Today we have the honor of bringing you a guest post by our good friend Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Director of the Oxford Study Program, Director of the Center for Theological Research, and Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In this post, Dr. Yarnell addresses the depth of the biblical witness regarding the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper for churches.

Recently, a friend passed me the link to a video promotion for a DVD entitled “Communion.” It is an interesting video (and painfully slow, so be warned!) It is interesting in that the author(s) seems to present the Lord’s Supper as indiscriminately intended for all sinners. But this is too simple of a solution, and does violence to the biblical witness.

It is an indisputable truth that all human beings, other than Jesus Christ, are tainted by sin. This is what makes us worthy of the eternal punishment of death. Death, of course, is separation from God. And the Son of God took on our humanity in order to suffer the penalty of death for us on the cross and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life. Christ came to save sinners from sin and its consequence of death, which ends in eternal punishment away from the comforting presence of God. One is saved through being born again, which accompanies faith in Him and repentance toward God (John 3).

Unfortunately, the video’s author, in this short promotion, presents the Lord’s Supper as being intended for all sinners indiscriminately. But is this the case? Is communion intended for all sinners? Absolutely not!

When the Corinthian church demonstrated a penchant for gross immersion in the sins of the wider culture of their day, Paul rebuked them in no uncertain terms. The point he repeatedly made in the Corinthian correspondence was that the Lord’s Supper was to be reserved only for the regenerate church. Those who were still infatuated with the sinful culture of Corinthian paganism were reminded that communion with God and communion with the devil are incompatible (1 Cor 10:20-21). The Corinthians were warned that they must be separate from the world: “‘Come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord, ‘and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you’” (2 Cor 6:17).

In other words, I believe that, according to Scripture, the ordinance of communion, practiced by the churches at the direct command of Jesus Christ, is to be reserved for sinners who have been born again and are pursuing a life of repentance. Are the unholy invited into communion with the Holy One? Yes, indeed. But, first, there must be a transformation prior to communion. Sinners must repent and believe; otherwise, they are still sinners subject to the judgment of God. Moreover, such repentance from sin and faith in Christ must continue to characterize the Christian’s life.

Paul warned that those who continued in sin are subject to divine judgment precisely because they were unrepentant sinners. “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly” (1 Cor 11:29). The body must be judged. “The body,” of course, is a common Pauline metaphor for the church. Individual Christians, in other words, must examine their own consciences (1 Cor 11:28), and Christians in the local church must hold one another accountable for one another’s doctrine and conduct (1 Cor 11:29).

A concrete example in Corinth occurred with a young man involved in gross sexual sin. The speech of the Corinthian church had become so saturated with vice that she overlooked a situation by which even the pagans would be shocked (1 Cor 5:1). But rather than pass over the matter in silence, or make excuses for it, Paul called the church to take immediate action. As an Apostle, Paul recognized the need for the congregation itself to exercise governance through the application of discipline. The church must repent of its habit of condoning gross sin and excommunicate the sinner. When the church gathered, it must remove the sinful person “in the power of the Lord Jesus” and return him to the realm of Satan, i.e., the world (1 Cor 5:2-5).

The action of the Corinthian church in disciplining the unrepentant sinner was necessary, in spite of the difficulty it might bring to all involved. Yet, the difficulties were worth what seems to have been the result. Rather than continue condoning sexual sin, the majority of the Corinthian church seems to have obeyed and applied church discipline. This resulted in getting the sinner’s attention, bringing to him great sorrow, and as a result, he repented. Paul then called the church to restore the repentant sinner to fellowship (2 Cor 2:1-9). Through discipline, an unrepentant sinner who thought he was already a Christian but did not act like it, was brought to repentance and faithfulness towards Christ.

My friends, our churches must seek to maintain their public purity. On the one hand, the church will never be perfect until all Christians gather (for the first time as one) at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8). On the other hand, the members of the church are commanded by Christ to help one another towards repentance and a faithful lifestyle even now. If an individual Christian will not repent of publicly-known sin, then he or she must be excluded by the church (and only by the church–there is no room for elders arrogating to themselves the power of church discipline) for the purpose of loving redemption (Matt 18:15-17).

Let it be clearly noted that the intended outcome is, ultimately, the redemption of the sinner. Punishment is entirely in the purview of God alone, but loving discipline is given by the Lord to the church to practice when necessary. The church is to separate from unrepentant sinners in order that they might prompt one another through the covenantal life of the community to follow Christ completely.

So, we come back to the question prompted by the subject video: Is communion for sinners? Yes, but not without discrimination. Communion is only for sinners who have been born again. We know we are truly born again only because we are repenting of sin and are seeking to live lives faithful to the high call of Jesus Christ in discipleship.

Perhaps the video that prompted this short essay goes further into these matters. Unfortunately, the website does not clarify. I hope the full content is better than the presentation available publicly, for what they have posted online presents a highly distorted picture of the scriptural witness. For more on the biblical understanding of the regenerate church practicing close communion, see the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 articles on the church (art. 6) and on baptism and the Lord’s Supper (art. 7).

Jesus is the Lord of His churches, which means that He is to be followed in what He commands them.

Have you ever considered what your world view is, and where did you get it?

When we became Christians something wonderful happened. Our world view changed.

2 Corinthians 5:16 From now on, then, we do not know anyone in a purely human way. Even if we have known Christ in a purely human way, yet now we no longer know Him like that. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come. 18 Now everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:

Your world view has changed. Your view of Christ has changed. Your understandings of everything have changed to some degree.

World view is a fancy name that speaks about something we take for granted. We take for granted how we see the world. Like most folks over 50 I wear glasses. It changes the way I see the world, other cars, people, some of my friends are much older now that I wear good glasses. Hopefully the lenses in the frames help me have a more accurate world view. I have grown so used to my glasses sometimes I haven’t realized I have been wearing them; I once searched for my glasses for 3 hours, until I asked my wife where they were. She told me they were on my face! There are four basic lenses that give us a world view of the things around us. Sometimes we are not aware that we are looking at our world through a combination of these four lenses. There are various ways that something can be known. How much weight we place to the many ways of knowing effects our world view.

All Christians recognize the authority of the Scriptures. Someone once described an ordination service in a cult group. The ordinand held his bible in one hand and the writings of their cult leader in the other. Really, the ordinand was affirming the authority of his cult leader above the authority of the Bible. We may wrongly affirm Reason, experience or the traditions of our community above the authority of the Bible.

A. Reason. The Enlightenment made reason primary. Its creed was “if it can’t be verified, it can’t be believed.” Thus, science became the determiner of truth. Sadly, much was critiqued on the basis of reason and found to be wanting. “Miracles were impossible so miracles could not happen”. Sometimes as we try to prove by reasoning or the scientific method, we ourselves succumb to the same error, putting all our eggs in one basket. This form of reasoning succumbs to the premise of rationalists that the only true form of knowledge is that which can be gained using the scientific method. It allows the methodology and world view of scientism to become the dominant worldview. The Hebrew word for “Truth” is “emet”. This word has been translated into Greek as “alètheia”, and into Latin as “verilas”. But its meaning is quite different from that which the Greek and Latin words have in philosophical usage. For the Greeks, truth is essentially the transparency of a thing to the mind; “alètheia” means “unveiling.” Thus the criterion of truth is evidence. But the root of the word “emet” refers to the solidity of something from which one receives support; the pillar on which a building rests; the support that a child receives when resting in his mother’s arms; In the moral sense, the word refers to the faithful servant, on whom reliance can be placed.

The nuance to the idea of truth that “emet” brings is not the evidence of something known, but the veracity of the testimony that supports knowledge. Scientific method cannot attain the essential realities of personhood. These are only known by testimony. Realities such as; love; the love of others for us; the reality of historical events; are only known by testimony. Reason and scientific method allow us access to the material world, however when we come to the level of persons, the properties of persons can only be known if they reveal themselves. And for this reason we utilize the “evidence” of testimony. Revelation is God unveiling to us His nature and being, which we could not know in any other way. Baptists accept that there are more forms of knowing than just scientific method, and accept that if God is to be known, He must make Himself known. He has done this by His Word, the Bible.

B. Experience and Intuition.. In reaction the new creed of postmodernism is “if it has happened to me, it is real.” The desire for experience in all fields can become overwhelming in itself and can lead to the “If it works, it must be right.” pragmatism that characterizes many aspects of church life.

By its very nature, truth by experience is relative to the individual. This worldview concedes too much ground to pluralism and the post-modern mindset which says, “What’s true for you may not be true for me, and what’s true for me is all that matters.” But in normal day to day life we do acknowledge that there some limits to this form of knowledge. Everything is not true in medicine and life. Aren’t you glad your doctor does believe that there is a real difference between cyanide and Panadene. Reason tells us that poison and medicine are not both good for headaches. The same is true in our Christian beliefs. We do not hold that both atheism and Christianity are both true. It is logical to say that opposites cannot both be true at the same time. With such a diversity of religious experience being offered today, where does one look to find truth? Recently some have taught a prosperity gospel. They claim that God wants all Christians to be rich, and that wealth and power are proofs of God’s blessing. Others have pressed that all Christians should speak in tongues. Still others have thought that by the strange mysticism of Feng Shui, they can bring good luck to places or organizations. As Baptists we reject this as being something more akin to animism. If we heard of Baptist organizations supporting such ridiculous ideas we would be upset. Where do we go to find out where truth is? Baptists have historically examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. In reading the Bible, we discover that neither the prosperity gospel nor the overemphasis upon tongues is biblical. We discover the Feng Shui has roots in the demonic. And so as Baptists we assert the authority of the Bible over the authority of experience or intuition to direct our lives.

C. Community. We can believe stuff because our community believes stuff. Often the way we vote politically is more fashioned by the way our parents voted than by our conscious choice. It would be hard to estimate to what extent our conscious choice is fashioned by our family’s beliefs anyway. Prior to the Reformation in Europe Church attending folk believed that church officials, Popes, and priests had the power to pardon sins. Why? Because the church community had traditionally believed that for some time (this belief still continues today as the pope recently promised pardon for sins for those who visit the Vatican as tourists or pilgrims). But does God truly cancel sins that way? As Baptists we go back to the Bible and we discover that “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”( 1 John 1:7). We would prefer to take God’s Word for it, than the word of any Pope. How can we know truth from error in religious community? I recently chatted with a young elder of a bike riding denomination who admitted that he might have believed differently had he been raised somewhere else in the United States. Traditional views are community views that have become entrenched. One of those non-biblical views that has been accepted in tradition as being important in some churches is that of infant baptism. Baptists assert that if a teaching isn’t in the Bible it is dangerous to build our beliefs upon it.

D. Revelation. Billy Graham is famous for saying “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

In a world that relies heavily upon rationalism or experience or community beliefs we need some clear guidance that transcends our human biases and frailties. If the transcendent God is to be known (transcendent meaning that He is above our human efforts to understand Him as He is of different nature to ours Job 11:7 Can you by searching find out God? can you find out the Almighty? Ecclesiastes 3: 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.) He can only be known if He reveals Himself. As an act of grace, God specially revealed Himself to humans through the living Word (Jesus) and written Word (Bible). This revelation is authoritative as it comes from God Himself. I like how A W Tozer expressed the priority of revelation: “A Christian knows a thing to be true, not because he has tested and verified it in experience, but because God has said it.” In other words, although personal experience and tradition and the church and our own rationality are wonderful things, the final judge for our beliefs is God’s Word. It is the standard and guide to our Christian experience, our church traditions and our understandings of the world and all that is in it.

Psalms 119:130, “The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.”

Psalms 43:3, “Oh, send out Your light and Your truth! Let them lead me; Let them bring me to Your holy hill And to Your tabernacle.”

Proverbs 6:23. “For the commandment is a lamp, And the law a light; Reproofs of instruction are the way of life”

Psalms 19:The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

Baptists believe that all other authorities must bow to the supreme revelation God has given us of Himself in His Word. We must bring our minds (rationality) and hearts (experience and emotions) captive to God’s Word. 2 Corinthians 10:4 We demolish arguments and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

Paul spoke in the context of a confused world Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.32 “So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

We need to study God’s Word to keep our stability on a confusing and strange world of shifting ideas.

We are grateful to Dr. Ergun Caner for providing to us his perspective on the recent firing of a Christian wrestling coach by a Muslim high school principal in Dearborn, Michigan. Ergun Mehmet Caner is the President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, and professor of Apologetics and Theology at Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia. A former Sunni Muslim, Caner writes and speaks in the area of Global Apologetics. He can be reached at erguncaner.com and twitter.com/erguncaner.

There is irony in every line of this article from Christian Post.

In every Islamic Republic, operated by Sharia law, not only do sports mix with Islam, they are guided by it. Regularly Islamic Olympians are told to represent Allah well by their efforts. Prayer time is performed together as a team, to build the team character.

Yet in Dearborn, Michigan, a Christian coach (Gerald Marszalek) is fired by his Muslim principal (Imad Fadlallah). Why? because of his friendship with a volunteer coach who led a Muslim student to Christ at a summer camp. When the principal heard of this, he punched the student and told him that he disgraced his family!

Often Christians are amazed when Muslims protest Christian activities at public schools. Why are they upset? Do we not allow them to practice Islam in the schools? Why would they protest a Christian activity?

The answer is simple– Islam has never allowed RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

In over thirty countries around the world, Sharia Law, based on the Qur’an and the Hadith, allows for complete Islamic practice in every venture of life, especially in the school systems. What about Christians in Islamic countries?

They are only allowed RELIGIOUS TOLERATION.

In Islam, this is called the Pact of Umar, named after one of the first Caliphs, after the death of Muhammed in 632 AD. In it, Umar outlined the rules for Christians living in Muslim countries. Some of them include:

• Christians must allow their daughters to date and marry Muslim men, but Muslim women may never date or marry Christian men. You cannot stop the marriage of your Christian daughter to a Muslim, and the required conversion which follows.
• Christians cannot build new churches, or even repair the outside of older ones.
• Christians may not publicly proclaim their faith or witness.

The dilemma of Muslims living in America is clear- they do not understand true religious freedom. They cannot comprehend how any Christian is allowed to witness to a Muslim friend without being arrested, fired or worse.

The city of Dearborn, Michigan is a perfect example of the consequences of giving Muslims unfettered power to self-rule, even in the context of American Constitutional Law.

A simple examination of history clarifies:

1. When Muslims are in the minority in a country, they scream “religious freedom” and demand their rights. They will use this to garner power and political influence, playing the “race card” to get their way. They will protest and march in the streets, especially when the cameras are on them.
2. When Muslims are allowed to operate by Sharia Law in a democratic country, they will recognize Sharia over the democratic laws of that country, every single time.
3. When Muslims are in the majority, Sharia is imposed and Christians are immediately repressed.

The irony of Dearborn? According to the article, approximately one-third of the city’s population is Muslim. This may be the first event we have seen, but it is not the last. 1300 years of history tells us this is inevitable.

Religious FREEDOM teaches that a Muslim can build a Mosque wherever the city codes allow…

Religious FREEDOM also teaches that I can stand in front of that Mosque with a sign that says “Jesus Saves.”

Either my kinsmen learn this distinction, or they need to leave.

In the resurrection chapter of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says much about evangelism. He says he declares to the Corinthians the gospel, which he preached to them previously (v.1). He said they could rest assured of their salvation if they held fast to the word he preached to them (v.2). He delivered to them first what he had received, namely Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances (v.3—4). He remarks that though he was least among the apostles, he preached and the Corinthians believed (v.11). He imagines Christians declaring the risen Christ (v.12). In fact, this is a point of contention in favor of Christ’s resurrection. Paul reasons that if Christ did not rise from the dead, he preached in vain (v.14) and was guilty of false witness against God because he had testified to Christ’s resurrection (v.15). To the Corinthians’ shame he chastises them that they had failed to introduce others to God (v.34). He tells them of the mystery of the resurrection of believers (v.51). Paul anticipates that believers in the resurrection would prioritize evangelism. Believers manifest their faith in the resurrection by working at evangelism.

Paul’s frequent references to evangelism as a primary Christian work helps readers understand the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:58: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.” The work Paul speaks of in this verse consists of evangelism. In that work believers should “be steadfast, immovable”, and “always abounding.” A little evangelism here and there on infrequent occasions does not match the expectations of the apostle. He even expected the chaotic Corinthians to always abound in evangelism. The urgent need of the hour is steadfast, immovable, and always abounding evangelism.

Southern Baptists have several champions who have modeled this for the churches. One of those champions was George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Church Dallas, and oftentimes chairman of the Board of Trustees of Southwestern Seminary. In his biography of George Truett, Powhatan James wrote of Truett’s commitment to evangelism. He took pains to describe the extent to which Truett had yielded his life to Jesus Christ and how this surrender manifested itself in evangelism. Many have attested to Truett’s unreserved surrender to Jesus Christ and Christ’s dominance of this great man. James reveals that Christ’s dominance over Truett surfaced at many points, but one of the most unusual episodes of Truett’s surrender occurred when Truett lay sick in a hospital bed in Dallas. Truett was preaching an area wide revival in Longview, Texas when influenza made it impossible for him to continue the meetings. An ambulance rushed him to a Dallas hospital where he spent a month under a doctor’s care, followed by a month of rehabilitation at his favorite resort in Mineral Wells, Texas.

During his stay in the hospital, something unusual happened, and Truett became delirious. Of course, when people become delirious they are likely to say almost anything, and, sadly, the things spew forth are things they would never say when lucid. Truett suffered in this condition. Fever, and perhaps medication, confused and demented his mind. Mrs. Truett stayed by his beside during these times, and she wrote to James of what she experienced at his side during these times of delirium. She wrote,

My task has not been an easy one these past two months. It is very sweet to me, and a source of comfort to him, to learn that all through his unconsciousness and delirium from fever or medication, his subconscious mind was just as clean and Christian as his daily life has always been. As you know, I did not leave his bedside for the four weeks of his hospitalization, nor [sic] the weeks since. In his delirium, he was quoting scripture, preaching, and calling men to Christ or praying for them. I feel that his illness was a great revelation of the real man.*

The debilitating illnesses could not debilitate Truett’s witness for Christ. Difficulties could not debilitate Paul’s witness for Christ either. Nothing should debilitate our witness for Christ. Believers in the resurrection can fashion a personal practice of evangelism that resembles the resurrection. That is, as the resurrection is steadfast, immovable, and always abounding towards the world, so our personal evangelism can be steadfast, immovable, and always abound. To accomplish this, witnesses can pray every day for a list of lost people, preferably fifteen. They can make a new friend every day. They can witness every day using scheduled evangelism (visitation), spontaneous evangelism (“As you go” Matt 10:7), and social evangelism (making friends for Christ). They can invite someone to church every day. Research indicates that 82% of the unchurched are “somewhat likely” to accept an invitation. By mastering simple efforts in personal evangelism—and if pastors do not master personal evangelism, no one else will—they can live in a manner reminiscent of the resurrection.

_________________________

*Powhatan W. James, George Truett: A Biography (Nashville: Broadman, 1939), 275-76.

Guest Contributor, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell III, again graces our site with an insightful article on how revival in our convention has been shaped in the past. May the Lord move mightily in our churches as he has in the past!

At the beginning of the 20th century, Southern Baptists numbered 1.6 million people. And now, at the beginning of the 21st century, Southern Baptists number over 16 million people. The story of Southern Baptists in the 20th century is the growth story of a communion of free churches who focused upon telling lost people the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, in recent years, our baptisms have slowed and our growth has been tempered. Why has this happened? And does our past hold any lessons for our future? How may we truly reclaim the growth habits of our forefathers and the resurgence in our hearts of Christ’s Great Commission?

As the editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology, I have been reading through our earliest issues. In the midst of that, I repeatedly encountered denominational leaders issuing powerful affirmations of the fundamentals of the Christian faith alongside equally powerful affirmations of the fundamentals of Baptist identity. They understood the fundamentals of the Christian faith to focus on Christ, Scripture, the cross, divine grace, and personal discipleship. They understood the fundamentals of Baptist identity to focus on the Lordship of Christ and His will for His churches. These leaders, from many places and walks within the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, simultaneously shared a passion for the gospel along with a passion for obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ, especially His Great Commission.

In the midst of this reading, I also discovered a general foreboding about the future of Christianity, alongside a sense of profound excitement, especially regarding the future of Southern Baptists. As we know from our current vantage point, Southern Baptists entered their period of greatest growth in the middle decades of the 20th century. Our amazing growth was truly the work of God in the midst of our churches. And the mid-century growth was laid upon the foundational work He performed with our forefathers in the early part of the century. What characterized the foundational work of those early 20th-century forefathers? And what may we learn from them about how to prepare for an advance in the Great Commission of Jesus Christ?

Dark Days in the Southern Baptist Convention

To answer these questions properly, some historical matters in the early 20th century must be addressed. During this period, the United States entered and emerged from its first engagement in world war. At that time, Americans were at war with German imperialism, just as now, we are in the midst of a war against Islamic terrorism. Also, in the religious realm, things were similar to today. There had been a powerful call by evangelical missionaries for a common missionary endeavor both in the United States and throughout the world. Internationally, these efforts were centered in the famous meetings in Edinburgh in 1910, which culminated in the World Council of Churches. In the United States, the drive for ecumenism was led by John R. Mott, a young evangelical who succeeded the great revivalist D.L. Moody at the YMCA.

Mott’s efforts gained steam and became known as the “Union Movement,” because it called for lowering denominational barriers between evangelical Christians in the name of “efficiency” and “unity” in Christ. From within the Southern Baptist Convention, L.R. Scarborough, president of Southwestern Seminary, led the effort to denounce unionism in its various forms. Even as he defended a biblically-based spiritual unity, Scarborough and other Southern Baptists excoriated cross-denominational ecclesiastical unity for impinging upon the prerogatives of Christ over His churches.

Thus, many saw ecumenism as dangerous to spiritual Christianity, while others were interested in forming coalitions with other Christians for the greater cause of the gospel. Things looked fairly bleak in the late 1910s as evangelical Christians divided into camps. In particular, it seemed as if Southern Baptists might dissipate their strength in a fight over evangelical cooperation. J.B. Gambrell, pastor and seminary leader, spoke soberly of the deep challenges leading into the 1919 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta:

“The great war forced on Southern Baptists grave issues. They were precipitated on us in such a way that each man had to decide on his own course without any wide council. Unusual efforts were made by outside forces to capture and take over the leadership of the Southern Convention in the interest of plans destructive of the faith of the Gospel. The Convention in its Atlanta meeting was at the parting of ways. There was much heart-searching, and much prayer. Personally, I do not doubt that God, the Holy Spirit, dealt with the hearts of His people all over the South and prepared them aforetime for what happened in Atlanta. The Convention was the greatest ever assembled on this Continent, 4,200 messengers plus. It was widely representative. All the estates of Israel were there.”

In spite of the troubles, perhaps God was not done with Southern Baptists. With the heaviness of his previous comments in mind and the largest-ever convention gathering before him, Gambrell believed that God still desired to move mightily in the midst of His churches. Reflecting later about what had happened at the 1919 meeting, Gambrell concluded, “The Spirit of grace and power was on the assembly.” And looking back from here, we perceive that Gambrell may have actually understated the wide-ranging impact of God’s grace and power in this convention.

Three Fundamental Planks in the Denomination’s Growth

And what did the Spirit of God lead the messengers of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to do during its 1919 meeting? Out of a dark period arose something profoundly God-honoring and world-moving from within the Southern Baptist Convention. Alongside their defense of Christian truth and their defense of Baptist identity, our forefathers were interested in reaching the world for Christ. And God honored Southern Baptists as they followed a threefold pursuit.

The efforts of our early 20th-century forefathers manifested themselves in three significant planks in our denomination’s foundation: a compelling goal, a defined identity, and a common program. First, their compelling goal was the fulfillment of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Second, their defined identity was evangelical Christianity of a firmly Baptist type. Third, their program was to further the Great Commission efforts of the local churches in ways respectful of the local church’s authority.

In the case of the first plank, Southern Baptists had long received the Great Commission as their own, as sermons delivered in the churches and the writings in those early issues attest. Indeed, the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 has historically been the loudest refrain of the Baptists in general and of Southern Baptists in particular. The Great Commission was their compelling goal, just as it is ours.

Defining Baptist Identity

But there were two additional acts representing the two other planks that Southern Baptists needed to form the basis for their future growth: a defined identity and a common program. According to Gambrell,

“The Convention rose to its greatest height, and did two vastly significant things. It disposed of all questions of alliances with other orders holding different standards of faith and practice, by passing, with amazing spirit and unanimity, a carefully considered report, which defined the Baptist position so clearly, that all the world may understand. And the convention put on a program so large, so noble and so commanding as to challenge Southern Baptists as they have never been challenged before in their history.”

In the case of a defined identity, the convention appointed a committee to write a Fraternal Address, which was soon followed by the first version of The Baptist Faith and Message. To drive home the point that Southern Baptists would maintain their Baptist identity, Gambrell, the president of the convention during that important year, listened patiently to the address of J.C. White. White had come from the evangelical Inter-Church Movement and was granted a place in the SBC program. After White spoke, Gambrell publicly grasped him by the hand at the podium and declared, “Baptists do not have popes. They never put anybody where they can’t put him down . . . and another thing: Baptists never ride a horse without a bridle.”

“Baptists,” according to the bold Gambrell, “do not have popes.” This fierce defense of Christ’s direct prerogative over His people has been echoed through the years, not only in the Southern Baptist Convention, but in the local associations and state conventions that preceded the national denomination by decades and centuries. Most importantly, that sense of singular devotion to Jesus Christ has its basis in the New Testament pattern of the local church, which is the only institution created by Jesus Christ to fulfill the Great Commission.

A Common Program Respectful of the Local Church

In the case of a common program, these earlier Southern Baptists believed that the local churches may and must support one another in their mutual efforts. The mutual cooperation of free New Testament churches for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus Christ was the genius behind the programmatic efforts of the Southern Baptist Convention. And this third plank of Southern Baptist success, a common program, was dependent upon respect for the local church for its success. New Testament churches are autonomous under Christ and their independence was zealously guarded.

But Southern Baptists in these years also sought ways for the free churches to move forward together for the gospel. They began by improving the church-supporting structure of the convention they had received. They recognized the need to help their two great foundational mission boards (Home and Foreign), as well as their growing number of seminaries and the Baptist Sunday School Board through improved means. In 1917, they created the Executive Committee as a better means to coordinate their broadening administrative needs. And in 1919, they wholeheartedly adopted the 75 Million Campaign as a better means to fund their common efforts to preach the gospel and plant Baptist churches worldwide. The end result was the Cooperative Program and the basic structure of the national denomination as we see it, today.

Hope for a New High

And what was the result of this compelling goal of the Great Commission, the defined identity of Baptist Christianity, and this common program respectful of the local churches? Gambrell’s own words resonate with our hope for a renewed sense of commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over His churches, a commitment that is expressed as the churches fulfill the Great Commission given to us by Jesus Christ:

“Thus the healing tides of Southern Baptist life met and Jordan overflowed its banks. As never before in all their long history, Southern Baptists are together after Paul’s ideal of efficiency-’in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.’ At Atlanta a new era opened and we are in that day now. What Isaiah cried out for and some in our day have longed for came to pass. Southern Baptists awoke. They broke forth on the right hand and on the left hand. They are putting on their strength. They are enlarging the place of their habitation, and there is a new high note of courage and joy sounded out from every hilltop . . . .”

Oh, Lord, send us a three-planked revival, again! Restore to our hearts an overwhelming desire to fulfill your Great Commission as defined by your Word. Restore to our voices an evangelical identity of a distinctively Baptist type as gleaned from the New Testament. And restore to our ways remembrance that your local churches are your ordained means and therefore our ordained program.

Malcolm B. Yarnell III
Fort Worth, Texas
7 May 2009

We’re pleased to welcome another first-time contributor to SBC Today.  Dr. Brad Reynolds is currently the Assistant Professor of Christian Education at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Dr. Reynolds holds degrees from Criswell College, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the College of William and Mary.  He has been teaching at Southeastern since 2003. He has been serving as Senior Pastor of Oak Grove Baptist Church since 2005.

If you would like to interact with Dr. Reynolds concerning his thoughts, we invite you to visit his blog, Guardian Ministries.

I was asked by Tim Rogers to share my thoughts on the SBC. I am sincerely humbled by his request. My thoughts are inexhaustive, limited, and most likely erroneous because of my human frailty and subjective perspective. Nevertheless, I share.

Currently, I believe there are two competing views of who Southern Baptists (SB) are or should be. The first is ecumenical. It apparently desires SB to become a Baptist-Charismatic-Presbyterian-culturally accepted hybrid. Those who hold this view would have few issues with SBC employees teaching a private prayer language to new converts or teaching 3 offices in the church (rather than the two specified in the BFM 2000) or teaching that the consumption of alcoholic beverages for recreational purposes is not inappropriate behavior for a follower of Christ.

The second view is distinctively SB. We who fall into this camp would struggle with giving up our distinctives in order to increase our numbers. We find it arduous, based upon the Great Commission (GC), to release even the tertiary teachings of Christ. We would assert that the GC doesn’t end with leading others to Christ (something both camps affirm) but continues with “teaching them to observe ALL things I have commanded you” (not just the primary and secondary but also the tertiary). To distinguish between the primary, secondary and tertiary teachings of Christ and then to refuse to teach the tertiary seems difficult for many of us to swallow in lieu of the GC.

I acknowledge I seem to have conflated primary, secondary and tertiary “theological concepts” with primary, secondary and tertiary “teachings of Christ.” However, I would contend that our theological concepts are teachings from Scripture and thus the teachings of Christ. I think we can agree that not all “theological concepts” are clear in Scripture (i.e. tribulation views). Yet, through certain resolutions and doctrinal confessions SB have consistently voiced what they believe to be teachings of Scripture, however, tertiary they may be.

I further suspect many SB find themselves not so easily classified into either of these camps, nevertheless, I do believe these are the two diverging views. I am persuaded both camps share a genuine desire to reach the younger generation of SB who have been turned off both by the politics and the bureaucracy of the convention. I am even more confident all SB desire to see the lost reached for Christ.

I have encumbered myself to now explain how to reach a post post-modern generation of SB. I am of the opinion that they will not be brought in via another fight over what is and is not tertiary. I do believe, however they will be attracted to sincere (not pseudo) care for one another and a true passion for lost souls, as well as an opportunity to participate.

Thus, before restructuring our convention perhaps we might consider restructuring the convention schedule. I imagine a vast majority would enthusiastically welcome 2 hour slots for business. Give us time to debate, discuss, amend and vote. Railroading turns off this generation. They seem to disdain the concept of the major decisions of the convention being decided by a select few before the convention begins. Let them have a voice on the convention floor. Further, I believe 2 to 3 hours of open-mic testimonies and prayer requests would be loudly applauded by this younger generation. They are into the REAL. A spontaneous heart-cry is heard much more acutely than a rehearsed performance. Give them opportunities to share of those whom they saw come to Christ this year, give them time to brag on Jesus, give them a chance to ask for prayer. Then listen as they break into spontaneous worship and praise of our God. Watch as they wrap each other in love. And join them as they glorify our God with the passion of youthfulness.

Finally, I assert that seeking unity amongst SB is more important than “change” but less important than doctrinal purity. Thus, I would love to see a movement, which focused on the unity that those of us who affirm the BFM2000 share. While “Toward a Great Commission Resurgence” is a well-written and well-received document, one need not read far on the signature page to realize there are Resurgent and SB leadership names missing. Hopefully, through phone calls and meetings this can be resolved; however, without some defining (at least privately) I fear many may struggle to sign it (see BP News article:  GCR: Tone, focus, clarity of declaration questioned by non-signers); and yet, if the defining is public, some may remove their names.

In light of this, I assert what is common knowledge: the Great Commission was not given to the SBC but to the local church. Thus, I believe a GC Resurgence will not begin in the halls of the convention center but in the hearts of local congregations. Therefore, I humbly submit some thoughts that might help unify our convention while solidifying a passion for the fulfillment of the Great Commission through our churches:

1. For both pastors and laity to purpose to pray daily for the salvation of lost souls, not just locally but globally (perhaps using a tool like www.operationworld.org).

2. For pastors and laity to pray for their neighbors and family members who may not know Christ. Asking God to open the door of opportunity to share the gospel of Christ.

3. For pastors and laity alike to become more purposeful in sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4. For pastors to continue to call out the Called.

5. For pastors and laity to give sacrificially to missions.

6. For ALL convention messengers to begin praying as to how our convention could be better structured to help the local churches fulfill the Great Commission. Asking questions like: How could the IMB/NAMB be better structured to help local churches organize mission trips? How could state conventions be encouraged to distribute even more funds to our missionaries and church plants? How could our seminaries and the IMB/NAMB help local churches train and send out missionaries where the missionaries are led by God to go, rather than where we tell them God is leading them to go? How could the IMB/NAMB better assist local churches in planting churches both locally and globally?  Perhaps a committee could be appointed to explore such and bring recommendations for discussion (appointing a committee seems very Southern-Baptistic).

At some point we will need an open dialogue as to the future of SB.  Does it entail a blurring of our distinctions?  And if so, how blurred are we to become?  If, in the future, the convention leaves me, so be it.  But, for now, I would prefer unifying like-minded SB (those who affirm the BFM2000) before discussing a convergent hybridization with non-Baptists.  In other words, I would opt to get our house in order before we invite others to dine with us.

May our Lord bless us as we seek His Glory.

Anyone who dabbles at all in cultural observation has noted that sadly in the typical American home, the children set the agenda and dictate the values. This is of course due to the dysfunctional mindset that the goal for most homes is the absence of conflict instead of the glory of God. If a parent’s aim is the absence of conflict, it is only a little while until the kids have it their way, right away, keeping the parent from having to deal with tantrums and uncooperative attitudes.

Sadly, these dynamics are not just playing out in our homes, but at the denominational level of our Southern Baptist Convention as well. In our beloved SBC, the over 65s are the elders of our denomination and by and large have run their lap and are now passing on the baton to the 45-65s who are ready to run the next leg of the SBC race. Indeed, the 45-65s are already doing so as they lead more and more of our agencies and boards. And then there is my generation, the 25-45s, the convention “teens.” Some of us, to our shame, are acting like angry dysfunctional adolescents, thinking we know what is best for the family, throwing tantrums and offering uncooperative attitudes when things are not going our way.

But what surprises me is not the immature attitude of entitlement that has been common to youngsters for generations, but rather the credence given to some of the 25-45s by many of the over 45s. This response gives the appearance that the SBC is close to pursuing the goal of the absence of conflict instead of the pursuit of God’s glory. That we have reached a day where the kids are clamoring to rule the roost is Exhibit A of this focus-shift.

In my opinion, the ubiquitous analysis and discussions of the last few years regarding the dynamics of the under 45s in the SBC is making us dysfunctional and unhealthy. Granted, I don’t question the motive for seeking to reach and maintain contact with future Southern Baptist leaders-that mentoring and relationship work needs to take place-I am merely observing that the extent to which we have let such analysis occupy our time has not proven helpful.

In my estimation, there is too much panic among the 45-65s in response to the absence of the younger pastors at our annual meetings, their diminished emphasis on the Cooperative Program, and their apparent perceived lack of support for the International Mission Board. However, often it is the pattern of many youngsters to follow the way of the prodigal by first striking out on their own, against the grain of their parents’ wisdom, only to learn from experience that Dad did know what he was talking about after all, before returning home to the straight and narrow. I believe it is no different within the SBC. I say stop worrying about the trends and fads of 20-45s and start focusing on leading those who presently constitute the core of the SBC. To shift and focus on the prodigal few will only cause us to trip and fall. It is difficult to run one’s lap of denominational service with one’s head turned looking back at the youngsters. Instead we should run as hard as we can with an acute focus on reaching the finish line.

Here are some questions I ponder:
1. Why does it matter if some vocal 25-45s insist on learning the hard way by chasing strategies outside the SBC when our present-day network of churches and agencies are, by the grace of God, actually an incredible Great Commission machine of historic proportions? There are currently two generations serving the SBC in their prime leadership years, which means there is time for the prodigals to fail, come to their senses, and then return to the fold.

2. Why do so many over 45s worry themselves unnecessarily with the under 45s who are absent in body because, candidly, they lack humility and selflessness in heart? Why not mentor the under 40s the Lord has already provided? Just in Texas I can name off the top of my head 15-20 under 45s who are passionate about the SBC. A visit to any of our seminaries will reveal hundreds more, who, like the young David, are busy tending sheep in preparation for ministry. These, I believe, will be the ones to provide ample leadership for Southern Baptist life when their time comes.

What started as a helpful tool-discussion and analysis that centered on the trends of the younger generation-has, in my opinion, occupied the focus of the SBC for too long. I fear that the fads and musings of “younger leaders” have caused us to forget that the SBC belongs to the Lord and is his to increase or reduce in number as he sees fit. If the SBC belongs to the Lord, he will provide plenty of leadership as it is needed. He will protect our future.

Now, before you accuse me of being a 65-year-old in a 30-something’s body, I am not advocating that the SBC find satisfaction in the status quo. The SBC cannot continue as is and expect to be healthy for generations to come. However, this has more to do with the pursuit of need for congregation-wide personal holiness, faithfulness in evangelism, and the simplification of bureaucratic complexities than it does with the generational divide. While I do think we need changes, I also believe the SBC has among its current leadership the wisdom, discernment, and patience to bring about the needed changes for future health and growth.

I also do not believe the present generation of SBC leadership needs heavy input from 30-year-olds to help them make these decisions. My generation does not deserve, or has not yet earned, a voice in the conversation or a seat at the table. We are only beginning to run our lap of leadership service. Scripture is clear that those with white hair have the wisdom, patience and discernment needed to lead. The Lord has raised them up to lead at the current hour and I am thankful he has equipped them for such a time as this.

The SBC need not be intimidated by the attitudes of the immature. It is time to conclude the analysis and discussions about a few among the 25-45s and focus on making sure there is a healthy SBC for the rest of the 25-45s to inherit in 10-15 years. If we will stop looking back over our shoulders as we run the current lap and instead watch where we are going, when the present leadership makes their turn for the homestretch, we will see, by God’s grace, plenty of the next generation there to take the baton and run the next lap until Jesus returns. Perhaps there will be a few prodigals there as well.

Below is a post from guest contributor Tim Guthrie. Tim is Senior Pastor of Arlington Baptist Church in Knoxville Tennessee. To comment on this post, you can go to Tim’s blog here.

USA Today ran an article by Jonathan Merritt exposing his own views (not those of the norm in SBC life) related to homosexuality. Though Merritt, the son of SBC Pastor James Merritt and Liberty Grad (of which I am) presents his heart for loving people, he also reveals a dangerous view of Biblical understanding and application.

I do not question his heart. I do question several things in the article and I also question his use of “title” in describing who he is and what he does which I will explain later.

Issues that need to be addressed:

1. He seems to think that LOVE should cause us to defend the normalization of the homosexual agenda. He writes “As Christians, we clearly won’t be able to support any and everything. For example, our biblical convictions prohibit a redefinition of marriage. Yet, there are other areas where we may be able to offer support. We should support protecting our gay and lesbian neighbors from discrimination in the workplace and cleaning up the legal cobwebs that govern hospital visitation rights and inheritance for same-sex couples. ”

The above statement is contradictory at best. We cannot redefine but we can normalize which is redefining.

2. He seems to have a limited view of Biblical Law and application of such. Again he writes “Scripture says the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, gives life. A spirit of love in public policy is one that all Christians can support.”

Maybe he has forgotten that it is whole of the law that gives life in the fact that Jesus fullfilled all of it on our behalf. Jesus did not negate it.

3. He seems to equate our command to love with a mandate to “affirm or endorse”. He writes “Our assertions that we love our neighbors must be accompanied by visible expressions of that love. Therefore, we need to begin looking for ways to affirm, rather than undermine, our claims to love our gay neighbors.”

Maybe Jonathan has forgotten or never heard his father preach on “tough love”. Though he quotes I Corinthians 13 for the phrases that fit his desired presentation, he leaves out words from that chapter such as:

1 Corinthians 13:5-6
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth…

Add to this that Jonathan’s father has been clear in what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and how we should stand for what God says is right and yet love the sinner. In fact, I remember specifically hearing him state that “our loving people must never be used to compromise the TRUTH of God’s Word!”

And finally, I completely dislike the whole way that Jonathan is tagged as the writer of the article. At the end of the article appear these words:
“Jonathan Merritt is a faith and culture writer who serves as national spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative.”

Nothing is mentioned of the fact that Jonathan has NO position within the structure of the SBC. The appearance is left to allow anyone who does not know SBC details to think that this Initiative is indeed an actual SBC Initiative. It further leaves the impression that Jonathan is the spokesperson for such.

He is NOT! Period.

But then I discovered that his views actually run in line with those of the ACLU. Read the following:
“The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to sue Tennessee public school officials if they do not stop restricting students’ access to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Web sites on school computers.

Tennessee schools are connected to a statewide computer network that uses filtering software that groups Web sites into different categories, eSchoolNews.com reports. Local school officials have the ability to block or unblock those categories.

In a letter dated April 15, the ACLU said as many as 80 percent of public school districts in the state might be blocking access to non-sexual sites that offer educational and political information about issues like gay marriage.

The letter alleges the software blocks all sites designed as such by default. Federal and state laws only require schools to use filtering software to restrict obscene or harmful information.
The ACLU demands the schools have a plan to restore access to sites designated as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender for the 2009-10 academic year by April 29, eSchoolNews.com reports.”

So if I follow the reasoning of Jonathan Merritt, I would be wrong in encouraging as a parent, Pastor, and more importantly a Christian, that the state and local authorities ignore the ACLU. In fact, I am writing to encourage them to fight the ACLU on this.

We are quickly seeing the rise of a movement that seeks to change perception more than it seeks to live in Holiness and Lordship surrender to Christ. It seems that some need the public perception more than they need the blessings of their God.

Wes Kenney over at SBCToday.com sums up this whole issue quite well when he says:
“As Jonathan Merritt is my brother in Christ, I love the “spinner” who wrote this article. I’m just not terribly fond of his “spin.”"

Maybe it would helpful for all of us to look to the courage of Miss California. In front of a television audience with the dream and goal of her life at stake, she stood true to her Lord and His Word.

May we all!

For over a year now, I have been deeply concerned about some of the teaching that is being propagated by the leader of a Seattle church and of the Acts 29 movement, Mark Driscoll. Although previously expressing misgivings about the man’s flippancy in an interview with New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in March 2008, I have since remained relatively silent. However, one of his more recent missives, released in November 2008, was absolutely horrifying to my wife and me. And now, at this time, because Mark Driscoll continues to gain recognition, and in order to support publicly the sober response of another minister, I have chosen to speak again to the matter.

One man’s ministry that has repeatedly inspired many ministers to be more biblical and thus more like our Lord Jesus Christ, in word and in deed, over the years, is Dr. John MacArthur. Dr. MacArthur recently concluded a short series in Pulpit Magazine on proper and improper exegesis of the Song of Solomon and on the need for purity in the pulpit. His four-part series is a restrained approach to a recent rash of improper but otherwise unchallenged conduct by Mark Driscoll. MacArthur has shown incredible foresight even as other ministers, who continue to support Mark Driscoll, have apparently been rather reluctant to register rebuke.

The doctrinal moral of this sad tale is that any time that a preacher attempts to appropriate worldly methods to aid in the propagation of the gospel, he has already fundamentally compromised the gospel. The recent movement towards claiming that, “As long as our doctrine is correct, we can agree to use various methods,” certainly carries some truth, but such a position is not to be taken naively. Methodology, too, is restrained by the commands of Christ, both positively with regard to the church’s actions (preaching the Word, celebrating the ordinances, worshiping in spirit and in truth, etc.) and negatively with regard to personal and communal doctrinal and moral integrity. The issue in the present case is moral integrity: there simply is no way that the sacred and the profane, or Christianity and Hedonism, may be blended, even for altruistic “missional” reasons. In the very act of combining the holy–that which has been separated unto God–with the unholy, the result is assured to be profane (1 Cor. 5:6, 10:21).

Earlier this evening, as I spoke tenderly but firmly to my oldest son about how to treat a young lady properly when on a date, I prayed for him to have wisdom in such situations and he bowed his head in agreement. And later, as I tucked my two precious daughters into bed, moved in the depths of my heart by concern for them in a sinful world, I prayed for the Lord to give these girls godly husbands, who would treat them with a holy respect, in word and in deed, and they smiled in agreement. And tonight, as I conclude this post, I pray that the ministers of our nation, young and old, will see their task not to engage their cultures with reckless abandon but to carry their Christ-given crosses with bold holiness. Oh, Lord, hear this prayer! And, oh, reader, consider the wisdom of Proverbs 19:25!

Thank you, Dr. MacArthur, for your bold and needed stance in reminding us of these truths. May others see the wisdom in your words. (Note: If you are not a mature believer, please do not read the posts linked here. Although Dr. MacArthur handles the issues circumspectly, they are nevertheless for the mature.)

Dr. John MacArthur, “The Rape of Solomon’s Song” (part 1)
“The Rape of Solomon’s Song” (part 2)
“The Rape of Solomon’s Song” (part 3)
“The Rape of Solomon’s Song” (conclusion)

Then His mother and brothers came to Him, but they could not meet with Him because of the crowd. He was told, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see You.” But He replied to them, “My mother and My brothers are those who hear and do the word of God.”

Luke 8:19-21 (HCSB)

Yesterday, Sunday afternoon, my two oldest sons were late on their homework and were diligently seeking to finish their work before Monday. However, a kink was thrown into their plans: the evening service at our church was scheduled to celebrate communion. I explained to the oldest boy that Christ commanded us to celebrate the Lord’s Supper until He comes again and that our church practiced communion at set times but with less frequency than my own desire. There was no way any of us were going to miss out on obeying the Lord’s command when given opportunity. Without delay, the three of us packed into the car and joined my wife with the other three children for worship.

Over the last two years, during previous celebrations of communion, I was in the practice of whispering to my youngest son, who is now a 9-year-old, what the Lord’s Supper means. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial celebration performed as a communal confession of the atonement of Christ worked upon the Cross. The fundamental reality of the body broken and the blood that Jesus Christ, the sinless one, voluntarily poured out on behalf of our sins is powerfully represented in the bread and the cup. The accompaniment of the visual practice with the audible Word has a powerful effect upon the observer of this second of the great Christian ordinances.

But participation in the second of the great ordinances commanded by Christ for His church to practice in its worship is reserved for those that have been born again and witnessed to that regeneration through participation in the first of the great ordinances commanded by Christ for His church: baptism. Previously, my youngest son had requested permission to participate in the Lord’s Supper in our church. He understood the meaning of the Lord’s Supper and his Christian faith prompted him to desire to participate in this great communal confession. Unfortunately, he had not yet followed Christ in the first public act of a Christian believer: baptism by immersion. He was definitely part of my family, but not yet visibly part of the family of Christ, and Jesus Christ had set certain standards for membership in His family, standards over which we have no authority to dispense or alter.

In our age, as in previous days, there is a thoroughgoing antinomianism at work with regard to the commands of Christ. This is true with regard to personal ethics and with regard to communal ethics, ecclesiology. Indeed, whole churches have bought into ecclesiological antinomianism. They dispense with the commands of Christ in mission and in communion. Mind you, many individual members do so out of ignorance, but disobedience is still disobedience, whether performed by churches or by individuals, who have been misled by churches. The family of Christ is identified not by blood kinship, but, according to Jesus, it is composed only of those who “hear and do,” that is, “hear the Word” and “do the Word.” The antinomian confesses that he or she has heard God’s Word, but then refuses to carry out God’s Word.

Antinomians, whether individuals or organized into communities, have the fundamental problem that they say they know Christ but then dispense with His commands entirely or alter His commands to their own liking. This hypocrisy is usually excused through some type of man-made theological innovation: for instance, in the doctrines of baptismal regeneration, covenantal infant baptism, sprinkling or pouring rather than immersion, etc. More closely to home, this hypocrisy is often propagated by those who hold (correctly) to the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. The problem these sincere Christians have is that they seem to forget that true discipleship is not just properly confessed in word, it is also properly confessed in deed, both personally and communally.

The Great Commission of Jesus Christ explicitly includes the practice of baptism, and the ordering given by our Lord and subsequently practiced by the apostles was that baptism succeeds faith but precedes further instruction in our Lord’s commands (Matt. 28:18-20: 1-going, 2-making disciples, 3-baptizing, 4-teaching all things commanded by Christ). “Baptism,” of course, means “immersion” in the original Greek, so proper Christian baptism occurs after conversion and is by immersion. As with the Lord’s Supper, the visual act of Christian baptism accompanied by the confession, “Jesus is Lord,” is a powerful memorial to one’s personal faith in the God who is Jesus, who died and rose again. This is the way Jesus intended it to be and those who dispense with His commands by attenuating the Great Commission or by altering its order will stand before God to give an account of their disobedience.

Baptism is the first act of the public Christian life and thus should be obeyed before one is able to participate in the other commands of Jesus Christ for His churches, including the Lord’s Supper. Again, note the order laid down by Jesus: 1-going, 2-making disciples, 3-baptizing, 4-teaching all things (inclusive of the Lord’s Supper) that Christ has commanded. When I explained this to my son, he accepted the biblical order of close communion, a logic confessed in my own denomination’s Baptist Faith & Message. However, it took some time before he was able to overcome his fear of standing before the church to request entrance into the church covenant and the right of participation in the Lord’s Supper.

I praise God that my son overcame human frailty by the power of the Holy Spirit and obeyed Christ by requesting public baptism in the name of his Triune Lord. I praise God that I was prompted last evening to remember His command that we participate in the Lord’s Supper until He comes again (Matt. 26:26-29 and par.; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). After the service, I asked my oldest son, “Aren’t you glad we obeyed Christ and came to see your brother profess Him as Savior?” His reply, of course, was in the affirmative, though the homework still remained to be done.

I praise God that my family of blood kin includes members of the family of Christ, too. I praise God that He has given us the grace of salvation, a grace confessed visibly and necessarily in the grace of obedience. I praise God that He has led our church to recognize that baptism is to precede communion and that it is a confession and not a magical rite that is disconnected from the individual human will. (I also praise God that He has led our church not to affirm those improperly baptized, for to affirm an error is to participate in that error.)

Oh, Lord, help us to hear your Word clearly, and do your Word diligently! And where we have erred, please illumine the Bible so that we may understand correctly and empower us by your Spirit so that we may live correctly! I thank you that You have led my son into Your family, whose Father is so much superior to his earthly father. Your ways truly are effective. Your truth truly is invincible.