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!

Update:  This is a direct quote from Charles H. Spurgeon.  I add this update for any and all of you, who do not read the comment thread.  I want you to know that I did not write this.  Charles Spurgeon did.  I was just having a little bit of fun with some people, who love Spurgeon, yet they don’t like Landmarkism, and they don’t seem to like the so-called BI guys.   Spurgeon appears to be more of a BI guy than the BI guys!

I really believe that part of the problem today, which some people and some Churches have in some areas of ecclesiology, is that they have a John Wayne, rugged individualist, “I did it my way” mentality.  And, this mentality rubs off on their view about baptism, and really, about the Church in general. And, we see this in the thinking of people when they say things like, “I ‘m satisfied with my baptism, so I don’t want to get baptised by a Baptist Church. I want to join your Church without being baptised again.”  We see this kind of thinking when Pastors say things to the effect that it doesn’t matter if a new convert is baptised by an individual person in a hot tub, or if they’re baptised with the Churches presence and by the Churches blessing.  It doesn’t matter to them that the Church is not involved in the baptism.  Why? because it’s an individual thing, rather than a Church thing.  In their view, it is a personal thing that happens outside of the Church. 

You know, when you look in the Bible, baptism is a group thing; not a “lone Cowboy on the range, riding in the sunset as the coyotes howl” thing.  The Lord set up the Church to be a fellowship of Believers.  The Church is supposed to be where people are baptised, and taught the Word of God, and discipled, and encouraged.  The Church is supposed to always be a group of Believers, who are seeking the Lord together.  So, why would baptism not be a Church ordinance?  Why would baptism be something that an individual could just do…out there… somewhere….apart from the Body? Why would the Church today let Western philosophy turn baptism into an individuals own personal possession, rather than something that the Church does and participates in?  Could it be for convenients sake?  Could it be to get more members in their Church, because they know that some people will not join their Church if they have to have a proper baptism?  Could it a real reluctance to deal with controversy on the part of a Pastor?  Could it be ignorance of the Bible?  Could it be the desire to “fit in” with the greater, evangelical group out there?  To accepted by the “cool group?”  What do you think?

Well, baptism is supposed to be a testimony of the person’s conversion.  Baptism is supposed to declare a message, the Gospel, to the people watching it.  Baptism is supposed to be a symbollic picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.  Baptism is a picture of the blood of Jesus washing away the guilt and punishment of our sins.  Baptism is supposed to be a way of formally accepting a new born baby in Christ into the Church.  So, why would people even think that it’s something that’s an indvidual thing?  Why would they even want baptism to be an individual ordinance, rather than a church ordinance? 

Folks, baptism is a time to celebrate the new birth.  Baptism is a time to rejoice in the salvation of a person.  Baptism is a very special thing, and it’s something that all the Church should have the privilege to participate in.  Baptism is a time for the entire Church to join with the baptismal candidate in this wonderful ordinance given to the Church by the Lord Jesus.  How much would be lost and missed if everyone was just out there baptising people in their own, private hot tub, or swimming pool, or local swimming hole in the creek?  I think a lot would be missed.  We would be missing much of what the Lord intended to do in the life of a Church, if the Church is not allowed to participate in the baptism of new converts.

So, who should get baptised?  Of course, those people who get saved by grace thru faith.  Acts 2:41. Acts 10:44-48. Acts 16:30-34.  How should they be baptised?  By immersion.  Matthew 3:13-17…Jesus came up straightway out of the water. The very word for “baptise” in the Greek means to dip under, to immerse.  So, if you want to do it right, the way the Bible clearly teaches, then it must be a dipping under; an immersion.  What should baptism be about?  It should be a declaration to the community that a person has been saved. It should be a testimony that the person has truly, sincerely put their faith in Jesus, and they’re willing to obey Him as their Lord.  Who should baptise?  The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Great Commission was given to the Church.  Matthew 18:20.  The beginning of the Church was standing before the Lord Jesus that day.  The Apostles were standing there, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, and baptise the new converts, and disciple them.  They were the men that God used to get the Church that the Lord Jesus founded going.  The Church should be the one who baptises new converts, so that they are involved with a Church family; to be nurtured in the faith; encouraged; taught; loved; affirmed; accepted; challenged; inspired; and given much needed guidance.  The Church is the one, who was given this task by the Lord Jesus, it’s Head. 

So, what a Church believes about salvation and baptism does matter.  Who is doing the baptising does matter.  It says a lot about a person’s beliefs.  I mean, if you get baptised in the Church of Christ, then you are identifying with their view of baptismal regeneration and works salvation.  If you get baptised by a Mormon Church, then you are saying that you agree with them about works salvation, denying the Trinity, denying the atoning death of the Lord Jesus.  If you get baptised by an Assembly of God Church, then you’re agreeing with them that salvation is not an eternal work of God; that it’s something that can be lost.  If you get baptised in the Methodist Church, sprinkled on top of the head, then you were not properly baptised by immersion.  And, these are not true baptisms.  Now, I’m not saying that these people aren’t saved.  They most certainly could be saved.  But, their baptism is not a valid, proper, true baptism.  They should be baptised for the right reasons, and in the right way. 

Now, please don’t come into the comment section calling me a Landmark Baptist.  lol.  I don’t believe that Baptist Churches are the only true Churches, or that we can trace our lineage back to Jesus, or that SB’s are the only ones who can baptise.  Puulease.  Listen, if Muddy Creek Community Church believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then we should accept their baptism as a true baptism.  If Possum Ridge Bible Church believes as we do about salvation and baptism, then I believe they have a true baptism.  So, please don’t come in here with all the Landmark comments.  I really don’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with that malarky.  But, I do believe that baptism is important.  And, it should be done right, and for the right reasons.  And, I most certainly believe that it should be a Church thing.

I’m afraid that we have a lot of Christians in the pews of Baptist Churches that really have no depth to their faith, whatsoever.  They do not know the Bible.  They do not know doctrine.  They really do not know what they believe nor why they believe it, if they do believe it.  We may even have Baptist Churches with people, who believe that you can lose your salvation, if you do something really bad like watch porn, get involved in a homosexual act, or commit suicide.  I mean, surely those people will go to Hell, right?  We may have Baptist Churches with people, who believe that the Church should just accept any baptism.  I mean, why make such a fuss about little Tommy Jones and his momma, Lucille, having to get baptized when they were a member of the Covenant Presbyterian Church for years?  What right do we have  to ask them to get baptized by immersion?  I mean, really…ain’t we carrying this stuff just a little too far?  Folks, I’m afraid that we have Baptist Churches that have a lot of people sitting in the pews, who really could not tell you the difference in the Methodist Church and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and they really could not care less to know.  They would say that we’re all nearly the same.   We all follow the same God.  We’re all going to the same place anyway.  You’ve probably heard all of this before, just as I have, right?

Do you know what I believe to be an even sadder situation?  There are some Pastors out there who don’t see it either.  We have pulpits in the SBC where the Bible is not really preached and taught.  We have pulpits where sermons are preached every Sunday that could be preached at Baptist Churches, or at  Methodist Churches, or at Pentecostal Churches.  And, the Methodists would amen…quietly…the sermon, as would the Assembly of God people…more loudly, of course.  The same sermon could then be preached in the Baptist Church, and they would amen it.  These  sermonettes have no depth; therefore, the people have nothing given to them to make them grow deeper in their faith.   They hear little, self-help-psychological-”how-to” sermonettes every time they attend their church. How can we expect those people to be deeply grounded in their faith, knowledgable about doctrine?   How can we expect people to be sound in their faith, and to stand strong on the Word of God when THEY DON’T KNOW IT!

My friends, we’re seeing a movement among the younger crowd that I applaud.  They want to hear the Bible, not our traditions.  Not our thoughts.  Not our philosophies and theologies.  Not our opinions. They want to hear the Bible.  They want to preach the Bible.  They want to teach the Bible.  To that, as a Christian who is the Baptist flavor of Christian, I say a hearty AMEN!  Let’s teach the Bible.  Let’s preach what the Bible clearly says.  When we do, then people will be Baptist, Southern Baptist.  If not in name, then in doctrine.  Oh, they may not join the SBC (and if they don’t, that’s fine).  Let them be whatever it is that they feel led to be, but, at least they will be sound in doctrine.  If our SBC Pastors, Seminary Professors, and our Sunday School literature writers, etc., will teach the Bible, then we’ll be steeped in Southern Baptist doctrine.  We’ll hold to the clear teachings of Scripture, because the BFM2000 is what we believe the Bible clearly teaches, and it is.  May God help us to grow in our understanding and knowledge of His Word and thus get to know our Creator better and better and better every day.   May the Lord help us to love Him more and more and more every day.  To God be the glory.

Recently, Wes Kenney brought to my mind that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a church planter to affirm both the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) and the covenant of the Acts 29 (A-29) church-planting network, particularly in the area of church polity. The A-29 covenant states, “We agree that our church will meet all biblical requirements for elders, including that the church will be governed by a plurality of qualified male elders (italics mine). In other words, for A-29, the church is not an organization that, “… operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes” as stated in the BF&M. Both these statements are polar opposites concerning the governance in the church. Again, A-29 has every right to define for themselves how they believe the church is to be governed. But, for Southern Baptists, the church is directly subordinate to Jesus, being governed by Him. For A-29, the elders are directly subordinate to Jesus, standing between Jesus and the church. In an A-29 doctrinal belief, Jesus works through elders governing His church. In Southern Baptist polity, Jesus governs His church directly without any middle-men. This is not to say that pastors don’t lead the flock and that God works through them. But, the final authority under Christ rests with the church.

There is also some question as to what is meant by elders are to “govern” the church. First, in A-29 they, “allow the elders in our various local churches to define their doctrinal distinctives.” For Southern Baptists, it is the church that defines its doctrinal distinctive, not a board of elders. It is the New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ that is, “governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word.” (BF&M) In other words, for Southern Baptists Jesus and Jesus alone, not a group of elders, governs the church. Second is the issue of the 10% offering to the A-29 network affiliated churches. It is the elders, for A-29, who decide where the money goes rather than the church. In the case of Southern Baptists, it is the church that comes to an agreement on how much and where funds will be distributed. Most Southern Baptists solely give to the cooperative program, while others also distribute to other areas of ministry. It is totally up to the church, not a board of governing elders. These two examples show that “govern” is closely akin to “rule” if it denies the church her responsibility to directly submit to Jesus’ Lordship and rule in not only their giving, but also their formulation of the doctrines they believe to be biblical.

Before anyone states that I am being anti-plurality of elders, the BF&M fully accepts the plurality model of elder leadership, but not elder governance. So churches like the one Mark Dever pastors (Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington D. C.) are fully within the parameters of the BF&M. It is elder-led, not elder-ruled. As Dever states in his book, “By Whose Authority? Elders in Baptist Life”:

“Under God, the final judicatory authority resides not with a pope or a convention, not with a national assembly or a pastor, not with a regional association or a state convention, and not with some committee or board, whether paid or unpaid. Final responsibility for the discipline and doctrine of the congregation, under God, lies not with the deacons or the elders. It lies with the congregation as a whole.”

So the issue at hand is not whether a plurality of elders is acceptable in Southern Baptist church planting. The issue is truly who has ultimate authority under the Lordship of Christ. Is it the ruling elders or the congregation? For Southern Baptist, it is the congregation of the local New Testament Church.

Therefore, there is a huge issue for someone who is appointed by NAMB to plant a church and also seeks funds from the A-29 network. For church governance, you either agree with the BF&M or you agree with A-29. There is no compromise between the two statements. To receive funds from both agencies, while affirming both covenant statements is either dishonest or shows a clear lack of ecclesiastical perception and grounding.

The BF&M is a Southern Baptist confession of biblical convictions we believe to be essential. We have rejected the reformed view of church governance as being unbiblical. To support those in planting churches who embrace elder governance (as an A-29 church planter) is to support what Southern Baptists consider a local church polity not found in the Bible.

Again, A-29 is free to organize their church planting efforts the way they feel they are being led. I have no issue with them and wish them God’s best in wisdom and guidance. But, our two statements differ concerning ecclesiastical governance and to overlook that is to overlook what Southern Baptists consider an essential biblical doctrine. I have to agree with my friend Dr. Bart Barber when he says, “The problem is not Acts 29′s covenant, but is the hypocrisy of people who have no problem with Acts 29′s commitment to its own vision while criticizing Southern Baptists who want our convention unapologetically to show a greater commitment to its own vision.” My desire is to see our convention unapologetically show a greater commitment to her vision of ecclesiology, as informed by scripture and confessed in the BF&M.

I have been asked why I have chosen to identify myself with this group, so let me share. My initial interest in blogging and the larger environment of Southern Baptist life began after the 2007 convention meeting and the buzz on the internet concerning motions passed and an entity head being vociferously maligned (seems the more things change…).  I blame my church’s youth pastor where I served in Oklahoma for ‘awakening’ me to all that we had going on in our convention.   Nonetheless, I began my own blog and soon reconnected with a ministry friend of mine, Wes Kenney, and the rest, as they say, is history.

The reason I have taken my stand with the Baptist Identity group has not changed since day one.  As I have stated numerous times and in various formats… Why must I be required to acquiesce my biblically-based convictions as a Southern Baptist for the sake of what some are saying is absolutely necessary for a true spirit of cooperation to be evident to the larger Evangelical community from Southern Baptists?  Why do so many of us within our convention seem all-too-ready to dismiss our commonly held confession and distinctive convictions for a seat at the table of influence in the larger Evangelical world?  Why must cultural relevance take priority over biblical fidelity?

You might ask, ‘Why mention this again?’  The fact that I keep hearing such aspersions cast at those of us within the Baptist Identity group indicates that this hurdle still exists in our convention.  I ask these questions, not to stir the pot of dissention with our current leadership within our convention; nor to highlight the error of others by name.  I am grateful for the conversations I had in Louisville with many brothers with whom I disagree on certain doctrinal issues.  I take them at their word that they are not selling, nor will they sell, our convictional Baptist beliefs for the sake of influence or popularity.  I have been encouraged thus far by the tenor and direction of the Great Commission Resurgence within our convention.  The Declaration of the GCR even including that beloved phrase…Baptist identity  .  I have those whom I consider to be good friends in the various ‘camps’ within our convention, all of whom I believe are God-honoring pastors and leaders.  May God continue to move us forward for the sake of His glory and the proclamation of His gospel to the nations!

Our purpose at SBC Today is to encourage unity within our convention by emphasizing biblical discipleship and our distinctive Baptist convictions.  I believe that will help us to aid in encouraging our brothers in the larger Evangelical community as well.  What we need in our day is clarity of conviction and resolute determination to glorify God by studying, proclaiming and applying the truth of His word to our lives.

Sola Gratia!

This is part of an article originally published January 1922 in the Southwestern Journal of Theology by Dr. L. R. Scarborough entitled, “Poisoning the Fountains of Truth.” It was republished in the most recent Southwestern Journal of Theology, “Baptists and Unity.” You can find part one here and part two here. May a voice of our past speak to us today. Below is part three of a four part series reprinting Dr. Scarborough’s essay:

2. Another way by which the fountains of truth and life of our churches can be poisoned is by doing violence to the ordinances of Jesus Christ, in depreciating their value and emasculating their testimony. This is done when a Baptist church receives baptism administered at the hands of some other organization than a Baptist church. If a Baptist preacher admits into the fellowship of his church Christians who have received baptism at the hands of pedobaptists, without requiring them to be baptized by a Baptist church, he violates the truth of God and is guilty of a heresy in ecclesiology which will eventually ruin the testimony of the ordinances and vitiate the witness of Christ’s churches. Such practice eats at the very heart of the life of Christ’s churches. Such a practice will not only injure the life of the church practicing it, but will eventually poison the fountains of truth in all of our churches

A pastor of one of the leading churches of Texas told me recently of a member from another Baptist church in Texas seeking admittance on a letter from this church, but when questioned as to her baptism she reported that she came to this other church on the baptism from a certain Campbellite church and had not been required to be baptized by this Baptist church. This pastor tells me that he promptly refused to admit this woman into the fellowship of his church. I think he did right.

There lies at this point a great danger and we should guard the fountains of truth from the poison that will come by the emasculation of the ordinances of Jesus Christ.

Reprinted with permission, Southwestern Journal of Theology

On July 4th 2009, Dr. Rick Warren, Senior Pastor of Saddleback Church and a voice listened to and respected in the evangelical world at large and by many in the Southern Baptist Convention, was the keynote speaker at the 46th Annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (you can see his entire transcript here).  This event was a gathering of 45,000 Muslims in our nations capital with many sessions of interest to Muslims residing in the U S.   What Dr. Warren addressed should be of upmost importance to us.

Dr. Warren addressed the need for Christians and Muslims to unite in order to address various issues that we have in common.  I would like to point out the things that Dr. Warren said we have in common and then address these issues and how we can handle them.

Dr. Warren, in typical evangelical style, presented a talk with four points.  He presented four areas he believed, as Christians and Muslims, we could find agreement and thus come together to address these needs in the world.

“The first thing we have to do is what I call on Muslims and Christians together to model; what it means to respect the dignity of every person.”

I stand in agreement with Dr. Warren on this point.  We should never forsake the dignity ascribed to individuals as human beings.  This includes children whose lives have been arranged by their parents to be married.  The ISNA has on their website a link for Matrimonal.  This link provides an online type of match making service for singles.  To be fair, it does appear to be something that single men and women may frequent to find a Muslim husband or wife.  However, the wording of the site gives cause for concern.  It reads, “This website provides a secure Islamic platform for single Muslims and/or their parents to create a profile and interact with other members in this database.” (Emphasis mine)

How many Muslim daughters are promised to Muslim sons without either of them being old enough to make that decision on their own?  Where is the dignity of human beings being promoted in that practice?   Did Dr. Warren address some of the various items where dignity was not being promoted by Christians or Muslims?  No, he just threw this statement out there and never addressed where dignity was being destroyed.

Also, Dr. Warren referenced something that is so confusing I am not sure anyone caught it at the convention.  He stated,  “As the Holy Scriptures tell us since we are created in the image of God, each person has intrinsic value and dignity.“ This begs the question: What Scripture did he reference as “Holy”?  Was he referencing the Qur’an?  Did those attending believe he was referencing the Bible or did they believe he was referencing the Qur’an? I would agree that we ought to treat individuals with dignity, but we are not able to establish this doctrine by referencing, as our authority, the Qur’an.  While the Qur’an may advocate that we all have dignity as human beings, it certainly strays a long way away from that ideal when it begins to address women’s roles in society.

“The second thing we need to do together is we need to work together to restore civility to civilization.”

I agree 100% with the statement.  We certainly do need to work hard to restore civility to civilization.  However, once again he does not state any particular events where this is happening.  He presents a type of harshness within our debates and this seems to be his basis for the statement.  But, Dr. Warren seems to forget that we live in a nation in which the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech.  Dr. Mohler’s article I referenced earlier explains better how Dr. Warren’s desire here is illogical.  The only way we can dictate one speak in a civil tone is to remove the free speech clause.

“Now there is a third thing that we need to do together and I think we can do these, hand in hand, and that is promoting peace, promoting freedom, and protecting freedom, particularly the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.”

This statement is so full of contradiction it collapses on itself.  Dr. Warren makes certain he desires us to speak civilly to each other then he calls for us to protect our freedom of speech.  As I said earlier, you cannot have it both ways.  Dr. Warren also positions himself as a defender of freedom of religion.  I agree with his statement here.  Dr. Warren spoke about his Baptist ancestors that fought in the Revolutionary War in order for us to have the freedoms we enjoy today.  He then says, “those freedoms are still under attack by people who don’t want you to talk about the things you want to talk about and the things that I want to talk about, or anybody else and they want us to just talk about what they want us to talk about.”

These freedoms must be maintained.  However, we are at the brink of losing the freedom to express our view that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.  Let’s face it: Dr. Warren was in the prime location to be free to express that view and he did not do it.  Why?  Only he can answer that question.

“Finally, I believe that there are some problems in this world that are never going to be solved by the governments of the world. I call these problems the global giants.”

The five “global giants” that he said could not be solved by government intervention:

“Number 1 is the problem of Conflict. War, confrontation, hostilities, terrorism, refugee camps. The second big problem that is all around the world is corruption. The third biggest problem on the planet is poverty. The fourth big problem is disease. the 5th biggest problem in Illiteracy.“

These five “global giants” certainly can be solved.  However, we need to answer a question.  If the government cannot solve them, can religion?  I say religion and government can solve these problems.  Notice that I said can solve them.  These five giants will be solved when we work together to solve them in a one-world religious order. Certainly I do not advocate a one-world religious order because we all know when that comes about it will be headed up by the Anti-Christ.  I am not against solving the problems of wars.  However, our Lord told us that wars would remain. It seems that Dr. Warren has allowed his desire to end these events to overshadow his knowledge of Scripture.  In Matthew 24:6 Jesus told us that many of the things Dr. Warren wants us to bring to an end are events that take place before the return of our Lord.  I am all for trying to bring about change in order to stop the corruption and other ills of society we see.  However, we must remember that all of this comes about because of sin, sin in the unregenerate hearts of the world leaders.

Thus, Dr. Warren had a great opportunity to make this point but he missed it because it appears he did not want to offend the 45,000 Muslims that gathered to hear him.  Paul’s instructions to Timothy was to be “ready in season and out of season”.   I believe Dr. Warren missed an opportunity to promote the fix to the needs of the world.  He was not ready out of season.  Could it be that he did not desire to offend his Muslim audience?  If that is the reason, Dr. Warren needs to remember that the Gospel is offensive.  He should never present it offensively, but when the Gospel is presented it is an exclusive truth not a truth equal to other truths.  I pray for Dr. Warren as he has a platform that many will never have.  I pray that he does not allow his concern for the masses to be his alone.  I pray that his concern for the masses is coming from the heart of God and not Dr. Warren’s fleshly heart of empathy.  May he remember that God’s heart does not send a confusing message.

This is part of an article originally published January 1922 in the Southwestern Journal of Theology by Dr. L. R. Scarborough entitled, “Poisoning the Fountains of Truth.” It was republished in the most recent Southwestern Journal of Theology, “Baptists and Unity.” May a voice of our past speak to us today. Below is part one of a four part series reprinting Dr. Scarborough’s essay:

Poisoning the Fountains of Truth

Christ’s churches are the most important institutions in the world. He gave them a definite form of government, a specific character of membership, set up in them the two ordinances, gave to them the great body of the truth found in the New testament, set for them their officers, and committed to them the great task of winning the world to Him and building His great Kingdom. He says through His inspired apostles in 1 Timothy 3:15 that this organization which He set up and called His church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” He says this church was purchased by His blood; and in His spiritual economy He calls this institution His Bride. All this and many other things in the New testament indicate that these spiritual organizations set up by Christ and established in many places by the apostles and which have for their successors these New testament churches of today are the most important institutions in all the world. These churches are to keep, guard, and promote the ordinances. They are to propagate the gospel. They are to win souls. They are both the preservers and the heralds of the gospel truth. They are to establish Christ’s Kingdom and to make Christ King in all the world. From any angle you look at these churches their importance is magnified.

All the institutions established by the co-operation of these New Testament churches—such as mission boards, benevolent institutions, orphanages, hospitals, schools, and so on—are of great importance; but of far greater importance are the churches back of these institutions. It is exceedingly bad when in any of these institutions promoted by Christ’s churches there is false teaching; but far worse is it for false teachings to be carried on in the churches which are “the pillar and ground of the truth.”

These churches are the very fountains of the life of the Kingdom of Christ. In Elisha’s day, as recorded in 2 Kings 2:19–22, there is an incident described where the spring of waters which furnished the water to the city for its inhabitants to drink and for the irrigation of its gardens, orchards and farms was poisoned; and these waters had to be healed by the miraculous power of God through Elisha’s word. The life of the people was endangered and the trees of the orchard cast their fruit because of the poison in the waters. Just as poisoned waters will destroy the life of a city, so will the poison in the fountains of truth in our churches cause spiritual death and dearth and drouth to the life of the people. If we poison the spiritual waters that flow from our churches into the lives of the people, we cause death to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Since the churches through their teaching service are commissioned to teach the “all things” commanded by Jesus Christ, and since this instruction goes Sunday by Sunday and week by week into the lives of the young, how very important it is that these fountains of life be kept pure from the poison of erroneous and false doctrine. It is far easier for us to correct false teaching in our schools, because the schools are under the control of our conventions, than it is to correct false teachings in our churches, because the churches are independent and sovereign and you cannot reach the false teachers, even though they be the pastors of the churches, except through the members of the churches themselves. This gives great emphasis to the importance of the right training for our young preachers who are to be pastors of our churches.

Reprinted with permission, Southwestern Journal of Theology

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.