Archive for Cooperation
Landmarkists? Really?
Posted by: | CommentsJ. R. Graves, who was such a major influence for Landmarkism in W. TN and Western Kentucky, was also a major player in the development of Union University in Jackson, TN. Dr. James Pendleton was also a major influence for Landmarkism in Southern Baptist life, and he was a former President of Union University. These two men probably did more to influence the Mid South in the area of Landmarkism than anyone else. Of course, there are many others in SB history, who were real Landmarkists. Men like B.H. Carroll and J. M. Carroll, and many other, influential leaders in SB life held to this view of ecclesiology. Landmarkism slowly died in SB life, and sadly, its departure also meant that SB seemed to slowly ignore ecclesiology; began to look upon it as seemingly unimportant; or started to give it just a passing glance. That’s the way it almost appears, anyway. So, a group of people out there began to talk about good, sound ecclesiology. And, it seems in this day and age, that there are some people, who claim that Landmarkism is not dead in SB life; due to this group known as the BI(Baptist Identity) fellas stressing sound ecclesiology. They say that Landmarkism is being promoted by a group of SBC purifiers, who want the SBC to be a Landmark fortress. And, these decriers of Landmarkism claim that the so called “BI” fellas, or the “Bapstist Identity” crowd, are the ones, who are promoting this ecclesiological view. And, there have been all kinds of accusations and misconceptions floating around about what the “BI” crowd is promoting; what they actually believe. But, are the “BI” fellas really Landmarkists? Could they really be classified as Landmarkists, or do they just believe in good ecclesiology? I want us to take a look at how some of these fellas believe about doctrines that surrounds the basic beliefs of Landmarkism, and compare it to real Landmarkism. I’m going to ask a series of questions, and I’m going to ask each, so-called, “BI” fella to respond to the Landmark belief, or to the misconceptions of some people out there, with his view of these things. Then, let’s compare that to true, real Landmarkism. Answering these questions are: Robin Foster; Matt Brady; Wes Kenney; and David Worley(Me).
Question #1: Do you believe that a Southern Baptist Church can trace it’s beginning to the Lord Jesus Christ? that there’s been a trail of blood? that a true, SB Church has been in existence from Jesus until now; as the Landmarkists believed?
Robin: I don’t believe that JM Carroll’s trail of blood is correct in its theory. I do believe there has been a “free church” tradition witness throughout history, whether or not one can call it a “Baptist” tradition as we see it today I question. Baptist churches, as we know them today, I believe got their start from Smyth and Helwys, while we have a spiritual connection with the Anabaptist of the reformation.
Matt: True churches have existed from the time of Christ and will exist until He returns. I believe my Southern Baptist church to be one of those true churches. I am not so concerned with the ability to list the particular name of every true church that has ever existed in historical and geographical order back to the church at Jerusalem as the Roman church tries to do with popes back to Peter.
Wes: If by that do you mean that the baptism of everyone in my church can be traced back through churches authorized to baptize in an unbroken line all the way back to the Apostles, then no, I don’t believe that. I believe that there have always been, since the time of the Apostles, faithful New Testament churches in existence, and I base this belief on Jesus’ promise that He would build His church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18).
David: I agree with the others that the trail of blood idea of J.M. Carroll is not correct. I do believe that there has always been NT churches in existence thru out history. I don’t believe that they were Baptist churches, and I know that they weren’t Southern Baptist churches. But, they were NT churches, which preached the Gospel.
Question #2: Do you believe in closed communion? that only the members of a local Church should take the LS together, as Landmarkists believe?
Robin: No. We practice “close” communion which to our understanding is inviting anyone to the table who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior and has participated in believers baptism by immersion. With this, I do believe that communion is a church ordinance and should only be practiced among the gathered local church.
Matt: Our church follows close communion. Just as a family gathers together around the meal table, it is the church family that should gather together around the Lord’s table. If we have others of like faith and practice in attendance, we do not forbid them as I suspect that the believers at Troas did not forbid the Apostle Paul when he met with them on the day they celebrated the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). Occasionally we will have guests that will be invited to eat with us at the table.
Wes: While I am sympathetic to this view based on Paul’s warning against partaking without “discerning the body” (1 Cor. 11:29), I am also in harmony with the Baptist Faith and Message on this point, and have no problem serving in churches which admit anyone who has been scripturally baptized to fellowship around the Lord’s table.
David: I believe in a modified close communion view. I do believe that the LS is a Church ordinance. I do believe that it should be observed by the Church, with others of like faith being welcomed to participate. I do believe that baptised Believers should participate in it. I do not believe in being so rigid that we’d have the LS police making sure that only baptised Believers of like faith are taking the LS with us. I would not make a big deal out of who should, and who should not be taking it. But, when I preached on it, and when we begin the LS; I would gently remind everyone about these things.
Question #3: Do you believe that SB Churches are the only true Churches out there in our world today, as Landmarkists believe that Baptist churches are the only true churches?
Robin: No.
Matt: By definition a Southern Baptist church is one that gives money to missions through the Southern Baptist Convention. Giving through the SBC cannot possibly be the measure of a true church as true churches existed long before 1845.
Wes: No
David: No
Question #4: Do you think that only SB’s are going to Heaven? that they’re the only ones that are really saved? (This is a misconception that I continue to hear from people concerning the BI fellas)
Robin: That is just simply ridiculous. Salvation is by grace through faith and is lived out among the saints in a local New Testament Church.
Matt: Had the Conservative Resurgence not taken place, I probably would not be a Southern Baptist today, but I would still be a Christian. Salvation is determined by grace through faith and not by any organization of man.
Wes: No
David: I have to agree with Robin that it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’d even have to respond to this kind of a question, yet I keep hearing it from people. My answer is “NO.”
Question #5: What baptisms would you accept? In other words, what would be the bare, basic things that would have to be true before you would consider it a true baptism? that you would accept without asking the person to be baptised? (Landmarkists would accept only Baptist baptisms; baptisms done by another Baptist church)
Robin: Baptism by a local church, by immersion, as a symbolic representation of union to Christ, death to sin, and resurrection to eternal life, “never to die again.” Romans 6:3-11
Matt: A member of our church must be baptized by immersion after conversion by a church whose baptism is an ordinance of symbolism and obedience to our Lord’s command and not a means of grace.
Wes: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines scriptural baptism as “the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the beliefer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.” The BF&M also identifies baptism as a church ordinance. So as long as someone’s baptismal experience fits this definition, and took place under the authority of a local church, then I believe it to be biblical and would encourage my church to accept it as such.
David: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, as well.
So, hopefully this will clear things up just a little bit about who these “BI” guys are, and what they really believe. Maybe? I hope so.
Now What Do I Do about This?
Posted by: | CommentsThis question has been dogging me for a few months now. It all began at last year’s MBC annual meeting… *the room begins to swim and then fades away amidst lovely strums of the harp. We are transported to Raytown, MO, October, 2009*… At that meeting I had the privilege, honestly…privilege, of spending a good deal of time with Micah Fries. 
Anyone who knows Micah and me knows that there are some differences between us. One, he is tall…ok, freakishly tall 
(sorry, couldn’t resist), and I am…well…short. Beyond that highly insignificant bit of trivia, we have some differing perspectives on the best way for Southern Baptists to structure our ministries in varying levels of cooperation for the sake of fulfilling our Great Commission calling as churches and a convention of churches. He has the right to be wrong…and so do I. O:-) I do not hesitate to call him brother. I would not hesitate to ask him to preach at our church (just as long as he doesn’t use words like missional or contextualization 
). I have found him to be a significant and consistent ally regarding some of the challenges faced in our Missouri Baptist Convention. I am praying that we see the right things happen for the glory of God and the furtherance of the Gospel… *Now returning to the present* Read More→
Harmony…Unity…Fellowship in the SBC
Posted by: | CommentsA conversation I had the other night, a good and productive conversation, got me to thinking about something. It got me to thinking about disagreements on doctrines in the Bible. And, I just wanted to let all of you know that I believe that it’s okay to disagree on minor issues; on the finer points of theology. In fact, I’d bet you a Krispy Kreme doughnut that none of us, Baptists, agree on every point of doctrine and theology, and that’s okay. We don’t have to agree on every jot and tittle. We can still love each other, and worship together, and fellowship with each other, and serve God together; even if we disagree on the minor, finer points of theology.
Now, on the main things, we must agree. On the main truths of the Bible, we must believe the same. On those things that are clearly spelled out in the Bible, there must be conformity. We must all surrender and yield our hearts and minds to the foundational truths of the Christian faith. We must all believe the fundamentals of the faith. Things like the virgin birth; the atoning death of Jesus; salvation by grace thru faith; the Trinity of God; etc. These are the things that would mean whether we’re even truly a Christian, or not. If someone denied the foundational truths of Christianity, then I wouldn’t even consider them to be a true Believer. But, those people that do hold to the main doctrines of the faith, I call my brother, or sister in Christ; even though they may not be Southern Baptist.
And, as Baptists, we must agree to the doctrinal distinctives which we hold dear; that we believe the Bible clearly teaches; in order to really be considered a Baptist Church. There are things that we must believe; doctrines that make us a Baptist Church. Theology that makes us a Baptist kind of Christian. Things like Believers baptism by immersion; the Lord’s Supper being a symbolic act; once saved, always saved; congregational polity, or governance; etc. If a Church can’t even agree to the BFM2K, is it really a Baptist Church? Is it really a Church that holds to what we consider to be the clear teachings of the Bible? that holds to the doctrines that would make us consider them a good, sound church? I would contend that churches must…in the least…hold to the BFM2K, in order to considered a cooperatiing, Southern Baptist Church.
But, on many, many other things, we can disagree on them all day long; and still worship and serve God together. My friends, there are many, many, finer points of doctrine that we can not see eye to eye on, and it’s okay. We can just have fun trying to convince the other fella that we’re right! Lol. But, these minor things should not cause separation, nor should they cause us to divide. They should not cause strife, nor should they be the source of contention. On the finer points of the major doctrines, we should allow for freedom; even while not agreeing with the other person. Amen? Amen!
Podcast Episode 16
Posted by: | Comments
The Thanksgiving week edition of the SBC Today podcast includes discussions about the Manhattan Declaration, the Georgia Baptist Convention’s removal of a member church, and our Thanksgiving travel plans. We enjoyed the discussion, and hope you will, as well.
Listen to the podcast using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the logo here, or the button in the sidebar. Leave your comments here with suggestions on how we can improve, guest suggestions, or to discuss the issues we raised. On iTunes, take a moment to write a quick review for us, or just click some stars to give us a rating.
Below are links to the items we discussed during the podcast:
Georgia Baptist Convention action
Enhanced Podcast: Thank You, My Brother…
Posted by: | CommentsI am compelled (some might even say irresistibly drawn) to express my gratitude to a brother in Christ, a fellow laborer among His people.
First of all, my brother, I thank you for your admission of your weakness and frailty. For repentance from sin and purpose to be renewed in your heart and mind, I am thankful. I will be watching and praying that you do not fall again into that temptation, that sin which so easily entangles us. I want to help hold you accountable–not so I can lord anything over you or be ready to once again condemn you, but to encourage you to godliness, holiness, and faithfulness. Read More→
A Caution and Reminder
Posted by: | CommentsA CAUTION AND REMINDER
Unless wisdom flees from us, Baptists will ever see to it that churches, churches and the New Testament type of preachers, meritorious preachers, are, in the right sense, the constant center of their concern, the first objects of proper honor and credit for denominational accomplishments and acquirements—not Boards, nor Associations, nor even Conventions, not Secretaries. These four instruments or agencies are legitimate, highly proper, and useful, indispensable, but they and their funds all stem from the churches and preacher-pastors. There is no iota of discredit here, of course, for these four agencies, but it must be said that there is an alarming drift in thought and practice, particularly in some quarters, in the direction that responsibility and most credit belong to Boards, Secretaries and Conventions. The writer hastens to say that he sees no such drift in Arkansas. History and experience show that where credit is placed, sooner or later right there control will be placed. Where credit abides control will reside. Boards, Associations, Conventions, and Secretaries are necessary, we repeat, and worthy and deserve a great measure of credit, but major credit and honor should be laid at the doors of the blessed churches with their faithful pastors. That is right and just and it ought to be expressly said in reports and minutes and is said in Arkansas at present. It is not at all sufficient to say “that is understood” or “everybody knows that major credit belongs with the churches.” Safety with Baptists lies in staying close to the churches, in continuous and unfailing recognition of the churches and preachers. They by the grace of God made this day possible. They brought us where we are. They, after the Lord and the Bible, deserve credit for what we are and have today. What is “understood” in this case should be underscored. This book is written with the constraining impulse and conviction that churches and preachers, little churches and little preachers (if there are such) and big churches and big preachers deserve and must have consideration and first honor in any such enterprise. Baptist denominational “directors” will do well to “watch their step.”
-J.S. Rogers
Is there ever an era in our denominational life in which this “caution and reminder” is not timely?
Save the Last Chair for Me
Posted by: | CommentsPerhaps you, like me, are overwhelmed at the rapid happening of events within the Southern Baptist Convention. Consider the words of the Preacher, “there is no end to the writing of books,” or the reading of blogs. Recently, a rather eyeopening article appeared here.
In the article, two young Southern Baptists appeal to nuclear disarmament as the way forward in order for the world to produce peace for itself. They base their appeal on the Sermon on the Mount and the hopes of world peace. Merritt boasts that he is a “member of a rising generation of Christ-followers who engage public policy differently than the generation that came before us.” Question: What exactly was wrong with the public policy of those who came before him?
Promoting his supposed more faithful approach than the former generation, Merritt proceeded to postulate that his generation will “attempt to mirror the ministry of Jesus Christ by promoting compassion and justice and peace, we seek to transcend partisanship, and we welcome the opportunity to partner with people of mutual good will.” I suppose that is in opposition to the former generation who did not seek to mirror the ministry of Christ, in Merritt’s view.
The ABP article proved to be intriguing, but it caused us at SBC Today to wonder what theological foundation this political philosophy would be founded upon. Since the effort of nuclear disarmament is headed by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, one who none of us at SBC Today were familiar with, we decided to examine exactly who Merritt is advocating our partnering with in cultural engagement.
Tyler Wigg-Stevenson certainly has a world-class education that speaks for itself. He earned his bachelor degree from Swarthmore College, a college of the Quaker tradition. Wigg-Stevenson next set his sites on Yale Divinity School, where he graduated summa cum laude. While at Yale, he had the opportunity to serve Holy Communion at the Marquand Chapel, where his wife would serve as preacher. This made for an interesting foray into the doctrinal background of Marquand Chapel. Perhaps most enlightening is the following extended quote from the chapel’s worship guide.
In Marquand Chapel, it is necessary to be attentive to language. This is a community where there is great diversity in people’s prayer practices, and language is central to Christian prayer. Making sure that as many other worshippers as possible are invited to join in your prayer and praise is vital, so we ask you to be critical in your use of militaristic imagery, metaphors that elide blackness with evil, and phrases that say disability is sinful.
In particular, we ask you to be attentive to your use of gendered language for both God and humankind. Naming God as Lord, Father, Master, King and He is scriptural and a significant part of much Christian worship; but Christian scriptures and traditions also name God in feminine and non-gendered ways. Naming God only with masculine nouns and pronouns can create the sense that divinity is characterized by maleness, and not by femaleness, and this can both limit our knowledge of God and, potentially, negatively affect our view of men andwomen, made in God’s image. Additionally, for similar reasons, please do not refer to all humankind as ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ in chapel.
Wigg-Steveson also demonstrates disregard for his American citizenship. In a video found here, Wigg-Stevenson was asked by an audience member about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons and his concern in regards to America, Wigg-Stevenson responded in part, “I don’t quite get what is going on– why there is such profound antipathy toward Iran in Washington.”
Elsewhere, Wigg-Stevenson said nuclear weapons touch on a number of Christian moral concerns, including protection of innocent life, care for creation and concern for the poor. He labeled reliance upon weapons of mass destruction as “enacted blasphemy.” Perhaps Wigg-Stevenson should examine the history of Iranian-American relations and see which country he would prefer to be a world power.
It seems Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt have confused political philosophy and personal protectionism due to a liberal theology. Indeed, the Christian is commanded by Christ to turn the other cheek when they are the victim of persecution. But the Lord also places the sword into the hand of the Government for the protection of those very citizens whose blood may be shed in their innocence. Would Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt to have their way, America would destroy all of their nuclear weapons, even as North Korea and Iran complete theirs. Then we would cease to be the land of the free and the home of the brave in order to become the land of the afraid and the home of the slave.
Finally, both Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson are written advocates of the Washington DC based think tank “Third Way.” Their website, www.thirdway.org says of the organization, “Third Way is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement. We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas.”
In regard to their stance on cultural issues, they write:
Third Way is developing new progressive approaches to the toughest cultural issues. Highlights include: pioneering a new approach on abortion that is embodied in legislation sponsored by both pro-choice and pro-life House members; drafting a bill to shore up the gun purchase background check system that was signed into law after the murders at Virginia Tech; contributing significantly to the planks of the Democratic platform on guns and abortion and helping to define the approach used by the Obama campaign on many cultural issues; releasing a set of common ground policy ideas with a group of centrist Evangelical leaders on issues like religion in the public square, abortion and gay equality;
Would Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson hope to see the SBC become advocates of Third Way? Wigg-Stevenson, a member of a Southern Baptist church and Merritt, a national spokesman on behalf of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in regard to environmental issues must either admit that they would lead in that direction, or succumb to the accusation of hypocrisy.
Considering the constant appeal for younger generations to have a place at the table, may we as Southern Baptists carefully weigh the results of failing to stand firm on Scriptural principles. Let us pray for God to continue to raise up Elishas to follow our Elijahs; but should those who continue to hold to theological abandonment rise to prominence, our concern will no longer be for maintaining a Baptist identity; we will be too busy searching for our Christian identity.
What This Southern Baptist Is For
Posted by: | CommentsOne thing is for certain, when a person stands up for biblical principles that go against an inclusive approach that seeks to cooperate at the expense of a proper ecclesiology in the church planting enterprise, people will seek to discredit you and misuse your statements. First and foremost let me say that I affirm Dr. Mohler’s effort to bring some reason to confusion in the form of what he has called, “theological triage.” In fact, if one would just read the paper that Dr. Yarnell and I produced they would see that nothing was said against nor in disagreement with Dr. Mohler and his “theological triage.”
A few years ago, an early modern paradigm was dusted off and re-offered to postmodern Christians under the name of “Theological Triage.” While we affirm this paradigm as a laudable effort, what we have seen, as of late, represents a distortion of its employment. The misuse of this method can be seen especially in the spiral downward to a “lowest common denominator” approach to church fellowship and ethical conduct. We believe that when theological triage is used in this way, it is being used inappropriately.
Dr. Mohler is a hero in the faith of mine along with people like Drs. Patterson, Akin, Vines, and Brunson to name a few. I pray that Dr. Mohler does not see anything I have written of him as some kind of division from what he has tried to articulate in his theological triage. Again, it is the misuse of Dr. Mohler’s idea by others that I am against. For whatever may be happening, I believe there is a concerted effort by some bloggers who thrive on divisiveness to create division between us, the primary advocates of the GCR, and other leaders in our convention. I direct you to this post here to further explore this.
I want to end this post on items I am for so that those who read other blogs may come back here and see the the truth. Of course I would not be surprised if these statements were misused in order to create further division. It is a divisive nature that some are wanting to advocate so they can discredit us.
Therefore, I am for:
1. Cooperating in the church planting effort with anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with the Baptist Faith and Message so that we may plant Southern Baptist churches that reflect our Southern Baptist beliefs in ecclesiology.
2. Cooperating with other Christian organizations in the effort to feed the poor, help in disaster relief, or provide better medical and sanitary conditions to communities as long as the Gospel is the ultimate effort to be dispensed. But even if I am in a situation where the gospel is forbidden to be spoken, I will not refuse to help a starving child or recently homeless person for that will go against scripture. I will just preach anyway and let the chips fall where they may.
3. Cooperating with other Christians in defeating the moral decay of our society as seen in abortion, gambling, sex trafficking, child abuse, teenage and premarital sex, and other areas of morality that go against clear Biblical teachings.
These three points of cooperation are not exhaustive, but I hope they give a basic idea to many who read other blogs that I am for working with others who differ on second tier issues that define what particular branch of Christianity they are when it comes to moral issues and humanitarian aid.
On my part, this is not a political battle that I seek to engage, but a call to theological honesty. If one claims to be a Southern Baptist and relies on the support of Southern Baptists, then one should believe as a Southern Baptist believes in the area of planting churches. I know that is not a popular position in the blog world, but so be it. God’s word conforms me to the theological and missiological tenets of Southern Baptists. That is where I stand.
