;)
The Dividing Wall
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology
For me, one of the key passages for understanding biblical teaching on Christian unity is Ephesians 2:8-22. Before considering what it says, and how it applies to the subject of Christian unity, I invite you first to carefully read for yourself once again this blessed and wonderful passage:
The image that is masterfully presented to us by the Apostle Paul in this passage is that of the temple in Jerusalem. In that temple, there were various walls that divided between one group of people and another. First of all, there was the wall that divided between the Court of the Gentiles, in which the Gentiles were permitted to enter, and the rest of the temple grounds. Then, the Court of Women, in which Jewish women were permitted to enter; the Court of Israel, in which Jewish laymen were permitted to enter; and the Court of the Priests, and the Holy Place, in which only the priests and the Levites who served in the temple could enter. And then, finally, the Holy of Holies, into which only the High Priest could enter, and only once a year.
With all likelihood, the specific “dividing wall” which Paul is using as a metaphor in this passage is the one that divided between the Court of the Gentiles and the rest of the precinct. It was at the site of this wall that French archaeologist C. S. Clermont-Ganneau discovered in 1871 a sign bearing the following inscription: “No foreigner is allowed within the balustrades and embankment about the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his ensuing death.”
It is significant that with the invasion of Titus in A.D. 70 the entire temple structure, including this wall, was demolished. Even before this time, though, God himself tore in two the curtain that divided between the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, symbolically and graphically opening up access to the throne of mercy by way of the shed blood and broken body of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In Ephesians chapter 2, the immediate context is the division between Jews and Gentiles. However, in the broader context of the entire New Testament, and the writings of Paul, I believe we do not do violence to the meaning of the text to apply it as well to other divisions, such as those between slaves and freemen, and men and women (Gal. 3:28). This does not mean there are no longer different roles for men and women within the church and within the family. Nor does it mean that God does not give different spiritual gifts and different ministry assignments to different individuals within the Body.
The point is, as long as we enter in by grace, through faith, and through the shed blood and broken body of Christ, none of the things that used to divide us ought to divide us anymore. All of the dividing walls have been destroyed. We are all one in Christ Jesus. There are no longer class distinctions within the spiritual temple which is the Body of Christ. We are all “fellow citizens” and “members of God’s household.” We are each living stones being joined together as part of the “whole building” as the church of Jesus Christ is being built up throughout the centuries.
This, however, does not mean that each and every person in the world is indiscriminately welcome within this fellowship. Access is granted exclusively to those who enter in by the blood and the body of Jesus (Heb. 10:19-25). It is also only for those who come by grace, through faith, and not by way of “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:6-7). We should, by our teaching and church practice, do our best to not knowingly admit within the “temple precinct” those who try to come in by any point of entry other than the blood and body of Jesus, by grace, through faith. I would include here anyone who willingly and knowingly refuses to submit to the authority of God’s Word. Once we are truly “inside,” though, there should be no further “dividing walls” between us. Once you’re in, you’re in. There are no halfway Christians, nor second-class Christians.
Does this necessarily invalidate the existence of denominations? I don’t believe so. Denominational structures may actually prove helpful at enabling individual believers and local congregations to have more meaningful contact and fellowship with one another. They also make it more practical, in many cases, to cooperate with other believers and congregations in ministry projects (please see the excellent article on this point here).
There are certain doctrinal beliefs and practices, which do not easily coexist within the same congregation or ministry organization. You cannot, for example, both have women pastors, and not have women pastors, at the same time. Thus, in order for ministry to go forward, those who believe the Bible admits female pastors are able to work more effectively with those who also believe the Bible admits female pastors, and those who believe the Bible does not admit female pastors with those who also believe the Bible does not admit female pastors. The same principle holds true for a number of other doctrinal beliefs and practices.
As Christians, we are to be concerned about our doctrinal beliefs. We are each, as individuals and congregations, to do our best to present ourselves to God as approved, workmen who do not need to be ashamed and who correctly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). This, however, does not mean we ought to go about constructing new dividing walls of doctrine within the spiritual precinct of the New Testament temple, the church. Evidently, each of us believes that our own particular view of doctrine is the most correct. If not, we would not hold the view we hold. That does not mean, however, that we should consider the particular grouping of Christians who believes just like we do to be the most authentic group, or, as it were, the sole legitimate occupiers of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies within the spiritual temple precinct of the church. Rather, we should consider ourselves as learners, just like everyone else, trying our best to be pleasing to our Lord, who is also Lord of all those within the temple precinct who may not happen to cross every ‘t’ or dot every ‘i’ just like we do. “The ground is level at the foot of the cross.”
In Jesus, the dividing wall of hostility has been torn down. If we are to be faithful to God’s Word, we should not go about erecting new dividing walls between those who truly trust in Jesus and his shed blood on Calvary for their salvation.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother David,
I love this line:
May we always listen and learn and move closer and closer to God. And may many follow in our footsteps!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
David, excellent article, and a great reminder of God’s purpose of unity among His people.
As members of God’s family we stand in a biblical tension between “earnestly contending for the faith once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3) and “being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). An over-emphasis on either extreme can lead God’s people into areas fraught with un-Christlike attitudes and actions. We must ever be diligent to balance grace and truth (John 1:14; cf. Eph 4:15). We must be diligent to seek areas where we may cooperate with our “brethren,” thus preserving our unity (both grace and truth). In areas where cooperation may be difficult because of differing Bible interpretations and personal convictions, we must find out ways to affirm and bless our brothers and their value in God’s kingdom, even though our consciences won’t allow us to work along side them in this endeavor (both grace and truth). But even when we disagree, we must continue to affirm our unity in God’s family.
A pastor friend of mine from another denomination said that we should all engage passionately in the pursuit of truth, but maintain the humility to realize that we may not have attained it all quite yet.
Thank you for an excellent article.
A “Camel,” a “Canadian,” and a “Yankee,” (at least as far as Gravatars are concerned) all chiming in to agree with each other! What a great symbolic example of what I am talking about. Thanks, guys, for the support, and for your fellowship in the gospel. Wouldn’t it be great if we could all get together sometime and share some personal time together?
They don’t allow me south of Mason Dixon line except on special occasions. But I would love it. A blogger’s convention!
Your comment gets to the heart of something. I think that you will not find many exclusionary Baptists outside of the deep south. If you are outside of the Baptist Bible Belt, the circle of Baptist fellowship is so small, you are forced to expand your circle of fellowship to people who do not agree on issues not related to the gospel.
When I pastored in the deep south, I found a lot of people who could not distinguish between gospel truth and deep south Baptist culture.
We will, David. One day we will. That has been promised to us, and for that day we hope.
Until then our pursuit should be that His kingdom come and His will be done here on earth, even as we know it is in heaven (Matt 6:10). I have a feeling that in our eternal home many of our “differences” that we deem so important here won’t matter there.
“This, however, does not mean we ought to go about constructing new dividing walls of doctrine within the spiritual precinct of the New Testament temple, the church.”
Good imagery David.
It is powerful to me that the Greek word “naos” more precisely means the “sanctuary” in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 and Eph. 3:21. It is translated accordingly by the HCSB.
I think these are three areas where possible erecting or maintaining “new” walls takes place in the Sanctuary where God dwells in the Spirit.
1. Adding new law[s] of morality that is not prescribed by the head of the church.
2. Over systematizing the Scriptures.
3. “New” doctrine in a confession of faith that cannot be exegeted from the New Testament Scriptures.
Thanks for the post David,
Benji
On point #3, I think I would describe “any” doctrine in a confession that does not flow from the [older] New Testament Scriptures to be new [i.e. more modern].
I guess “new to the New Testament” is how I would describe it.
Benji,
Great points! Thanks for your input.
Brother David,
I would love to get together with some Jesus-lovin’ bloggers!
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
Brother David, a most excellent post. When we arrive in heaven there will be no denominational lines, all will be the children of God in Christ. Also we all shall find no one is right on everything, and see how wrong we were on some issues.
Dr. Foltz,
Amen!
Dr. Foltz,
I say,”Amen!” to what you said as well. But alas, we live down here on Earth right now…where some people dont want to see truth, and they dont want to accept it.
David
I appreciate this article David.
There seems to be two distinct mindsets and attitudes being bantered about the baptist world blogosphere these days. I throw my hat in the ring of this article.
You would think that we could allow local congregations to firmly hold to particular positions within the realm of conservative orthodoxy without feeling the need by some to call them out as wrong, ecumenical, and not baptist. It’s this kind of arrogance which is at the very least disturbing, but also, so very detrimental to cooperative mission endeavors around the gospel.
If my baptist brother holds to closed communion, cessationist views, and is troubled by reformed theology…that’s ok – I feel no need to tell him how wrong he is. Neither do I feel the need to tell him that he can’t “play in my ballgame.” I recognize that he and so many others before him, treasure and revere the Word of God and come to these positions. We can debate these positions, but it’s sad when we are dividing over them.
Darren Casper;
Amen to what you said.
Volfanoo7-Wilful Ignorance is worse than plain ignorance. A Wilfully
Ignorant Individual is unteachable, and resists the Holy Spirit’s
dealings with him. One who thinks he knows it all, is on a slippery
slope.
One who is committed to the Lord knows he doesn’t know it all, and is
humble, not proud. He doesn’t go around strutting like a Peacock.
Brother Paul,
I represent, uh rather, resent your last statement!
Darren,
There are some things that arent worth dividing over, and there are some things that are worth dividing over. Wisdom should tell us what these things are.
Also, there are some things that a Church is free to believe and practice which the majority of SBC Churches do not…while staying a member of the SBC, because we believe in the autonomy of the local Church. But, they shouldnt expect the rest of us to support that belief or practice when they want to send out missionaries from their Church, or if they want one of theirs to teach at a seminary. The majority of SBC Churches have to say what are basic beliefs and practices that we will allow and wont allow at that point. So, while you’re Church can speak in tongues and accept all baptisms by immersion and drink alcohol at Deacons meetings and stay an SBC Church; dont expect the SBC to want to send out missionaries with those beliefs, nor to have seminary profs with those beliefs. The SBC has to decide what leaders it wants to lead and guide our SBC.
Amen?
David
Kevin [Bird]/ I mean Kevin Peacock;
You know I meant the bird, not you; However if you are proud of grace, face, race, it applies.
Dr. Foltz,
Could you elaborate a little more for me exactly what you were saying in response to what I had said? You know, about the willful ignorance and plain ignorance statement?
David
volfann,
Do you really think the B.ID’s beliefs represent the “majority” of Southern Baptist churches?
If not, then do you think it is legitimate for the B.ID minority [and their somewhat supporters] to take an approach akin to “Poor, poor SB local churches, they do not know historic SB doctrine/history…poor, poor SB local churches, they ‘need’ us” as a way to justify those in the minority getting paid by the majority while trying to keep any in the majority–who might want to do missions through the IMB now–on the sidelines?
Keep it real.
God Bless,
Benji
Darren & David Worley,
For a number of years, decades, and even more than a century, the SBC has served as a good means to help believers and congregations to join forces and to make a synergistic contribution toward the advance of the kingdom. Unfortunately, as I see it, the ability of the SBC to continue to do so is currently being threatened.
Common wisdom tells you that the more you can gather together in order to cooperate on a task, the greater the synergistic possibilities. However, if by gathering together, you must sacrifice core values, it is not always worth it. It appears that some of the more denominationally narrow among us believe they are giving up too much on their core values, and that the corresponding gain in synergistic possibilities is not worth it.
It remains to be seen, when the issues are laid clearly out, and people really understand what is at stake, where the majority of people will choose to side. Personally, I think my side is in the majority. I also think that some people whom the other side have traditionally seen as spiritual heroes would side with me on this one. People like, for example, my beloved deceased father.
In the meantime, the potential for misunderstanding and, as a consequence, needless division, is high. I honestly don’t know if it is best to sort of keep sweeping this under the carpet, or if it needs to be brought to the forefront of the convention, and dealt with openly.
As my father said at one time, “The Southern Baptist Convention does not have to survive … but I’m not going to compromise the Word of God.”
Now, it is possible that some out there feel that cooperating with those who believe in/practice modified open communion is “compromising the Word of God.” If such is the case, they probably cannot in good conscience cooperate with me (and many, many more, quite possibly the majority of SBs).
This is a thorny issue, and one on which I believe we need to meditate deeply, and seek God’s guidance.
The leaders of the Conservative Resurgence sought God, and came to the conclusion that inerrancy was “a hill on which to die.” I agree with them. I plead with the leaders of the current SBC Baptist Identity movement to pray and meditate deeply on whether “close” or “closed communion” is also “a hill on which to die.” I’m not quite so convinced on that one.
David,
For me…I want to be very careful about what I am willing to “divide over.” The work is so great, lostness so prevalent, I want a lot of team members. I do believe that two churches who are in basic agreement with BF&M, while in disagreement on secondary issues, can still partner together to plant gospel centered points and people.
I also believe that Lifeway and Ed Stetzer’s research has provided some insight into some of those debatable matters which Southern Baptists hold to. It’s not exactly cut and dried.
As to your comment related to a church with deacons drinking alcohol etc., I don’t know if that’s meant as inflamatory rhetoric or what, but I don’t find it helpful to the discussion.
David,
I was more responding to your post, which seemed to hint that all evangelical Christians should be able to join around the essentials of the Gospel, and while something like ordaining women as Pastors might not be for your Church, it shouldnt divide you from the Church that does ordain women. Am I correct? Or, did I miss the aim and intent of this post?
Dr. Foltz then commented that one day all Christians will be joined together in Heaven, and then, we’ll all see where we were right and where we were wrong on some things, but we’ll all be together. I said amen to that. But, we’re not in Heaven. Right now, we live down here where we see thru a dark glass. But, we do have God’s Word. And, God’s Word teaches that ordaining a woman to be an Elder/Pastor is not the way God wants it to be. Thus, I would not be able to support, nor would I want my money to support, a Church start which is being started by a woman who would be in a pastoral/Elder role. I believe that a majority of the SB’s would agree with me.
I also beleive strongly that a majority of SB’s would not want a seminary prof teaching the students to speak in tongues.
I also believe that a majority of SB’s would not want to make baptism and the Lord’s Supper into personal ordinances, rather than Church ordinances.
I also believe that a majority of SB’s would not want to start Churches where the Pastor invites the members to bring their id’s with them due to the champagne that will be served at the New Years fellowship and for all the women to dress hot and be ready to boogie and strut your stuff.
Now, I know that we can join with other denominations in food/clothes ministries…in Senior Adult coffee breaks….in praying together for the nation, etc. But, denominational walls must go up whenever Churches dont want to adhere to sound teaching and clear commands of Scripture. Dont they? Are the walls bad at that point?
Benji,
Yes, I do think that the so-called “BI” guys views represent the majority of SB’s. Now, that’s not true on the blogs, but out here in the land of Pastors and Churches that dont go to blogs…which is the vast majority by far…SB Pastors and Churches believe strongly that second tier doctrines are important in actually being looked upon as being a Baptist kind of Christian…which is what we believe is more close to the Word of God, BTW. And, Benji, I would be interested in hearing who the big, bad B.ID’s are trying to keep on the sidelines. Who are these that they’re trying to keep out?
David
David Worley,
In order to understand what I am saying, a key concept is the difference between Christian fellowship and cooperation in ministry projects. If you don’t have that clear, you are going to get confused everytime about what I am saying.
I do not think that the female pastor issue, for instance, should get in the way of our Christian fellowship, unless it is clear that the reason one holds to a certain view is out of disdain for God’s Word, and ultimate disdain for the Lordship of Christ.
At the same time, it seems almost inevitable to me, that strong differences on the female pastor issue will necessarily preclude meaningful cooperation on a number (not all) of different ministry projects.
For me, the “close” or “closed communion” issue, which is currently being brought to the forefront by several in the self-identified “BI” group, does not need to preclude cooperation among Southern Baptists.
Bottom line: somehow, we need to come to an agreement about what are legitimate 2nd tier issues, and what are really 3rd tier issues. If not, the strategic value of the convention is being threatened. And, an unfortunate side result is that issues of cooperation in ministry projects are being misconstrued as issues of Christian fellowship, and needless division caused, as a result.
volfan,
You said “Yes, I do think that the so-called “BI” guys views represent the majority of SB’s.”
Over at SBC Today’s comment stream under the post entitled “Abandoning Doctrinal Fidelity For the Lowest Common Denominator” you said “Great post. Great insight. Very well written.”
Part of Robin’s “Great/Great/very well written” post is this statement:
“I joined with the other men at SBC Today to bring awareness to the almost forgotten and severely neglected theology of Baptist ecclesiology. If anything, I wanted to be a part of the grass roots movement to help Southern Baptists journey back to their biblical heritage concerning matters of the church.”
If the majority of Southern Baptists already hold to B.ID beliefs [including close/closed communion], then why does there need to be any “journey back”?
God Bless,
Benji
Benji,
There are many out there who are drifting away, or who have never learned, or who have never been taught sound ecclesiology. I believe that’s who Robin is referring to. And, you see this amongst the younger crowd more, and you see this amongst the blogging crowd more, than you do out here in everyday Churches. Also, Benji, and I’ll bet that you can agree with this….a lot of the people in the pews dont really know the Bible very well at all. A lot of people in the pew dont know much theology and doctrine. Agree?
Anyway, Benji, I say that a majority of SB’s believe as the B.ID’s believe because we have the BFM2K as our statment of beliefs. It’s been voted on, and it’s held up as our standard of what it means to be a Baptist kind of Christian.
David, do you think that your modified, open communion view goes against the BFM2K? And, if so, how? Show me. And, you are correct that the BFM2K ought to be our view of what is essential doctrines, and what are second tier doctrines which should define us and determines who serves in the SBC and who does not. And, if something is considered a third tier doctrine, then it should not divide us, nor should it keep people from serving in the SBC.
I would submit that ordaining women would definitely be a second tier doctrine. The Bible is too clear about this.
David
David
David Worley,
Yes, I believe that modified open communion goes against the BF&M, not only 2000, but also 1963 and 1925. As I understand it, it puts the onus on churches to ensure that no one who has not been properly baptized partakes of the Lord’s Supper.
I do not remember stating that the BF&M is the criterion for determining 2nd tier doctrines. If this were the case, there would be no 3rd tier doctrines in the BF&M. If this were true, all those who agreed with the 1963 version, for instance, on the Lord’s Day, would not be able to cooperate with those who agree to the 2000 version.
As it is, we are able to overlook those minor differences, and work together. And I think that’s a good thing.
Darren,
I wasnt talking about your Church and the Deacons drinking alcohol at the Deacons meeting. I was talking about any Church that would be like that. I have no idea if your Church does that, or not. So, I was not talking about you, personally.
Anyway, would you not consider the BFM2K as being a document that contains essential and second tier doctrines? I do.
Now, if you’re talking about third tier doctrines….like eschatology type things….as in pre-trib. or mid-trib., then yea. If you’re talking about third tier type things like worship music style, then yea. A contemporary Church can be joined with a traditional Church, and you could even throw in a Heavely Highways, shape note siinging Church in there as well. Those doctrines and practices are third tier. But, I would consider the BFM2K to contain essential doctrines and second tier doctrines.
David
David Rogers,
So, you dont believe that the Lord’s Supper is a Church ordinance? And, you dont believe that only baptised Believers should take the Lord’s Supper? And, why do you think that the ones who wrote this would include the statement…”Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper”…if it were not Scriptural…and, it was voted on by a majority of SB’s?
And, David, concerning the BFM, we’re dealing with the one that’s been voted on today…the BFM2K. Why would you even bring up the 1963 version? We’re not dealing with that one anymore.
David
David,
It seems that these kind of discussions usually do wind back to the question of what is secondary / tertiary and who gets to decide.
Have to roll on with some other business today…bless you guys in your Kingdom work
Darren
Volfan007;
Wilful ignorance is when a individual chooses not to hear, listen to, or know the truth.
Spiritually, we were at one time ignorant of the truth, being dead in our sins. Also baby converts not knowing Scripture are ignorant.
The Word of God is to be the sole rule of faith and practice, not BFM
[Whatever version]. Bfm may be useful as a summary, but the authority is in the Word of God alone.
volfan,
1. I don’t think most everyday SB churches practice close/closed communion.
2. I don’t think “a majority of SB’s believe as the B.ID’s believe [in toto at least] because we have the BFM2K as our statment of beliefs.”
3. I don’t think knowing much of the Bible is good enough if the approach to the Bible is flawed.
God Bless,
Benji
David Worley,
Where did I say anything about the Lord’s Supper not being a church ordinance?
I have stated probably “a hundred times” (metaphorical, not literal, though possibly literal) on the blogosphere that I believe that professing believers should be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper according to the dictate of their own conscience, unless they have specifically been placed under church discipline.
The reason the “close communion” clause is in the BF&M, I suppose, is the same reason that all manmade doctrinal statements are imperfect. The only perfect guide to doctrine is the Bible itself. Of course, my judgment is also imperfect, so I could be wrong about “close communion.”
I agree that the only BF&M currently in effect is the 2000 version. I merely added 1963 and 1925 to indicate I was not ignorant about historical precedent on this point.
David,
I guess what I’m asking is…do you not believe that the Lord’s Supper should be taken by Believers only? And, if so, should not every Believer be a baptised Believer? I mean, that ought to be one of the first things that a new Christian does…right? And, what is a true baptism? No, let’s not get into that one right now. So, where do you disagree with the BFM2K’s statement about the Lord’s Supper in your modified open communion belief? And, how does it go against what you believe?
David
David Worley,
Yes, I believe that the Lord’s Supper should be taken by believers only. I also believe that every believer SHOULD be a baptized believer. I agree that ought to be one the first things a new Christian does. I even think we are almost certainly in agreement on 95% on what constitutes a true baptism.
The problem is that, although every believer SHOULD be a baptized believer, not all true believers ARE in actuality baptized believers. Some so-called believers are not baptized, even though they know they should be, just because they are disobedient to the Lord’s command. If we can ascertain that someone falls into this category, I don’t believe we should share in the Lord’s Supper with them, since they are giving evidence by their actions that they are not true believers. True believers, although they fall and pick themselves up many times, strive to obey the Lord to the best of their ability.
However, there are others, who, due to their sincere study of the Bible, and sometimes, due to the prejudices inherent in their church background, are true believers, but have not yet been biblically baptized. For some, to be biblically baptized would even go against their sincere convictions, since they believe that their “infant sprinkling” was their biblical baptism, and they don’t want to disown or take lightly something that for them is very important and sacred. Now, I am totally convinced they are wrong in their view of baptism. But, I am not prepared to say that, because of this, they are not truly saved, nor that they are unworthy to share the Lord’s Table with me, or with my congregation.
As I understand the BF&M, however, I ought to refuse this last category of persons a seat at the Lord’s Table. That is the point at which I have a caveat with the BF&M.
The Lord’s table was given to the Church as an ordinance, showing Christ’s death and resurrection until He comes. Since the believer is to be obedient unto his Lord, it is preceded by water baptism, as his or her profession of faith in Christ.
Spirit baptism [I COR. 12;13] puts one into The Body of Christ. These 2 baptisms of the 7 in God’s Word concern this church age.
David,
Not being baptised correctly doesnt mean that people are lost without Christ. I agree, of course. Because, baptism doesnt save to begin with. And, I really dont know anyone saying that a person who was sprinkled on top of the head as an infant is lost. I dont know of anyone who is saying that a grown person who had water poured on their head, instead of immersion is lost without Christ due to that fact. So, that’s really a moot point
But anyway, wasnt Dr. Mohler on the BFM2K committee? Wasnt your Dad, Dr. Rogers, on that committee? I cant remember, but it seems like he was. I mean, they included that part for a reason…dont you think? I dont think that it was just an error in writing, or that they overlooked. And, I certainly dont think that the SBC overlooked it when they voted…do you?
I guess I’m saying that some awfully good, smart, spiritually minded men wrote this statement of Baptist beliefs. So, why do you think that they chose to word it this way?
BTW, David, I know you’ve read my view in other places, but I will not be the Lord’s Supper police in my Church, either.
David
David,
Actually, my dad chaired that committee.
Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know for sure. And, since all these “BI” discussions didn’t come up until after my dad’s homegoing, I didn’t ever get a chance to quiz him on this.
In any case, this is my theory as to the answer to your question:
During the time of the BF&M2K committee meetings, the big issues up in the air were inerrancy, the role of the Bible in relation to direct revelation (e.g. “Jesus is the criterion by which we interpret the Bible”), and the role of women in the home and the church.
Because of this, the question of “closed” vs. “close” vs. “modified open” vs. “open” communion was not a major item on the agenda. I do not know for sure, but I have a hunch it was not really even debated. Since the 1925 and 63 BF&Ms had always had the same wording as the 2000 version on this particular, committee members were reluctant to open up a whole new can of worms, proposing any changes to the old wording. Also, there were, undoubtedly, some committee members that had strong convictions about “close” and/or “closed communion,” and so it wasn’t in their interest to revisit this question. All of this in spite of the fact that the majority of churches already had a practice that didn’t strictly follow that of the BF&M on this point.
However, if they were going to successfully push through the revisions on those points deemed more important at the time, it was not in the strategic interest of the committee to muddy the waters by bringing up the “close” or “closed communion” issue.
I think that the thinking was to move ahead with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on this particular issue, since belaboring the point could have proven to be a powder keg, and undermined the efforts to get the other more important revisions passed.
That is my theory. If anyone else has any more specific information on what actually happened, I would be very interested to hear about it, though.
“I certainly dont think that the SBC overlooked it when they voted…do you?”
Yes I do.
I think they were “fired up” over inerrancy and ended up approving something more comprehensive than inerrancy and something more narrow than where the majority of churches were.
Yes I know about the little come back to my quote you can use. You may spare me [or not].
Yes I know I’m not David.
Yes I hope you have a blessed day.
Benji
I think that every BFM committee looked over the statement of beliefs very carefully. The BFM wasnt just changed about the inerrancy issue. Look at the Lord’s Day change for example. If they were so fired up over inerrancy that they “overlooked” the other statements, then why did they not overlook that one? Oh, I believe that they looked at all of them very carefully.
Benji, please dont put words in my mouth. I welcome your input into the discussion.
David
volfann,
I was referring to the “SBC”, not the committee. Fair enough about putting words in your mouth. I’ll try not to do that. Thank you for the caution.
David:
I invite you to speak to this in stronger realpolitik term; specifically at Johnny Pierce’s BTEditor blog where today he has written a lengthy review of Wade Burleson’s new book.
Johnny mentions your name in the Review as part of the Memphis Declaration in support of Frank Page.
Also would like to see if you are coming around to support of the Baptist World Alliance.
Lot of what you say in the devotional blog above would suggest you could join Anne Graham Lotz in support of the BWA.
Stephen,
You have a lot of random (though vaguely related) concepts jumbled up together here, in my opinion. I did sign the Memphis Declaration, and I was happy about Frank Page’s election, and the general thrust of his presidency. However, I fail to make the big distinction that Pierce makes between the views of Page and those of Hunt. Regarding Wade, I supported, and still support, his general stance on the restrictive appointment policies of the IMB Board of Trustees. As far as a lot of the rest of what he has to say is concerned, I am perhaps not quite so closely aligned. You would need to ask me about specific issues, rather than general stances.
Regarding the BWA, I am a bit ambivalent. I like the idea of believers from around the world having a structure that facilitates greater fellowship among them. I am not quite so convinced that Baptist distinctives or labels is the flag around which we should rally, though. To me, the essentials of the gospel, and biblical authority, for example, are more important issues to unite us than views on ecclesiology. Also, if there are clear examples of theological liberalism that Southern Baptists would be expected to share in financially supporting, I can certainly understand and sympathize with the reluctance of some toward “signing on” again. But, then again, I am not familiar enough with the current agenda and program of the BWA on the whole to make that assessment with any degree of accuracy.
Like FTME, I like the line
I’m reminded of a scripture that should be quoted more often than it is, I Cor 8:2 “If anyone supposes he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know”. We frame a lot of these dicussions in terms of confidence in God’s word, but I often think we’re ignoring the issue of our (sometimes excessive) confidence in ourselves. God’s Word is perfect, but our ability to listen to it is not. If you don’t recognize how easy it is for you to misunderstand not just God’s Word, but ordinary, everyday conversation, you may not be ready to interpret it.
The perfection of God’s word does not always mean it is easy to understand. In the same passage where Peter refers to Pauls letters as scripture, he says “in which are some things hard to understand”. Now, if an Apostle, who speaks the same language and lives in the same culture finds some of these things hard to understand, where does that put us? And I doubt the “hard to understand” parts of scripture are limited to Paul’s letters.
I come to this from a background of someone who has seen God make an emphasis on the art of listening (particularly in terms of trying to make sure that what’s I’m hearing is actually what the other person is trying to say) in his life. One of my primary rules for good listening is that you have to recognize how extraordinarily easy mis-communication is. Failure to recognize this means you will likely not spot miscommunication when it happens and will not be prepared to correct it. You come to a place of confidence in communications less by trying to make sure everything fits together logically (and assuming the other persons fits everything together the same way) and more by learning to recognize all of the ways that miscommunication can happen and making sure they’re not happening (which, with some experience, is not as hard as it sounds). Paradoxically, confidence in your ability to listen can become a barrier to your ability to really listen well (something I wish a lot of journalists would learn better).
I recognize something similar in I Cor 8:2 – confidence in your knowledge can be a barrier to your ability to really know well. There’s a difference in the confidence of the person who is just sure he understands scripture and that of the person who, having faced all the myriad ways that he is capable of misunderstanding even the “easy to understand” parts of scripture, comes to a place where, to his amazement, he really does understand. The latter person is the one you really want teaching your people. The former is the person who tends to be favored politically. And it is unfortunately too easy to believe that you’re the latter person when you still exibit the characteristics of the former.
I’ve probably wandered off of my original point, and some people may think that the direction I’m going, if taken too far, would lead to us being unable to be certain of anything. I take the point, but still feel that we’ve gotten in trouble by focusing entirely on the doctrine of the reliability of God Word, and having ignored the implications of our own fallibility in understanding that word. Fixing that may wreak havoc with our feelings of being the ‘in crowd’ who are the ones who (as opposed to everyone else) actually know God’s word, but I suspect that fixing that is going to be necessary to our effectiveness in preaching that word.
Oloryn,
Very interesting thoughts. I think there is a certain tension between the Reformation emphasis on the perspicuity of Scripture, the need for a solid epistemological grounding for our beliefs, and our fallible interpretations, and tendency to not listen well. As a follower of Jesus, I am striving to become more and more trusting of His Word, more and more dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide me into truth, and less and less confident of my human ability to discern truth on my own. The “wild cards,” as it were, in the mix, are the voice of reason that God has built into us as a part of being made in His image, and the voice of the church around the world, and down through the centuries. I find myself needing to be both more trusting and less trusting, at the same time, of both the voices of reason and the church, as each of these has great potential to mislead us, as evidenced in the great errors advocated by Christendom at large and imposed upon “the faithful” down through the centuries. And yet, I realize the collective voice of millions and millions who submit to the voice of Scripture and the Holy Spirit has much to commend itself over my isolated attempts at understanding truth on my own.