come to. Is it possible that our baptistries are dry and our pulpits are cold precisely because we have developed a fear of being distinctive?
Many are seeking to erase the doctrines of Baptist distinctives. There is an attempt to weaken New Testament baptism, the Scriptures face constant assault, proclamation is being trumped by therapy, and unity is being defined as the ability to “get along” instead of realizing that it is a development of the divine movement of the sweet Spirit of Christ. I embrace the Baptist Identity movement, not because it is Baptist, but because it acknowledges Christ is Lord and I am not. My call is to walk intimately with my Savior, search out the things He has revealed, communicate those to the lost world, love my neighbor as myself, be driven to my knees in repentance often, edify His church, obey His word, and do it all because it will bring glory to my Savior. In sum, He has spoken, I must obey. Just as He as reassured Elijah that he was not alone, so has He assured me.
The goal for the local church is not JUST to bring people into Christ, but to bring them in Christlikeness. That is, salvation is not the end of a hard road, but the beginning of a wonderful journey where the Spirit of God makes us into the image of Christ by using the proclamation of His word in the fellowship of His saints. We cut the work short when we seek to make a person a Christian without making them a disciple.
I will summarize by offering a few inseparable thoughts that concern me about a possible development of ecumenism within the SBC.
- Ecumenism tends to run the risk of having religious activity apart from a theological basis. For example, all that matters is THAT a person was baptized. The WHY becomes quite superficial.
- Ecumenism tends toward developing a soteriology without developing an ecclesiology. Here we see again the separation of evangelism from discipleship.
- Ecumenism tends to desire unity apart from fidelity.
The warning against ecumenism is not so much one of soteriological concerns, but of ecclesiological concerns. I would affirm that there are saints of God in differing denominations. However, I would not affirm that every church that contains saints is a church that is discipling their saints into health. We should be concerned if our theology lends itself to having Christians who do not develop into maturity.
The commission of Christ is to witness the Gospel to the lost. However, the journey does not end with salvation, but it begins with a salvation that introduces one into discipleship. A continued deemphasizing of doctrine will ultimately destroy discipleship. When the discipling process is destroyed, evangelistic activity will not be far behind.
Perhaps I could adopt the words of Richard Fuller. “Once, for all, let me say that I am a Baptist on principle, and not in sectarianism nor bigotry. I love all who love Jesus; but I do not love error, and cannot treat religious error, as if it were unimportant.”
In the third post I will seek to demonstrate what I believe the so-called Baptist Identity should seek to accomplish.
SBC Today would like to thank John Mann, pastor of LaJunta Baptist Church in Springtown, Texas, for contributing this series of posts on the subject of Baptist identity.
Topics: Baptism, Baptist Identity, Cooperation, Evangelism, Guest Author |
May 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Brother John,
Thanks for the testimony…..
One question that came to my mind…. When you believed and recognized Christ as your Lord in the COC…How did you come to understand that your salvation was not of works, and at the same time understand that your Baptism was saving you?
Blessings,
Chris
May 5th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Chris,
Though that response would require a post in and of itself, I will attempt the short answer asking that it be remembered that this is outside of the scope of what SBC Today as asked of me.
I stated in the post that my salvation was proper but my baptism was improper. The ’salvation experience’ that I had with Christ in the C of C was due to having the gospel shared with me, not by the C of C, but by my own reading of the Scriptures as a young child and some faithful family members to explain. I had received a Gideon’s NT in the 2nd or 3rd grade and was encouraged to read a chapter a day. I would faithfully read one chapter before going to bed, beginning in Matthew and going straight through. Eventually I began to ask questions. In short, my salvation occurred because of the work of the Word and Spirit. My salvation was entirely of God. (No, I am not a Calvinist, but that is neither here nor there).
As I have intended to point out, the failure was not with the act of salvation, rather it was with the act of baptism. Hence, my concern with the present post as it relates to a creeping ecumenism. Though my salvation was not of concern, my discipleship was, and therefore my usefulness to the Kingdom suffered.
Chris, I realize that your question is a valid question and I do not want to duck it, but I do not want that to become the point of the thread. I would warmly welcome you to e-mail me and you and I could discuss that personally if you desire.
jmann@ntbb.net
May 5th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
brother,
while those who deny the unconditional security of the believer are inconsistent and just plain wrong…that does not necessarily mean that they don’t believe that Salvation is by grace ALONE though faith ALONE in Christ ALONE…it’s not the lack of works, they say, which would cut one off from grace…it is the point where one would lose FAITH that they would be cut off.
let’s be fair…they are wrong…inconsistent…but ought not be anathematized (lest we fall under the same condemnation for our misunderstandings and inconsistencies).
May 5th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
…however…the Church of Christ and DOC are both apostate/false groups and are all under condemnation for their perverted works based system of Salvation…let them be anathema.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
John,
There are many things in this second post to which I would like to respond. I hope you will bear with me as I enumerate them…
1. I, unlike you, grew up in a Baptist church. However, my mother first came to faith and was baptized as a child in a Disciples of Christ congregation. From what I understand, there is a certain degree of ambiguity among the Disciples of Christ regarding baptismal regeneration. This would, as I understand it, be in distinction to the Church of Christ, who are generally more clear in regard to this. In any case, my mother’s testimony is that, when she was saved and baptized, she did not understand that her baptism was part and parcel of her salvation experience, but rather as a testimony to it. Not long after this, as a teenager, she made a decision to join a Baptist church. At this point, she was asked to be re-baptized. Although she did not understand why this was necessary, she acquiesced, as she was convinced she wanted to become a member of the Baptist church. Since that time, she has been, and continues to be, a convinced Baptist. However, she still considers her authentic, biblical baptism to be the first one, the one she had in the Disciples of Christ church. I agree with her.
If you understood, when you were first baptized, that your baptism was part and parcel to your salvation, then I can most certainly understand and sympathize with your decision to submit to biblical baptism afterwards at the Baptist church. However, I think it is important, here, to point out this distinction.
2. You say that “All doctrinal distinctives are necessarily a matter of Lordship.” I would say that all Bible doctrine, whether it is a distinctive of a particular denomination or not, is a matter of Lordship. I would also say that following Biblical teaching regarding the fundamental unity of the Body of Christ is a matter of Lordship.
3. You say: “there are many who assert that if a given doctrine speaks to anything beyond salvation, then it is not necessary and may even be detrimental to speak about a particular doctrine outside of one’s own local church context.”
There may be some people somewhere who are saying this. But I most certainly am not, and I do not remember hearing anyone engaged in the current discussion on the Baptist blogosphere making this assertion. I think we should feel free to talk about all of our doctrinal convictions, and to present our case openly for why we hold them. At the same time, I believe there are certain differences of doctrine that do not justify the degrees of separation that are being advocated as a result of them. An actual case by case analysis of these doctrines and the particular types of separation advised would be much longer than a comment like this warrants.
4. You continue to use the terms “ecumenism” and “ecumenical movement,” without defining them, in relation to those currently involved in the discussion of Baptist Identity within the SBC. I continue to maintain there are very few, if any, true “ecumenists,” at least in the commonly accepted understanding of that term, involved in the present discussion. There may well have been those within the SBC in past, before the Conservative Resurgence, and currently in the CBF, who are truly “ecumenical” in their convictions. And, there may be some within the SBC today, including myself, who advocate a greater degree of cooperation and practical unity with other born-again believers. But, I continue to insist that the use of the term “ecumenical” is a misnomer, used for unfair emotional effect, in this current discussion.
I will leave it there for now, and reserve my comments regarding the episode you relate in regard to the Ministerial Alliance for another comment…
May 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
RE: The 4th of July Celebration and the Mininsterial Alliance.
Let’s turn the tables. Suppose you organized an event at your church, and invited other groups from other churches and denominations to attend. One of the groups turns up with its own literature, which, while not blatantly heretical, may not happen to fall into line with the way you, at your church, choose to communicate the Gospel.
Would you not politely ask those of the other group to distribute their literature at their own church, and either refrain from distributing literature, or perhaps help you distribute your literature, while they were at your church?
I know, I know, the 4th of July picnic was not organized by one particular church, but by the Ministerial Alliance. But, I think it is completely reasonable that the ones who were in charge of organizing the event determined the guidelines related to participation in the event. If they thought it was out of place to distribute unapproved literature, it seems to me there were totally correct to enforce that policy.
Now, it is another queston altogether whether or not you feel it is worth your time and effort to participate in an event in which you will not be permitted to distribute your literature. Perhaps not. We all have to make decisions regarding where we will place our priorities.
Also, there are some alliances, and Ministerial Alliances, that are not formed around a united understanding of the essentials of the Gospel. I am not advocating that we join with these groups. But, then, there are some Christian unity efforts that do not compromise on the essentials of the Gospel. We must be discerning, and open-hearted, as we seek to be faithful to God’s will for us in this.
I, personally, feel there is a great deal of value of joining together with believers of other denominations to pray, fellowship together, and, if, the circumstance warrant it, to present a united witness for Christ. The way I share Christ at an event my particular church organizes will likely be different than the way I share Christ at an interdenominational event. As long as the organizers of the interdenominational event do not limit my freedom to share Christ as I choose at my event, and in my personal time aside from their activities, I am fine with that.
Or, how about another illustration. Suppose that at your church you organize an evangelistic campaign with a guest evangelist, co-sponsored by the evangelist’s organization. It just so happens that this evangelist has a pre-determined method in which they like to handle the counseling for those who respond to the invitation, with his own set of literature. However, one of the counselors at your church insists on not using the method and literature from the evangelist’s organization, but his own literature that he likes better. Would it not be appropriate to call him down on this, and ask him to “get with the program”? In such a case, I don’t think it would necessarily be hushing up the presentation of the Gospel, as much as trying to work together in harmony.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Irreverend Fox,
Should you have anything edifying and/or beneficial to contribute, I will gladly give your comments all of the attention I can. If your only desire is to be destructive, I have neither the time nor the energy. Nobody I am aware have called for them to be anathematized.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
David,
I appreciate both comments and I assure you I will give them my earnest attention. However, at this point, I must go and coach my 13 year old daughters softball team. She is the star catcher after all!
May 5th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Lastly,
You make the following statements:
-The goal for the local church is not JUST to bring people into Christ, but to bring them in Christlikeness.
-We cut the work short when we seek to make a person a Christian without making them a disciple.
-I would not affirm that every church that contains saints is a church that is discipling their saints into health. We should be concerned if our theology lends itself to having Christians who do not develop into maturity.
-The commission of Christ is to witness the Gospel to the lost. However, the journey does not end with salvation, but it begins with a salvation that introduces one into discipleship.
The apparent implication is that someone who advocates the type of interdenominational cooperation that I advocate would not be able to sign off on these statements. But I want to assure you that I have no problem whatsoever with these particular statements. I just don’t see them as contradictory with greater cooperation and unity with true, born-again believers of other denominaions. Rather, I see that the best way to make consistent disciples is the context of a unified Body of Christ.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
This idea would be espoused by many who would welcome a more ecumenism into the SBC. Today we face the move of a new ecumenism that threatens to dispose of the distinctives that many of our Baptist forefathers gave their lives for. This leaves the person who is wrestling with the decision of whether to join the ecumenical movement or to remain distinctively Baptist in quite a quandary. To fail to join the ecumenical movement is to invite ecumenists to paint the distinctive Baptist as divisive, intolerant, and unloving. These accusations garner quite an emotional appeal. On the other hand, to join the ecumenical movement is to say to many of our Baptist forefathers that the persecution they suffered was, on their part, ignorant at best and evil at worst.
The danger the ecumenical movement offers is that which they so readily accuse the convictional Baptist of perpetrating
Mr. Mann: Please name the Baptists in this type of a movement. This is not anything that I am a part of nor would I be. I also believe that what I am espousing personally is a part of Baptist history and this has been shown, but even if it were not, the Bible is my final authority and this is where I personally get my convictions. Could it be that you have totally misunderstood?
May 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Brother John,
If ecumenism means
n.
1. A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations.
2. A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.
….then I guess we should all be ecumenists of sorts armed with biblical doctrine….even though that is not our top priority. That seemed to be the Apostle Paul’s approach.
1Thessalonians 5:9-15 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (10) who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. (11) Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing. (12) But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, (13) and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. (14) We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. (15) See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.
If we are speaking about Christians involved as ecumenists ….we are members one of another, so then we should encourage one another biblically. Leaders must work hard to divide the truth rightly so that the hearers are not judgmental,… but in love encourage each other…. and are patient with each other.
I think that sometimes we get all excited and irritated at denominations or religious organizations and feel we must correct them somehow…..when the Apostle Paul is more concerned with loving one another…The church is defined and distinctive in that spiritual reality.
2 Corinthians 5:12-15 We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. (13) For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. (14) For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; (15) and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
My prayer is that the Baptist will not take pride in appearance, but with the heart, pray and grieve (with the full knowledge of the gospel) for our fellow kinsmen,…. just as some non-Baptist’s pray and grieve for the souls of fellow Baptist churches leaning toward apostate. Grieving and bringing unity in that manner would be to the glory of God.
Blessings,
Chris
May 5th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
David Rogers,
Baptism is a church ordinance, not a personal ordinance. Therefore, the church that you wish to be a part of needs to be satisfied with your baptism…that it’s a scriptural baptism. Agree? Thus, it doesnt matter what you understood about the baptism you had….if it was done by a church of Christ….then it was not a scriptural baptism.
Also, David, your comment in #6….you are stating exactly why ecumenical evangelism just does not work. When people believe so differently about the Gospel and how to proclaim it, then it leads to these type problems. And, I have found your scenario, or really, John’s scenario, to be true most of the time when you try to “join” with other denominations in evangelism.
David
May 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Brother David,
“Therefore, the church that you wish to be a part of needs to be satisfied with your baptism…that it’s a scriptural baptism.” What does that mean? Not quite sure I follow you on that one. What if some in your church or my church didn’t quite like the way someone was immersed….
Blessings,
Chris
May 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
David Worley,
The phrase “baptism is a church ordinance,” in and of itself, is a very ambiguous phrase that could mean lots of different things to different people. I would agree that a local church should question prospective new members as to the authenticity of their faith in Christ, as they will now take on a special responsibility in their on-going discipleship. I also agree that, since baptism is a matter of obedience to the Lord, it is the prerogative of the local church to help the prospective new member to be assured of the legitimacy of his/her baptism. I do not, however, agree that the so-called proper administrator of baptism is a necessary qualification for determining the legitimacy of baptism. If you can show me that from Scripture, I will be open to being convinced. I’ve been asking that for awhile, though, and no one has been able to show me yet.
As to my comment #6 and so-called “ecumencial evangelism,” my experience, having participated in quite a few church planting teams, both with only Baptists, as well as with those of several different denominations, is that it can be, and often is, just as messy and thorny to try to agree with other Baptists as it is with those of other denominations.
I would grant that some particular denominational beliefs present greater challenges than others. And there are some denominations or groups that are more compatible with us than others. What I am against here, is not caution and discretion in the way we work with others, but rather a total closed-mindedness that refuses to even entertain the thought, just because others don’t have the word “Baptist” as part of their name or historical pedigree.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
It seems to me that you argued well for your point, and I appreciate the spirit with which you wrote.
However, I also believe that you have set up some straw men to knock down. The way you represented the “reform” views is not always accurate, in my opinion.
I have read widely on blogs and have seen NO ONE who would advocate that a baptism done by those who believe in baptismal regeneration would be acceptable. I think we would all agree that would be unacceptable.
The issue is whether baptism by immersion as a believer at a church that believes in losing salvation would be acceptable.
Its a huge difference. One is a heresy that undermines salvation. The other is (in my view) the errant opinion of those who believe in salvation by grace through faith. Baptism by a heretical group is one thing. A Christian group with errant doctrine - that is a different issue.
I also think you misrepresent the reform movement when you say that it wants to do away with Baptist distinctives. I don’t think that is true. We want to maintain a sound doctrine of salvation and hold faithfully to those views necessary to the Baptist belief system.
What many of us believe is that issues like the IMB policies addressed are NOT necessary to maintaining the integrity of the Baptist Identity. Baptism by immersion? Yes. Refusing baptism done by charismatic groups? Can’t go there. Promoting public practice of tongues? Mostly, we agree that is too far. Practicing a private prayer language? I can’t see why a true-blue Baptist can’t do that.
Again, you argue your points well. My frustration, as someone who is leaning in the direction you argue against, is that I think you misrepresented our views.
The key to solid theological argument is understanding and representing your theological opponent accurately. I did not feel you did that here.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
David [#5]
1). I cannot speak for the whole of the Disciples of Christ, only for the 3 congregations I belonged to as a child and the D of C college that my sister attended following high school. I assure you, in these 4 experiences, there was NO ambiguity about baptismal regeneration.
2). I agree with both portions of this statement. However, where there is a unity that is based on the compromise of doctrinal convictions, lying deep beneath that manufactured facade lies significant disagreements. Baptism matters, the meaning of the charismata matters, the practice of the Supper matters. To try to say otherwise is to either be dishonest about one’s convictions or unfaithful to one’s convictions.
3). I have not accused you of saying this.
4). I will wait to clearly define what I mean by ecumenical, as it is growing late and I have many other comments that warrant a response.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
John Mann,
I appreciate your work and the time that you are taking on these posts. Unfortunately, I do not know exactly who you are criticizing here with your statements about ecumenism. Being a long time Baptist blogger, I have not seen anyone espouse the views that you are critiquing, at least in the conversations that I have been a part of.
I know of no one that is proposing that we accept the baptism of the Church of Christ just because it is by immersion. Wade Burleson himself has spoken against this.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Debbie [10]
It is entirely possible that I have misunderstood many things. However, I am quite certain that I have not misunderstood the two episodes of which I have written in this post. Unfortunately, I must decline to name the “Baptists in this type of movement” as you request. I am simply dealing with an ideology that I see making its way among us, and I believe that ideology could be quite erosive. Though I perceive that you consider yourself close, if not a part of, this movement based on your reaction?
May 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
How many times is the author going to dodge the repeated request by David Rogers to define the terms “ecumenical” and “ecumenism.” Is that too much to ask?
In the world of academia at least, terms are usually defined first thing, up front. It’s a necessary task.
Perhaps I’m just too accustomed to graduate seminars where the papers being presented actually define the terms that serve as a foundation to the author’s thesis…..
May 5th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Dave Miller and Alan Cross,
At the heart of the post, my concern is not only baptism, but many other things that I see developing that is quite concerning. My illustration concerning my own false baptism was more or less to support my opening statement that I am a Baptist by conviction and not by inheritance. I have never accused Wade Burleson or the “reform movement” of advocating the acceptance of baptismal regeneration. I have simply said it is occuring. I do not feel responsible for some people’s inability to view the SBC beyond the very limited scope of what they read on some blogs.
My fear is not those who disagree with me, it is that we are moving rapidly to a day where the average believer will say, “who cares?” There is a growing trend in our churches to avoid doctrinal issues because we are supposed to “keep the main thing the main thing.” Our people are malnourished for the things of God. My appeal is simple… doctrine matters. Theology is important. We must maintain a theology of the ordinances, and a theology the Spirit, and a Christology, etc. The ecumenical movement of which I speak dismisses these things as being unimportant. If you do not do this, then I am not speaking to you. To me, a Baptist Identity is important because of a focus on theological and doctrinal matters. To appeal to unity at the expense of doctrine is irresponsible and unfaithful.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
David Rogers,
Thank you for your kind patience in my delay. I will attempt to reply to your comment #6.
My concern with the Ministerial Alliance was not about whether or not they had the ‘right’ to disqualify me. Indeed, they do have that right. They have been given the authority to make such decisions, and they made them. I abided by their wishes by walking across the street to the local Dollar General parking lot where most of the participants of the celebration were parking and handed out my literature before they came onto the property without any interference from the local business whatsoever. I have no problem confessing the alliance had the right to ask me to either do it their way or not do it all. I am glad you and I are in agreement on that they are the authority that I must obey.
I also believe the IMB has the right to say by virtue of the trustees that IMB missionaries cannot plant charismatic churches, practice charismatic gifts, or minister with a non-Baptist(ic) baptism. They have that right because they are the authority.
I also believe SWBTS trustees have the right to oversee who will and who will not be a professor, and who can and who cannot preach in chapel. That is a right that belongs to them because of their authority.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Mr. Mann: Yes, I do. But not in the way you have described, at least my understanding of what you are saying. I would have the same reaction and questions as David Rogers has already given as well as Alan Cross.
I am probably more against the method of disagreement such as what I feel is a misunderstanding on your part than I am your actual disagreement. To put it in a nutshell I think we need to be a kinder, gentler, denomination(and yes I do believe we are now a denomination although not begun this way). Instead of everyone outside of Southern Baptist life being our enemy. I hope I am clear in writing this.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:24 am
David, [#6 cont.]
In terms of the alliance and the ecumenical problem, the issue is not whether or not they had the right to stop me from sharing Christ on their property, indeed they did. The issue is that the attempt at a false unity manifests itself in a compromise that I do not believe we should be willing to make. That is, when you evangelize (which I think the described method defies the use the term ‘evangelize’) you cannot approach people but must wait on them to approach to you. (I do find it quite interesting that when entities of the SBC place parameters of cooperation they are accused of being divisive, but when others place parameters on us, it is called ‘their right,’ but I digress).
I do not believe it is proper to make the Commision speak to evangelism apart from discipleship. Discipleship demands the articulation of doctrines. True evangelism demands discipleship. Therefore, to evangelize apart from doctrinal distinctives is an incomplete approach. The ecumenical movement seeks to do evangelism void of discipleship.
Just to be clear, I have not advocated that we should not pray or fellowship with believer’s of other denominations. And to my knowledge, neither has anybody else. We have only said that the ideal Baptist church is the New Testament model by virtue of doctrine and practice. I am not aware of anyone involved in the so-called Baptist Identity movement who has said there is salvation in none other. We have only advocated that which we think is most reflective of the divine design.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Debbie,
” My fear is not those who disagree with me, it is that we are moving rapidly to a day where the average believer will say, “who cares?” There is a growing trend in our churches to avoid doctrinal issues because we are supposed to “keep the main thing the main thing.” Our people are malnourished for the things of God. My appeal is simple… doctrine matters. Theology is important. We must maintain a theology of the ordinances, and a theology the Spirit, and a Christology, etc. The ecumenical movement of which I speak dismisses these things as being unimportant. If you do not do this, then I am not speaking to you. To me, a Baptist Identity is important because of a focus on theological and doctrinal matters. To appeal to unity at the expense of doctrine is irresponsible and unfaithful.” [copied from comment #20].
“Once, for all, let me say that I am a Baptist on principle, and not in sectarianism nor bigotry. I love all who love Jesus; but I do not love error, and cannot treat religious error, as if it were unimportant.” [copied from post].
If I have used anything but a kind and gentle tone, I will gladly receive your chastisement. However, I am assuming that as an equal opportunity chastiser you will be willing to come not only to the defense of those you agree with, but also of those with whom you disagree. For those with whom you disagree deserve to be treated kindly as well… do they not?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:13 am
By kind and gentle I was not referring to you and I apologize if it appeared that I was. I have appreciated your openness and kindness. I am speaking of Southern Baptists as a whole. I don’t see what has happened even in the three years as kind nor gentle. I think we need to get to a place where we treat people with love while saying we don’t agree with the way the Convention is going. I am saying that I don’t agree where the Baptist Identity crowd appears to be going.
The only thing I have seen within those who would be termed ecumenical is for example allowing those with a private prayer language to serve in the SBC and the IMB, NAMB. The issue of who and where to Baptize be shelved as a non-essential. These are just two of many examples I could give that we have been discussing for three years. I see the Baptist Identity crowd as using the same tactics as the Conservative Resurgence to say the above are not Southern Baptists and therefore not only cannot serve but possibly cannot be a part of the Southern Baptist Convention except for possibly accepting their monies. That too me is a problem.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Brother John,
I like the way you have stated where you are going with this post,…..
“My fear is not those who disagree with me, it is that we are moving rapidly to a day where the average believer will say, “who cares?” There is a growing trend in our churches to avoid doctrinal issues because we are supposed to “keep the main thing the main thing.” Our people are malnourished for the things of God. My appeal is simple… doctrine matters. Theology is important. We must maintain a theology of the ordinances, and a theology the Spirit, and a Christology, etc. The ecumenical movement of which I speak dismisses these things as being unimportant. If you do not do this, then I am not speaking to you. To me, a Baptist Identity is important because of a focus on theological and doctrinal matters. To appeal to unity at the expense of doctrine is irresponsible and unfaithful.”
I think you are getting closer to defining an ecumenism that is harmful to the church. For instance, if I had the church with which I fellowship and lead sit in a circle one Sunday morning in my house and we began to read scripture, and sing praises to our Lord Jesus Christ, and partake in the Lords Table, and then out of the blue one of our dear ladies says, …. “Hey…I have a good idea….I think we can share Christ with more people this week if we didn’t discuss baptism….because you know Aunt Bobbi’s brother is really scared of water anyway and he told her of a church down the street that doesn’t even baptize their members.”
I would need to help my dear Sister understand the command of baptism, so that the church would be edified and recognize what Christ has done for His church. In other words I don’t think it is ecumenism that is hurting the church. I think it is a lack of leadership that prays, studies, reads, and teaches biblical doctrine. The churches are filled with people that want to learn doctrine….but much of the congregations have been and are being fed topical sermons with no substance, so the result is people that actually hate doctrine.
It always gets back to the leadership knowing everyone in their congregation and returning to the biblical fundamentals of what the church is about….. and its not about “Going to Church”….what an ugly Americanized term. If leadership thinks getting up front on Sunday morning and once on Wednesday and delivering an emotional topical message somehow compares to what our Apostles left us with….then that leadership is not only in error, but is ecumenical in their own minds to another extreme.
Blessings,
Chris
May 6th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Chris,
I do agree with most of what you said, but I am afraid that the lack of doctrinal instruction has become a problem precisely because of ecumenism. I do believe our people are starving for solid biblical exposition leading to theological and doctrinal messages. But many of them are like an 8 year old boy trying to survive on a diet of Ding-Dongs… he likes the way it tastes but is not sure why it is not satisfying.
But I would go a step further and say that it is not JUST that the leaders and preachers are not preaching and teaching theology, it is that they are being swept up into the aforementioned Ding Dong theology that teaches the substance of the message is unimportant, only the result matters. In other words, point #4 of my evidences of a creeping ecumenism could be “methodological pragmatism rules over theological conviction.” If I am correct, then the danger is not only do the people not get theological exposition, but the leaders don’t even see the need to give. It seems to me that one full generation of that approach will erase any memory of even how to do theological exposition. If that is the case, we shall have once again followed the medeival error of removing the Word of God from our people’s hands. Before someone asks, I do not believe it is our 6 seminaries fault. I believe the blame lies elsewhere.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:57 am
John,
It would help me to understand better where you are coming from if you could give me one example of someone in the SBC who is practicing or advocating the type of ecumenism about which you are writing here. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. But I sure don’t see it as a big issue in the SBC.
If not, the whole “Baptist Identity” thing sounds like a big “straw man” to me. And, when you knock down the “straw man,” a lot of good people, who are not guilty of things you insinuate here, get knocked down at the same time… unless, you are more specific, and give some names and actual examples of people who are doing this in the SBC.
For instance, I can understand and sympathize with what Chris is saying in his last comment. I think we need to know what we believe, why we believe it, be prepared to back it up from the Bible, and teach the same to the people in our churches. Why can’t we just talk about Bible doctrine (which I happen to think coincides with normal Baptist interpretation)? For me, it is when we throw the whole concept of “Baptist Identity” in the mix that we muddy the waters, and create unnecessary conflict.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
John Mann,
Thank you for further defining what you are talking about. I see your point and I agree that a lot of what you are saying is happening in quarters. If you talk about what is going on in our churches, we are in deep trouble with almost 2/3 of Southern Baptists on the rolls MIA and it taking 47 Southern Baptists to baptize one person per year. Yes, we are in deep disobedience. No one would disagree with you there.
The reason that the #1 mission field for Mormons has been Southern Baptists is because we largely do not know what we believe and we think that Christianity is just about being a good person and imitating Jesus. We don’t really know who He is, but the Mormons come around teaching lies and believe them readily enough because we do not know the truth. This has been going on for some time now.
I guess that there has been so much angst over some people opposing the IMB BoT on their extra-BFM policies that it is hard to know exactly what people are talking about unless they define it a little better. I think that most everyone in the discussion would agree with you on your post as you define it in comment #20.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I want to elaborate on comment #29 where I said, “I see your point and I agree that a lot of what you are saying is happening in quarters.” I was referring to the fact that many Southern Baptists do not really know what they believe and are open things that sound good and allow us to just get along with others. There are many Southern Baptists who watch Oprah for example, and don’t see anything wrong with it. I was in the home of a friend of mine recently and they are very involved in their Baptist church and they had a book that was espousing angel worship and new age beliefs on their coffee table. They didn’t know that it was heresy. Another person in the same church told me that he thought that evolution and Christianity was compatible and what difference did it make if Jesus was married or not, ala Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code. He’s been in a baptist church (a very traditional one that does not accept alien immersion and would fit nicely with BI views) all his life. He’s just never been discipled.
So yes, there are many who disdain doctrine and have wrong views. When you put it that way, I agree. As for those trying to bring some reform, the characterizations that you have created do not really fit the discussions that we have had. But, if you are calling us to look at the SBC as a whole, then there are many examples of many things that are wrong.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
David Rogers,
For a group of Ministers from other denominations to have trouble with the way that John and his members were graciously, lovingly handing out Gospel pamphlets is incredible. And, it’s a good example of why it would be very difficult to do ecumenical evangelism. Just one example in many.
Also, David, who was the Great Commission given to? I guess that will dictate what you believe about the ordinance of baptism. But, don’t you think that BFM stresses that it’s a church ordinance? Does that not show us that SB’s believe it to be a church ordinance…a majority of SB’s believe it that way… a vast majority? The BFM 2k states, “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
David
May 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
David,
I think part of the problem is the continued insistence of some for me to “name names.” The immediate presumption about this series of posts has been that I am either building a straw man or am attempting to covertly attack a particular controversial blogger. It has been disappointing to me that I have sought to open up some dialogue about a need that I see in the SBC, and some people’s worlds are so small that they are unable to see past a particular issue.
[A small synopsis of what is to come in the third installment].
For me, Enid, Oklahoma is not the center of the SBC, but is a fringe but boisterous group that has gone on a feeding frenzy that has lacked both character and discipline. If they should suffer one more sound defeat in Indy as they did in San Antonio, I predict this group will suffer from that which they have sought to prove… irrelevance. My concern is not the immediate, rather it is the possibly imminent. The dissenters that have been produced by the blogosphere the last three years are not the ‘root’ of the creeping ecumenism. Rather, they are the ‘fruit.’ They are not producing the problem, they are what the problem has produced.
My ‘official’ recommendation to solve the problem will be made clear in a fourth post.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:27 am
David Worley,
The Great Commission (at least in the episode narrated in Matthew 28) was given to the 11 disciples left after Judas had hung himself. When Jesus said, “and, lo, I am with you to the end of the age,” we can safely assume that He was also implying that this same Commission was meant for believers of all the ages down throughout history.
There is no doubt that true disciples of the Lord Jesus throughout history have sought out to fellowship together on a local level with other true disciples, and submit to mutual discipline.
But I see no evidence whatsoever that the Bible says that the Great Commission, or baptism, was given specifically to the “local church” as over against all believers everywhere.
Once again, as I commented to you earlier, I am aware that the BFM states that “baptism is a church ordianance.” This phrase can be understood in several different ways. But where in the BIBLE can you show me that baptism, or the Great Commission, was specifically entrusted to the “local church”?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:32 am
David Worley,
If you, or John, or anyone else does not want to participate in activities like the one organized by the Ministerial Alliance that he describes, that is totally your prerogative. I would fight for your right, both as an American citizen, and as a Southern Baptist, to opt out.
But, if I don’t happen to have any problems abiding by the guidelines given by the organizers, and I see it as a worthwhile thing, I sure don’t want someone from the denomination telling me I can’t participate, or calling my doctrinal orthodoxy into question because I choose to participate.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
David,
Nobody is advocating that someone in the denomination should tell you couldn’t participate.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:43 am
John,
If, as Alan Cross alludes to in his last comment, the crux of the matter is the type of thing you mention in your comment #20, or that Chris is talking about in comment #26, then I have no real argument with you.
However, given the recent milieu on the blogosphere, and especially on this particular blog on which you have decided to post, it is difficult to read what you write here just through that lens alone.
And, for some reason, the term “ecumenism” is popping up like mushrooms all around the various “Baptist Identity” blogs in the last week or two. I guess if you say it enough, the accusation begins to stick.
In any case, I will bear you out, and wait to see what you say in Posts 3 & 4.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:48 am
John,
Here is a quote from Malcolm Yarnell, taken from a comment string on a recent post in the SBC Tomorrow blog:
“Thus, the only form of cooperation that seems possible when working with Pentecostal Christians is co-belligerancy with regard to public policy (standing against abortion, for the family, etc.). Evangelism, because its proper end is the planting of New Testament churches confessing New Testament doctrine, should be ruled out of the picture, definitively, whether here in the United States or abroad.”
As an IMB missionary, if the Board of Trustees were to agree here with Dr. Yarnell, they would be telling me I could not participate in such an activity on the mission field (at least, if Pentecostals were among the participating groups).
May 6th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I do find it shocking, though, that the immediate response of several of these pastors at the town party was to threaten legal action.
What a headline that could have been!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:00 am
David Rogers,
Let me clarify. My comment in #35 was referring to the denomination telling a pastor he couldn’t participate. (I was equating it with my testimony. i.e. the denomination telling a pastor he could not participate). I would not agree with the pastor, but I do not think he should be stopped by anyone at the Convention level.
I now realize that you were talking about you as a missionary. In that case, the trustees of the IMB have been empowered by the SBC for policy-making, then you can be told not to participate in such an event, and given what I understand to be the goal of planting churches, they should tell you that you cannot participate. I addressed this in my comment #21.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Karen,
I thought about pushing that issue, but I do not believe church battles should be fought either in the secular media or in the secular courts.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:51 am
For me, Enid, Oklahoma is not the center of the SBC, but is a fringe but boisterous group that has gone on a feeding frenzy that has lacked both character and discipline. If they should suffer one more sound defeat in Indy as they did in San Antonio, I predict this group will suffer from that which they have sought to prove… irrelevance. My concern is not the immediate, rather it is the possibly imminent. The dissenters that have been produced by the blogosphere the last three years are not the ‘root’ of the creeping ecumenism. Rather, they are the ‘fruit.’ They are not producing the problem, they are what the problem has produced.
Mr. Mann: Thank you again for your openness and honesty. I again, am confused as to what is meant by ecumenism. I do not believe in cooperating with a group no matter what their belief system is. I do believe there must be some criteria, a drawing the line, if you will, to who we cannot as Southern Baptists cooperate with in evangelism. My line is just not as narrow as some if I understand what they are saying correctly. For example I would be willing to cooperate with a Pentecostal for the reasons already given, but I would not with a group who did not believe the Bible to be true, Adam and Eve to be a myth, or did not believe that miracles in scripture did not really occur. I do believe those things. Or who taught that Christ was not all that he said he was in scripture. Virgin birth etc. Where would you and disagree? I also believe in being kind to the lost, loving them where they are, no matter who they are, while giving them the life changing gospel of Christ. Sin should be preached, but a person must have Christ to see any conviction or changes. That must be the first concern, not whether they are in sin or not. Cleaning up on the outside has the person still going to hell without Christ. Where would you and I again disagree? We should cooperate with all those we can from other denominations for the sake of the lives of people and getting the gospel out.
Enid is not the center of anything, Christ should be and I fear that this is being lost. Things were brought to the front view that were once hidden facts. I don’t understand where that would be root of a problem, except to those who have overstepped their appointed power. Of course I would disagree that their is any lack of character or discipline in bringing much needed transparency and information to Southern Baptists who in the past have only heard what the BP or the powers that be wanted them to know. I believe if their is any fruit or problem it is that as shown above, the narrowing is spreading to many other issues that one cares about who did not care about the aforementioned issues.
I still have not grasped your definition of ecumenism but I will be reading to fully hear what you have to say. Thank you again for the dialog.
Forgive my length and I will bow out as I do not want to derail this discussion which is not my intent.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
John, Alan, Chris, and especially David Rogers as well as all the other Missionaries on the Front Line.
I have a big problem with expressing my Heart Felt Thoughts into Words. I read and digest Words, but have a problem in relating to others my Thoughts. Please forgive me for sharing this Daily Devotional with you all.
Title: My Utmost for His Highest
Author: Chambers, Oswald, 18741917
May 6
Liberty and the Standards of Jesus
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free …”
(Galatians 5:1).
A spiritually-minded person will never come to you with the
demand—“Believe this and that”; a spiritually-minded person will demand that
you align your life with the standards of Jesus. We are not asked to believe the
Bible, but to believe the One whom the Bible reveals (see John 5:39–40). We are
called to present liberty for the conscience of others, not to bring them liberty for
their thoughts and opinions. And if we ourselves are free with the liberty of
Christ, others will be brought into that same liberty—the liberty that comes from
realizing the absolute control and authority of Jesus Christ.
Always measure your life solely by the standards of Jesus. Submit yourself to
His yoke, and His alone; and always be careful never to place a yoke on others
that is not of Jesus Christ. It takes God a long time to get us to stop thinking that
unless everyone sees things exactly as we do, they must be wrong. That is never
God’s view. There is only one true liberty—the liberty of Jesus at work in our
conscience enabling us to do what is right.
Don’t get impatient with others. Remember how God dealt with you—with
patience and with gentleness. But never water down the truth of God. Let it have
its way and never apologize for it. Jesus said, “Go … and make disciples …”
(Matthew 28:19), not, “Make converts to your own thoughts and opinions.”
My anti-span word is Temperance
Wayne
May 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bro. David Rogers,
You wrote: “But I see no evidence whatsoever that the Bible says that the Great Commission, or baptism, was given specifically to the “local church” as over against all believers everywhere.”
What is your scriptural basis for the Great Commission being given to all believers? I think the Bible is clear that the Commission was given to the local church. Even if the commission was just given to the eleven (B.H. Carroll makes a strong argument in his Interpretation of the English Bible that the commission was given to the above 500 brethren of 1 Corinthians 15), 1 Corinthians 12:28 places the apostles in the church. This together with scriptures such as 1 Timothy 3:15 prove that the commission was given to the local church.
Also you wrote: “I am aware that the BFM states that “baptism is a church ordinance.” This phrase can be understood in several different ways.”
I would love to know how this statement can be understood other than that baptism is an ordinance of the local church. Do you really believe that this statement was placed in the BF&M to show that baptism was an ordinance of the universal church?
- By His Grace
Ben Stratton
May 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I am very glad you dealt with the other pastors as you did, and not in court. I am shocked at their threat as their initial response. (I would have been shocked, too, if they had pursued it further.)
Actually, I suppose I am not shocked. I have participated in a number of public venues over the years for distributing pamphlets, etc. Very, very rarely have I ever had opposition from a person opposed to what I was presenting.
There often was opposition, but it always seemed to come from fellow Christians who did not like how I was doing it. And usually they thought of themselves as more open-minded than I. Told me that, too.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Karen: There is no specific method or mode in presenting the gospel. That is why cooperation with others even outside the SBC is important to me. I was guilty of downing a mode in the not so distant past, was confronted on it, and the one who confronted me was absolutely right in doing so.
A point that is important to me is that no missionary or church member be hindered in the leading of the Holy Spirit just because someone or someones do not like the mode or cooperation of those presenting it. That is very important to me personally.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Todd Pylant,
I was born and raised in the Church just as you have described in your comment. I was 40 yrs old before I was Born Again. I resigning as an Elder of the Church I was raised in and changed Churches, then Re-Baptized in a Believer Baptism.
Wayne
May 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Sorry,
I posted the above on the wrong Blog.
Wayne
May 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Wayne,
The wrong blog? Wow! lol.
David
May 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
How odd; our author supposes that the broad-tent reformers will go away as soon as they “lose” an SBC election (presidential, I must presume.)
I guess it’s the Hillary offer to Obama that got this started, but I have never seen one side of a religious argument so caught up in the immediate disappearance of its opposing side. The people who think the IMB rules of the past two years to be extra-Biblical and wrong were the same way twenty years ago. The people who resent closed-door decisions by agencies we are helping fund were that way fifty years ago. Underqualified veterans of conflicts chosen for positions based on friendships and political loyalty was wrong a thousand years ago. I fail to understand what is temporary or ephemeral about people standing up for the Word of God against the rules of men.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
John,
You say:
“I now realize that you were talking about you as a missionary. In that case, the trustees of the IMB have been empowered by the SBC for policy-making, then you can be told not to participate in such an event, and given what I understand to be the goal of planting churches, they should tell you that you cannot participate.”
Of course, the trustees CAN tell me (and other colleagues) not to participate in such an event. That is not up for discussion. Whether they should or not is a totally different matter.
You say: “given what I understand to be the goal of planting churches, they should tell you that you cannot participate.” That seems like a rather extreme statement to me. Could you please give a more reasoned explanation for this opinion?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Steve,
A point of clarification. I do not see the “broad-tent” reformers as going away. I simply think their continued drift to the left will make them largely irrelevant. It is their ideology that concerns me, and it is that about which I have written.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
David Rogers,
My reason for stating that opinion…
Theologically — I agree with Dr. Yarnell’s quote that you used above. I think the ecclesiology [and theology as a whole] of a Baptist church is more reflective of the NT.
Practically — When Lottie Moon rolls around, we set our goal, then encourage people to give. When a widow lady rations her Social Security check in order to give to missionaries to plant churches, she expects they will plant Baptist churches. When a man in my congregation who supports his family of four by driving a truck skips their weekly routine of eating-out on Friday night for four weeks so that they can give more to the Lottie Moon, he expects that the sacrifice he has led his family to make will go to plant Baptist churches. When I led my congregation into a three year plan to increase our missions giving by 5%, they assume that additional 5% will go to Baptist missionaries doing a Baptist work in an effort to plant Baptist churches. Most Southern Baptists rejoice every time a sinner comes to Christ. But they expect that the work they are supporting will be a work that they have an overall agreement with. They [and I] are Baptist because we believe in Baptist doctrine. Not Pentecostal, Presbyterian, or Methodist.
Let us rejoice every time a person comes to Christ. But, in my opinion, let’s support the works that we believe are the NT model. In my opinion, that is the Baptist model, and that is the opinion of my good people who sacrifice to support our missionaries.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
This has been an intense, but mostly cordial debate, and Mr. (Dr? Rev?) Mann, your response to our challenges has a lot to do with that. Thank you for engaging in debate without the bluster and accusation that so often accompanies it.
And, if your next post deals with “Enid” I won’t get to comment, since I have declared myself a BFBZ (Burleson-free blogging Zone) and refuse anymore to engage in debate which deals with Wade, pro or con.
However, I would renew my complaint against your post, hopefully in the spirit in which you have written.
I love Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology.” First he agrees with me on many things (always a plus). But, when I disagree with him, I have always felt my position was accurately presented. He accurately and fairly portrays those he disagrees with.
I do not feel that way, in general with the “Baptist Primacy” (my word for the so-called Baptist Identity) groups in general and your post in particular.
I think the reason people have asked you to name names is that we think you are arguing against a viewpoint that doesn’t exist.
I could say, “Baptist Primacy groups believe that only Baptists will be in heaven. That is wrong.” You would argue, “that’s not what anyone believes.”
That is what I think some of us are trying to say. You are arguing against a fictional group of people. Are there true ecumenists in the SBC? Don’t know. Most of them headed to the CBF or other parts unknown.
We don’t know of anyone who actually believes the things you are saying are widely believed.
My bedrock disagreement with you is this: I don’t think you have accurately represented my view and the views of others on this side of the aisle.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ben,
1. All the text of Matthew 28:16-20 tells us about the intended recipients of the Great Commission is that it was originally spoken to the 11, and that, in the same context, Jesus said “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” I think we may safely assume that the resurrected Jesus knew full well that the 11 would not remain physically alive until the end of the age. So, it is a fair assumption that the Commission was not meant to be taken as limited to the 11 alone.
Since nothing is said in the passage one way or another about a “local church,” I think the burden of proof is on those who claim the Commission was given specifically to the “local church.”
I will save my answer regarding the BFM and baptism as a “church ordinance” for another comment.
2. I have not read Carroll’s argument about the more than 500 brethren. If that is available on-line, and you can point me to it, I would be interested to read it.
As I read both texts (Matthew 28:16-20, and 1 Cor. 15:3-8), it says nothing at all about what Jesus said to what particular group on the separate occasions He appeared to them. It does seem like in the occasion narrated in Matthew 28, though, that Jesus was talking specifically to the 11.
In either case, though, even if the more than 500 brethren were also present at the episode narrated in Matthew 28, I do not see how that necessarily adds anything to the argument that the Great Commission was specifically given to the “local church” as opposed to all disciples throughout the ages.
3. Into which local church would you say that 1 Cor. 12:28 places the apostles? If you assume that the church in mind is a “local church” (which I do not), the logical response would be the church at Corinth, would it not? However, if I am understanding you correctly here, this undermines your argument, as the original apostles were all in Jerusalem.
And, even if you could somehow demonstrate to me that the apostles were all members of the “local church” at Jerusalem, that still does not prove anything to me about the Great Commission, or baptism, being given only to the “local church.” The 12 (or 11, in this case) were also representatives of the Universal Church, as seems to be indicated in Rev. 21:14.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
John,
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that, in order to cooperate with someone in evangelism, they must have correct ecclesiology?
Somehow, I can’t help but think we are talking past each other here.
Let me give the following real-life example, and let you tell me what you think.
A couple of years ago in Madrid, Spain, where I serve as a missionary, the Luis Palau evangelistic team came to talk to church leaders on an interdenominational level about sponsoring and organizing an Evangelistic Festival, as they call it. This Festival, which was eventually held in the summer of 2005, included many different Christian music acts, as well as Dr. Palau giving a brief 15-minute presentation of the Gospel each of the 2 nights it lasted. Before the Festival, much planning took place. There were several different conferences, in which the strategy for follow-up of the Palau evangelistic team was given. Committees were named to supervise all the different aspects of the Festival. Special materials were printed which were to be used by all the evangelistic counselors, who were to all go through a special training course beforehand. I, personally, was in charge of training the counselors from my church, Iglesia Bautista El Buen Pastor, in Madrid. The supervisory committee for the Festival was made up of believers and church leaders from all the evangelical denominations in Spain, including Baptists, Pentecostals, and many other groups. At the end of the Festival, the names and addresses of contacts were given to the closest church of whatever denomination who had officially participated in the Festival, unless they indicated they had been invited by someone from a particular church, in which case their contact information was given to that church.
Are you saying that the IMB should have forbidden me, as a missionary, to have participated in this Festival?
May 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Brother Ben,
It appears that the Great Commission was given to the disciples and their disciples and their disciples…so on, etc… The church is simply an advance of the true Israel seen clearly and with power in the New Covenant….unless of course one buys into the hyperdispensationalism that has been manufactured during the last several hundred years.
I believe David R. is right to say that scripture does not intimate that baptism is anything other than a glorious command to the “now” body of Christ given by Christ Himself to those that identify with Him. It is certainly ordinary to the New Covenant church that its body identifies with Christ through the “command” of baptism. The local church is never seen as an organization, organized as such to carry out certain traditions or commands (that is to misunderstand the purpose of the law… The true church has always understood that the messiah,…now risen Christ being the goal of the law….
Romans 10:4-5 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (5) For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
Galatians 3:12-14 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” (13) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”– (14) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Baptism, in stark contrast, is the identifier with the “God-Man” that became the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Everyone that “hears and sees” (Revelation 2:7) Christ follows Him in baptism, identifying with his death and life. This is a doctrine that the church teaches,…it is not necessary that the church regulate, or somehow officiate the effectiveness of baptism or its reality. That is a errant understanding of the command to baptize and to be baptized. The church is to disciple, baptize, teach, worship and praise our great Savior and God. Sounds too simple!
A prime example to help us understand the purpose of baptism, one of the many throughout the NT…. is Acts 19….
Acts 19:1-7 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. (2) He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” (3) And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” (4) Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. (7) There were in all about twelve men.
These men understood that their baptism was dependent upon Christ alone. Since they were originally confused in their first baptism…true doctrine was explained by the Apostle Paul and then they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Not just baptized in some formula, but understanding whom they were believing in…Jesus.
So at the beginning of John’s post,…his first introduction to religious water was not into Christ, it was reflected as salvation and as baptism into the rights and privileges of the church (COC). He obviously realized later on the significance of being baptized into Christ as the only real baptism that exists. Not for privileges, rights or “into” any church….but into Christ alone as Savior and Lord. (Acts 19) (John may disagree with the last sentence since the BF&M does add an extra biblical recommendation with the “privileges” speak.) But all in all the BF&M is pretty straight forward.
Blessings,
Chris
May 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Chris,
Amen!
May 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ben (and David Worley),
The phrase “being a church ordinance” was not included in either the original 1925 BFM or the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, on which it was largely based. It made its entry on the Baptist stage with the 1963 version.
I am not sure exactly what was intended by this phrase.
Personally, I can in good conscience agree with the phrase, if interpreted any of the following ways:
1. Baptism is typically administered in the context of a local church.
2. Baptism is an ordinance given by Jesus to the followers of Jesus, who make up the Universal Church, and who normally congregate together as “local churches.”
3. Baptism is something that a local church ought to practice.
However, due to the ambiguity involved, and certain interpretations with which I do not agree, personally I prefer the term used in the New Hampshire Confession, “ordinances of Christ,” to “church ordinance.”
May 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Chris has said it well. Very well.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Brother John,
Back to the topic….as I was playing a little golf this morning in the hills of middle Tennessee….. I was thinking more about this ecumenical thing and tried to think of what I might consider to be the most ecumenical movement within the SBC.
I think without a doubt, that “Lifeway” has become the most ecumenical leaning agency that the SBC puts forward. It has definitely become much more competitive in the publishing marketplace, but at the ecumenical price. If you visit a Lifeway store, you will find all sorts of doctrine, running the gambit from one extreme to the next. You will also find a host of iconistic items for purchase….more than at any other time in the history of the BSSB or the contemporary Lifeway.
I shop there when I have to….and had to return a book I was reviewing to use in marital counseling….it contained a section promoting pornography as a good way to spice up your early marriage (ouch). Lifeway immediately apologized for the oversight….but come on – who is really reading this stuff anyway.
The stores may be reflective of its consumers more than we would like to admit. If ecumenism is alive and well,….the SBC has stores that can help support the effort.
Blessings,
Chris
May 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Dave Miller,
I do not have much time at the moment, but I did want to offer my thanks for your kind words. Also, let me say that my next post will not ‘focus’ on Enid, though I will probably use it as an illustration of that which concerns me. Again, I think they are only the fruit that has been reaped.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
David Rogers and Chris Johnson,
I am not ignoring you… I am just quite busy. It is judgment [finals] week at SWBTS. I promise to return as quickly as possible.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Here is the reason for those who adhere to a historic Baptist identity must be careful to maintain their distinctiveness:
Ben Stratton is a confirmed Landmarker and is wrong as wrong can be.
Then there are those who would think it was OK for Pat Boone to baptize Wilt Chamberlain in his swimming pool without the authority of a local church.
cb
May 6th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
David Rogers,
First of all, I am not necessarily refering to policies passed by the IMB or any SBC agency. Remember, my concern is more about ideologies than policies. But I would have to ask three questions before participating.
1). Can I unequivocally support what the speaker is going to be saying?
2). Will those who are overseeing the event stop me from sharing my doctrinal distinctives?
3). Is the purpose of this event to start a local church?
At the heart of the matter, we are all under somebody’s authority. If the IMB were my authority, I would honor that authority even if I disagreed with it unless it meant my clear disobedience to His Word. One of my favorite “Adrianisms” is “you will never be over what God wants you to be over until you are willing to be under what God wants you to be under.”
May 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Jesus came announcing the Kingdom of God (Matt. 4:17). One enters this kingdom by the new birth (John 3:3), and the sign of having entered is baptism (Matt. 3:1,2,6).
So how can we do baptisms wrongly? Only if it done in such a way that does not signify the new birth - which would be the case most likely only if you were not saved when you were baptized.
Is baptism a “church ordinance?” But “church” is the term for an assembly of God’s KINGDOM people. So it’s both a church ordinance and a kingdom ordinance. If you have entered the kingdom and assemble in Christ’s name you are his church. The gospel is the gospel of the kingdom. A church is just a local manifestation of it.
One can call the kingdom the “universal church” if you wish (the word church is used in that non-local sense in Ephesians and is a synonym for Christ’s Kingdom). But we are given no right to add more to baptism than what it is, a sign of having entered Christ’s kingdom by being born again.
Chris Johnson said it so well when he said, “It is not necessary that the church regulate, or somehow officiate the effectiveness of baptism or its reality. That is an errant understanding of teh command to baptize or be baptized.”