;)
tagged: Baptists, Christian Unity, Dave Miller, Doctrine, Ecclesiology, Ecumenical Baptist, Exclusionary Baptist, UnityWhy I Have Become an Ecumenical Baptist
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life
I grew up in solid, Bible-preaching, Dispensational churches in which the word ecumenical was among the dirtiest of words, describing the one-world church that would come in the last days, a church which unites by denying doctrine and rejecting the gospel of Christ. I suspect that it is precisely for its value as an insult that the word has been used to describe people who have rejected the Baptist Identity view of things and have argued for a “bigger tent” for Southern Baptist fellowship.
I am going to willingly embrace the term. I have always tended to be dogmatic and only wanted to fellowship with people who believed like me, worshiped like me, and did church like me. In the mid-90’s God took me on a journey of personal revival (through the ministry of Henry Blackaby). As a result of that, I also developed an appreciation for the universal Body of Christ. I realized that there is a great big world outside of the SBC. There are people preaching the same gospel, worshiping the same Lord and serving the same eternal purposes as we are.
So, I have come to embrace the term “Ecumenical Baptist” – that is, if you let me clarify the term, just a little.
I can hear a couple of the more exclusionary Baptists saying, “So, are you saying that doctrine doesn’t matter?” Of course not. I am passionate about my doctrine. I exposit God’s Word carefully every week. Listen to one of my sermons online before you accuse me of being biblically wishy-washy. Disagree with me? Okay, but please don’t suggest I’ve lost my passion for truth. I am conservative, a convictional Baptist, and committed to living a biblically faithful life.
I am not ecumenical in the traditional usage of the word. There are people I will not fellowship with. I refused to share the stage at a citywide prayer service with a Mormon. I resigned from the planning board of a citywide marriage project because they included people on the board who denied the fundamental doctrines of the faith. I am comfortable with the current BF&M statement on women in ministry. I am not an “anything goes, fie on doctrine” guy. Are there really any of those left in the SBC?
Here’s what I believe. Jesus died to redeem a people for himself. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body and given one Spirit to drink.” We are all part of the same body. We must continue to seek the truth of God’s Word, but we can do so in a way that recognizes the value and beauty of the greater body of Christ. I want to be as accepting of the greater body of Christ as I can be without comprising my essential beliefs.
For these reasons I am (with qualifications) embracing the term “ecumenical Baptist.”
1) Because I want to focus on biblical essentials, not on petty exclusion.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul defines the gospel – Jesus died for our sins and rose as Lord. He describes these doctrines as of “first importance.” Doesn’t that imply that doctrine has varying importance? Doctrine related to the gospel of Christ has highest importance. Other doctrine has while still significant, has lesser importance.
On those doctrines that are fundamental to the gospel, we should never compromise – the truthfulness of God’s Word, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, salvation by grace through faith alone, the ultimate victory of Christ. Here I stand. If someone denies these doctrines, we do not fellowship or partner with them. But we must view anyone who holds to these doctrines as brethren. We must!
Even among gospel-faithful Christians, there are still significant differences. There is still a place for denominational distinctives. But the same principle applies. We should only divide where clear biblical principles are at stake. We may call paedobaptists family, but we don’t have to share a house with them. We are fully convinced that the Bible teaches baptism by immersion of believers only, so we practice that.
But is there any New Testament teaching on the doctrinal vetting of the baptizer – the one performing the baptism? I can’t find it. Why separate from or exclude a man from service because the man who baptized him had some suspect theology? Why divide because someone because of the way that they pray in their private prayer time? It is unnecessary exclusion.
I have watched in amazement at the skewering of Mark Driscoll by some in the last couple of weeks. Honestly, he is not my cup of tea. But he preaches the true gospel (sometimes with vocabulary I’m not comfortable with). He upholds biblical standards of morality and family in one of America’s most pagan cities. Yet, he believes that a certain sexual practice between a husband and wife is a matter of their own preference and conscience under the Lordship of Christ. Because he does not utterly condemn it, some bloggers exploded in apoplexy. Why do we have to be so belligerent? Why exclude someone who upholds the truth just because we have a disagreement on some minor issues? It seems silly to me.
There is a big job to be done and petty exclusionism is not going to help.
2) Because I want to honor the passionate prayer of Jesus.
In John 17, Jesus pours out his heart to the Father the night before his death. In this prayer, we see the heart of our Savior. He is concerned that his disciples “keep his word” – and we should never forget that. We should continue in faithful study all our lives to know God’s Word better and more clearly.
But, in verse 11, Jesus prays, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.” The night before he would face Calvary, Jesus’ passion was to see the disciples, and those who would come after them, unified. He was dying for ONE Body. It is the heart of Jesus that we should be one.
Our goal should be as unified as we can possibly be with as many people as we can be unified with. Only if someone denies the gospel should we exclude them from Christian fellowship. And our denominational tent should be as big as we can possibly make it without sacrificing our soul. In baseball, the tie goes to the runner. In our convention, the tie should always go to unity. Why break fellowship when it is not necessary?
3) Because I recognize the universal nature of the church.
Exclusionary Baptists talk a lot about ecclesiology. However, I am not convinced that the ecclesiology they promote is based on the Bible as much as it is based on theological tradition. For instance, they often emphasize the local church congregation over the “universal church.” Some have gone so far as to deny the existence of a universal church, for others, it is just an emphasis.
I do not consider myself an expert in matters of ecclesiology. But, here is what I believe as a result of my study of God’s Word. I think there is only one church in any city. Sioux City has one church – it meets in different places, worships in different styles and has different levels of fidelity to the teachings of God’s Word. But there is only one church.
Can someone show me where the Word of God ever recognizes more than one church in any locality? The church of Ephesus. The church of Corinth. They met in different homes but they were one church. I am willing to be instructed on this, but only by scripture, not by confessions, creeds or theological tradition.
4) Because I want to honor God’s Word.
I have not become an ecumenical Baptist because I lost my passion for the Word of God. Just the opposite, I think it is the clear teaching of the Word. It is in giving honor to my brothers and sisters in Christ, and only dividing when absolutely necessary, that I obey God.
Galatians 5:22-23 define what the Spirit produces in our hearts, the “fruit of the Spirit”. Among them are love, peace, patience, kindness, and gentleness. These are Body-building character qualities. I did not see meanness, pettiness, or an exclusionary spirit among the fruit of the Spirit. However, just before that, the “works of the flesh” are enumerated. Included in that list are “strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy.”
I challenge you to open your Bible to any page in Paul’s writings to the church. I would wager that you would find a significant teaching about Christian unity on that page.
If we believe the inerrant Bible, shouldn’t we practice what it says about Christian unity?
It is a constant struggle, balancing truth and unity. Some are, in my opinion, too quick to sacrifice unity and exclude those who disagree. Others are reluctant to take stands when it is called for. We will probably always be trying to balance our passion for truth and the glory of unity in the Body of Christ.
But we must always make unity a priority!
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
Dave,
There’s so much in here with which I agree. Christ has called us to unity. We must side with unity of the church whenever possible. We must only divide when we have no other choice whatsoever—when staying together would be a sin. These are clearly the heartbeat of the New Testament and our obligation as believers.
Where I disagree, what I will never understand, and what I humbly submit to you, is that it is denial at best and a cop-out at worst to suggest that we might be chopped up into a hundred different denominations that exhibit every tangible measure of being divided (won’t accept each other’s pastors, keep each other’s funds separate, worship separately, acknowledge no doctrinal accountability to one another, often won’t exchange members with one another, etc.), and yet that somehow we are being faithful to some concept of there being only one church in the locality.
The vast majority of separate congregations in any given town are the direct result of an ugly church split, either of a denominational variety sometime in another place and time or of the local variety more easily remembered by the faithful in each congregation. The separate existence of each of those congregations is nothing more nor less than division in the body of Christ unhealed. And it remains unhealed for so long as those separate congregations exist, just as a couple remains divorced for so long as they do not remarry, even if they no longer fight so much as they did when they were in court.
It is ironic to me, yet plainly true, that efforts to take seriously Christ’s desire for unity are often the very things that cheapen it. It has so often been the movements to end denominationalism that have resulted in the fracturing of Christianity into yet more denominations. And it is so often the claim that we have accomplished Christian unity by being a little friendlier to one another that attempts to silence the voice of conviction over the very real disunity that plagues Christianity in this era.
Let us be consistent, obedient, and bold. If we have no choice but to be divided, let us seek unity by praying for and encouraging the correction of those whose error prompts the division. If we are divided only by our choice, let us repent of that fact and dissolve our schismatic assemblies so that we might be united. If we are indeed not really divided, then let us have a Methodist for our next pastor. If I’m entirely wrong about Christian unity, then show me from the Scripture, and not from tradition mind you, how my church can refuse to own the leadership, membership, doctrinal accountability, and the like of another congregation and yet claim to be one with them. But let us not cheapen Christian unity by pretending that it is nothing more than a state of mind.
Dave,
An excellent, most excellent, post. I think that much of the continued (post CR) division and headhunting in SB life results from a rather simple dilemma. There are some who simply cannot express what they stand for short of identifying those ideas, concepts, or people that they stand against. It’s sad, really. It’s been my experience over the past seven years of pastoring a church plant that the unchurched have no idea what SB’s stand for … only what they stand against.
Is one’s spiritual glass half empty, or half full … that’s the question, in my book.
But like Bart, I still have difficulty embracing the city church (David Rogers has written a lot about this) concept in our modern context (which is so very different from the historical context of the NT). There is, most often, very little common history or connection between local churches in a particular area – other than their historic splits. Indeed, even in SB life, you ordinarily see little unity even in local associations … until there is an effort at liquor by the drink introduced or a strip bar opening on the outskirts of town … then they all seem to come together.
Oh, that we could be unified FOR community ministry rather than AGAINST social ills.
Dave,
I think you (and anyone else who has read what I have written on the blogs the past couple of years) know that I am in essential agreement with what you have written here.
I understand what you say here about the term “ecumenical.” Literally, it simply means “promoting unity.” For many, many people, though, the main connotation of the term has to do with organizations such as the World Council of Churches, and efforts to unite with the Roman Catholic Church. Because of this, I think it is crucial that people understand that the unity we are arguing for is NOT the same thing as what most people think of when they hear the term “ecumenical.”
I am also happy to see Bart respond to your points on the “city church” with some really well-reasoned thoughts. It is helpful to have true dialogue, and not just launch emotion-laden rhetorical missiles at each other.
I think we need to do some hard thinking about what the NT church was really like. The problem is, we weren’t there, and there are a lot of details on which the evidence that is available is a bit sketchy. On one thing we can be sure, though; that it was not, in its ecclesiastical organization, exactly like the SBC, nor any of our present denominations.
As Baptists, we often claim to be the true representation of the NT church today. Or at least that’s how it comes across to me. I would be interested to hear if some of the “BI” folks would agree with this statement.
I agree with Bart that many of the attempts down through history at working toward greater unity in the Body of Christ have ended up causing more division than unity. I think that is a reality we must soberly take into consideration.
However, I am afraid we have, many times, taken the default response of “sweeping unity under the rug,” as a hopelessly lost and impossible-to-recover NT distinctive.
I am just naive enough to believe that perhaps we still haven’t exhausted all the possibilities for working toward a truly biblical and workable Christian unity, that doesn’t necessarily compromise on essential doctrine at the same time.
Thanks for your thoughts, and continuing the discussion.
Dave,
I always look forward to your writings and appreciate the scriptural basis of this post. While a few so far have brought up some great points regarding the difficulty in our times to establish unity, I think you’ve articulated a sound basis to do so. The bottom line is we don’t have a choice but to strive for some level of unity with those outside our convention. Scripture demands it. Just do a book study on 1 Cor. and try to escape it. Every time you think Paul has moved on, he comes back to it. It’s of no small significance that Jesus chose to deal with it before his death.
It seems to me, to sweep unity under the rug or claim our times are too different from when the NT was written, opens up the same door to cultural acquiescence that so many have railed against.
I agree with you we can’t surrender our biblical foundation to do so, however, there is no escaping we are commanded to strive for unity, not make excuses as to why it can’t be done.
Thank you again for a thoughtful and scriptural post.
It totally depends on the differences we are “agreeing to disagree” on. For instance, the pastor of the church I’m in now uses Calvinisim as a stick to beat people with–if you’re not Calvinist you’re either stupid or not a Christian. I don’t feel that way at all. I could and have worshippped, fellowshipped, and ministered with people who were not a Calvinists. No problem there. However, I would not associate or cooperate with a church that held to word of faith “doctrine” or had a woman pastor. According to some people’s definition of the term, that makes me a “fundy”.
And I’m ok with that.
”How good and How pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in
unity.” Unity not at the expense of doctrine, but unity in spite of differing views on the Doctrine of Last things. Such will be the case at The Bible conference next week in chunchula, al.
We are too divided to make an impact. We need, must have unity.
Bart, thanks for you very reasonable response. I think there is a certain element of the ideal and the real here. In the real, unity is probably not completely possible in this current Christian world.
But I saw what happened in Cedar Rapids when God changed my heart towards other believers. I experienced a citywide unity and partnership. the pastors of Cedar Rapids came together. We prayed together on a weekly basis. We joined together for a couple of conferences (a revival, a prayer conference, etc). We intentionally saw ourselves as small parts of something bigger and it worked.
It was not perfect. Not everyone participated. But it was real and it worked.
I never had to sacrifice my convictions as a Baptist to make it happen. a couple of times, I was stretched. One big church got the “Pensacola Blessing” and tried pretty hard to promote it in the citywide organization.
But the fellowship, the friendship, the unity was real. Not perfect, but real.
As to your last question, I do not think that I have to embrace everything another church does to embrace the pastor and people of that church as friends, as fellow-workers and fellow-soldiers.
I think that is the heart of what I am saying. I do not have to agree with someone completely to accept them and walk in unity with them.
As I said at the end of the post, the balance of truth and unity is always going to be tricky. I just think we need to keep trying.
Geoff, I think you get at the heart of a very significant thing. Your comments are insightful, as always.
Remember the days after 9/11? Americans felt like we were under attack and we seemed to really come together. When we felt safe again, our divisions came back to the surface.
There was a man in my previous church who always seemed to be agitating against me in one way or another – a constant pain in the neck (don’t we all know that person?) Then, we came under attack from another source and for a while, I was his hero. When the other conflict receded, he started nit-picking at me again.
Here’s my point – when we are at war, we join with anyone who will fight at our sides. I don’t care if his fighting sytle is a little different than mine. If we are both fighting the same enemy, I count him my friend.
Maybe we are so comfortable that we have time to pick at each other and fight with our fellow-soldiers.
David, I think that is another key.
I am Southern Baptist for two reasons. First, I was raised in it (as I know you were). Second, I came to believe that our theology and polity is a reasonable expression of the biblical ideal.
Again, I hope Bart or someone else will come back and weigh in on this. Dr. Yarnell seems to say that Baptist ecclesiology is THE biblical position. I hope I am understanding the position correctly.
However, I do not equate Baptist and biblical. I am not sure any denomination or theological viewpoint holds all the truth.
I am calvinist (little c – on purpose) but I do not think the Calvinist system has all the answers.
I am Baptist but I am not convinced our polity holds all truth.
We can learn from other denominations, other segments of the church and get closer to that biblical ideal.
Paul, Joe, Jeff,
Thank you for your thoughtfull comments. I think my comments above dealt with most of the issues you raised.
Thanks again.
Dave,
You have encouraged me today.
Thank you.
Your brother in Christ,
Benji Ramsaur
Dr. John McArthur has some wise words concerning 1 Corinthians 1:10 that may apply here. He says that this passage was about the unity of doctrine in the local assembly of Believers, not the spiritual unity of his universal Church.
He goes on to say,”Doctrinal unity, clearly and completely based on Scripture must be the foundation of all Church life. Both weak commitment to doctrine and commitment to disunity of doctrine will severely weaken a Church and destroy the true unity. In it’s place, there can be only shallow sentimentalism or superficial harmony.”
Wise words.
David
I like John MacArthur. On this issue, I think he is wrong. He seems unwilling to accept the idea that you can walk in unity with a brother with whom you have disagreements.
He is still a great Bible expositor.
Essentially, David, the MacArthur position releases you from any responsibility toward Christian fellowship unless someone agrees with you on all doctrinal issues.
It turns biblical admonitions on their heads.
Dave Miller,
A few things that I think are worth considering.
1. Respectfully, I think it is something of a straw-man—one that has been set aside several times in the past few years—to suggest that there is anybody against fellowship with other believers. I get along great with, pray with and for, joke with, consort with, and otherwise enjoy the company of the other pastors and Christians in Farmersville who are a part of other churches. We’ve cooperated to take The Book of Hope to every household in town. If the sum total of what you’re advocating is something like that, then I’m just wondering who you think is opposed?
Now, on the other hand, if you’re talking about money given to the Southern Baptist Convention being used to plant churches that are in disagreement with our theology, then I come down on a different side of things. But then you have to acknowledge, don’t you, that you’re arguing for a little more than your last comment implied? One caveat here: I know that autonomous local congregations will sometimes wind up something other than what we planted them to be, and I’m not talking about that phenomenon. I’m talking about the idea of planting churches that are deliberately non-Baptist (or non-deliberately Baptist).
I’ll even go you one further. I’m not opposed to your church in Cedar Rapids cooperating with a non-Baptist church on whatever you like. I might think that you are unwise to do so, depending upon the circumstances. But you’re an autonomous church and I think that you ought to be able to determine the parameters of your own cooperation with groups ineligible to be participating churches in the SBC. Where the line is crossed, IMHO, is if and when your church pushes or endorses one of our mission boards into cooperating to plant that kind of church. Because then my church has been pulled into it, and against our will at that.
Let the Baptist convention plant Baptist churches. Let each of our churches do whatever it determines outside of that cooperative association.
2. When I say that Baptist theology is biblical theology, I do not mean that Baptist theology exhausts biblical theology, nor do I mean that biblical theology exhausts Baptist theology—that Baptists have never believed or done unbiblical things. I’m identifying a kernel of Baptist theological distinctives and asserting that those things are biblical. A great example is believer’s baptism. At that point, Baptist theology is biblical theology, and I’m unashamed to say so.
My saying so does not remove from a Presbyterian the opportunity to differ. I’m prepared to be magnanimous about that. I think it comes as no surprise to my Presbyterian friends to learn that I, a Baptist, believe that credobaptism is biblical and paedobaptism is not.
So, when I say that Baptist theology is biblical theology, I am not attempting to define a people. Sometimes Baptists (the people) have made very poor Baptists (the practitioners of the theology). I’m indicating a set of ideas that I believe are precisely biblical.
Furthermore, I have often consented that biblical Baptist theology is often applied or adapted in ways not specified in the Bible. A good example is in the area of church membership. Is it biblical to know who are the members of the local church and who are not? Absolutely. Is it biblical to have a card file in the office, or a DBISAM database, or a columnar ledger of members in a book of minutes? No. These things are not anti-biblical, but neither are they specified in the Bible.
And what is the result? When someone says, “We’ve come up with a new way of tracking our membership,” or even, “I keep up with the membership of my church in my head,” then I may think that system better or worse than ours, but I will not ever call it unbiblical. On the other hand, should someone say, “We don’t have members at our church,” then I’m quite prone to reply along the lines of “Then neither do you have a church.” To do so is not to enshrine our particular application of the biblical principle as non-negotiable, it is merely to defend the underlying biblical principle itself, often amid false charges that I have codified the particular system of application.
3. (related to #1) It is one thing to acknowledge other pastors as “friends, as fellow-workers and fellow-soldiers.” But so long as the pastor of the Methodist church, by mere virtue of the fact that he is all that a Methodist pastor is expected to be by Methodists, is ineligible to be the pastor of your Baptist church, then what you have there is something other than what Jesus intended for Christian unity. I’m saying that I think we need to be very careful about suggesting that whatever lesser thing you are accomplishing in Cedar Rapids constitutes your obedience to Christ’s commands about Christian unity (and by extension, the disobedience of others not engaged likewise).
Christ commanded and desired that we be one. That is not happening. Not in Farmersville. Not in Cedar Rapids. Not on Main Street. Not in the telecommunications ether. I’m entirely comfortable with you pointing out that Farmersville, Texas, America, and the World are in breach and disobedience to that command. You’re right. We need to be sensitive to that fact, and whatever we can do to remedy that (I think by, for example, encouraging our brethren to forsake unbiblical practices of baptism) we ought to do. What makes me uncomfortable is the idea that your proposed solution diminishes our state of disobedience at all. In my judgment, it does not.
Bart,
It seems to me the gist of our difference on this revolves around our definition of the term “church.” If “church” means nothing more than either a “local congregation” or a theoretical eschatological reality that does not yet exist, then I will grant that you are most likely correct.
However, I believe that “local congregations” are but an expression of the true church, which exists at present, and is in the process of being built up, until it eventually reaches its culmination in the eschaton.
The NT uses the term “church” to describe the composite of believers in a given locality, as well as specific regular gatherings that took place at a certain place, usually someone’s house. I believe all of these are good and valid expressions of the true church. I also believe many structures and accoutrements that go along with typical congregational life are helpful and biblical. These include designated elders, deacons, and defined membership. Local congregations also serve an important role in discipling and disciplining those who choose to place themselves under the supervision of a particular sub-group of believers that meets regularly at a certain place. However, I don’t believe they exhaust what the Bible refers to when it refers to the church (or the Church).
I do not believe we need to extend the structures and accoutrements of local congregations to the city, national, or international level, though. Local church structures work well for local churches, not for the church at other levels.
I do think the term “autonomy of the local church” has been a bit unhelpful in Baptist history. It originated, as I understand it, as a corrective to the abuse of hierarchical ecclesiatical systems that imposed a certain doctrinal stance and structure over individual congregations and believers. Inasmuch as this is concerned, it is a good and even necessary idea. But local congregations, while free from the tyranny of binding hierarchies, were never meant to be totally autonomous, but rather interdependent.
It is a whole other discussion what particular activities might legitimately take place at a city church level, and what activities ought to be confined to a local congregational level. In general, though, I believe our present congregational system has tended to isolate sub-groups of believers within a particular locality from the rest of the Body of Christ more so than what was intended in NT ecclesiology. And there are certain steps we can take to try to remedy this problem. We must be careful that the cure is not worse than the illness, though. I agree that many ecumenical efforts have fallen into that trap. At the same time, though, I believe that our Lord is pleased when we do our best to try to work toward greater practical unity among all of His followers, especially in the locality in which we live.
David Rogers,
I’m not sure that we haven’t fully exhausted what we can do with generics. To talk about “certain steps we can take to try to remedy this problem” or to relegate to a “whole other discussion…particular activities” just might be confusing us rather than bringing clarity. And the example is right here in this post. If the only thing Dave Miller is talking about his praying regularly with non-Baptist pastors and the like, then he and I may have no differences at all, or our differences may be infinitesimally slight. His original post, on the other hand, and your comments in the generic sense without specifics, force me to speculate as to what, in actual practice, you are actually proposing.
Your (plural) reasons for writing in terms of generics rather than specifics may still remain after I make that statement, but if dialogue in clarity is the purpose, I would really love to know what particular activities you think Southern Baptists of my stripe would not endorse or practice that you would endorse or practice?
Bart,
There may be a perspective thing here. I constantly thing that blogging magnifies minute differences between people who essentially have similar views.
My problems have been with ideas such as:
*”Baptist IS biblical” – the idea that we have found some sort of corner on the truth, that we are the truest or only representation of the New Testament biblical church.
I believe that Baptist polity is a (a, not the) representative of biblical church structure. It is a good ecclesiology, but not perfect.
*Some of my thinking was spurred by some of the recent Driscoll furor. You wrote criticism of him, and to some degree, I agree with your perspective. But the hysteria of some bloggers about him was puzzling – as if SEBTS and all Baptists would be tainted by involvement with someone who didn’t share all our ideas.
Again, I am sure that what you and I believe is very similar. I am a convictional Baptist as you defined it. But I think some have gone too far with Baptist exclusivism. I’m not really wanting to name names and incite some sort of furor.
I don’t think this is all “straw man.” (Honestly, what would Baptist blogging be without straw men?) There is a genuine difference here, which my drug addled brain (migraines) is having trouble articulating.
Do we view ourselves as isolated keepers of pure theology and practice or do we see ourselves as part of the whole?
Dave,
I can say most assuredly that I can unify with you on the basis of your Yankees avatar! Oh, wait a minute, that may be an instance of lowest common denominator thinking.
Brian
Bart,
Your question led me to think back on the following post on my personal blog:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/practice-of-unity-on-mission-field.html
As I went back over the comment stream on that post, I noticed you and I had a pretty good exchange back then.
All in all, the type of things I am advocating (and as I understand him, Dave Miller as well) are the practical things I reference on that post. It was, and still is, interesting to me that you say that, in Farmersville, you are already involved in many of the same type of activities.
Such being the case, I find myself tending to agree with Dave’s comment that “blogging magnifies minute differences between people who essentially have similar views.” If you are in agreement with me that the things I reference on that post are basically good things that we, as believers, and as Baptists, would do well to participate in, and to promote, then, indeed, we are not far apart.
As you mentioned back then, we probably have a disagreement on the legitimacy of celebrating the Lord’s Supper at an interdenominational gathering. That is a point we could probably go back and forth on quite a bit. But, that would probably be getting off the point a bit of what Dave was intending for us to talk about here, don’t you think?
The Yankees are NEVER the lowest common denominator!!!
Dave,
I knew you were going to say that, and I agree with you. When I was a kid, I went to Yankee stadium all the time. Before the games, we used to walk to a Jewish deli around the corner for the best Reuben sandwiches. Because I was so young, I never realized how dangerous it was for us to walk around the Bronx.
On that note, I’ll stop hijacking your blog!
Brian
Brian, at the risk of being predictable again, I never consider talking about the Yankees to be hijacking a blog.
I got to go to Yankee Stadium last year. Pettitte beat the A’s (2-1, I think). It was amazing.
I respectfully disagree with regard to John MacArthur. Through the years we have seen him cooperate in various ways with men as diverse as John Perkins, R.C. Sproul, W.A. Criswell and C.J. Mahaney.
He is by no means an independent fundamentalist. He simply believes that there shouldn’t be unity at the expense of truth.
I attended the Shepherd’s conference and think highly of the man. he certainly does not sacrifice truth for unity, does he?
I do not agree with the idea that calls to unity are based on doctrinal agreement. Yes, we should continue to seek scriptural truth and be of one mind. But a big part of unity is bearing with people who are still in the process of being molded to the image of Christ.
While we are on the road, we have to be understanding, patient, and gracious about things.
Dave,
You write: “*Some of my thinking was spurred by some of the recent Driscoll furor. You wrote criticism of him, and to some degree, I agree with your perspective. But the hysteria of some bloggers about him was puzzling – as if SEBTS and all Baptists would be tainted by involvement with someone who didn’t share all our ideas.”(emphasis mine).
Though you didn’t cite my posts, I get the strange sensation of a magnetic pull into your post’s purpose. If it were not my posts to which you refer, we’ll just assume it’s others who, through the Driscoll question, are being cited as evidence that you disagree with “Baptist Identity” or that your thinking on Baptist ecumenism was “spurred by some of the recent Driscoll furor.”
Two things Dave. First, I am unaware of any one person raising a question pertaining to Driscoll which was not ethically-motivated. The question was and still is with me a moral one. Do you know of anyone else who had other criteria they proposed concerning Driscoll? I’d like to know.
Secondly, and similarly, Dave, you suggest challenging the Driscoll liaison was puzzling because it implied “involvement with someone who didn’t share all our ideas” would taint both SEBTS as well as “all Baptists”(emphasis mine). Again, Dave, what basis do you have to suggest that the “furor” was because Driscoll “didn’t share all our ideas”? Ideas about what? Methodology? Philosophy of ministry?
I repeat again, I raised no question–nor any other blogger with whom I am aware–about mere ideas which Driscoll did not share with Southern Baptists. For me, it was deeply moral.
Hence, to cite such as remotely parallel to “Baptist exclusivity” is surely questionable, at best, Dave. Sorry.
Finally, to pile this load on the back of “BI” as a burden for them to carry has got to be even more questionable–and that even if they agree with the position! How many times I must say this is irrelevant, I suppose; thus I’ll say this once again–the posts I wrote questioning Mark Driscoll’s liaison with SEBTS had jack squat to do with Baptist Identity.
So far as I know, no other blogger identified as “BI” wrote about this during its zenith–with the exception of Chris Poe who graciously posted on my site. Thus, the tarbaby tactics need to end now. It wasn’t Baptist Identity; it was me. Perhaps I pushed you into the Ecumenical Baptist Convention, Dave. Fine. But it wasn’t BI–at least so far as Driscoll is concerned.
With that, I am…
Peter
I’ll also note that unlike many if not most of those discussing these issues in the blogosphere, I was not raised in the SBC, having only become a member of a Southern Baptist church within the past several months. I was raised in what amounted to a liberal Methodist church and had little exposure to the gospel. I knew the story of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection but was never clearly taught what it meant. Since even some of the conservatives in that denomination would question penal substitution, that’s not surprising in retrospect.
The pastor of the conservative Presbyterian church that I used to belong to believes that everybody should be a Presbyterian. Does that sound shocking? I suppose it does in this age in which many can’t grasp the difference between Trinitarianism and modalism, for example. But this pastor is simply a man of conviction. I, like Dr. Barber, believe everybody ought to be a Baptist. But like Spurgeon (and no doubt Dr. Barber as well) I believe it is more important that they be born again.
I think the crux of the issue is that some are convinced that the Baptist or Presbyterian (or other) way is correct, and others are not sure or may even be convinced that the Bible doesn’t clearly teach any particular form of ecclesiology. When people of those persuasions meet, and especially if they are in the same church, denomination, or convention, sparks will inevitably fly when we discuss how best to cooperate in carrying out the Great Commission.
I was very familiar with a similar dynamic within Presbyterianism, in which some well known more ecumenically inclined ministers (e.g. Tim Keller) take heat from more convictional Presbyterians for helping to plant non-Presbyterian churches.
Someone who believes that the Bible speaks clearly when it comes to ecclesiology can’t be expected to condone the use of their tithes to plant churches that clearly are not within the parameters of that understanding, be it Baptist, Presbyterian, charismatic, etc.
Chris,
Reading your comment clarified something in my mind. I think you strike right at the heart of something.
I am not convinced that the Bible reveals a specific, detailed polity for a church. It spells out a few basics but perhaps not as detailed as some have believed.
There might be several different ways to accomplish those biblical parameters.
I guess that Bart and others are more convinced of a more detailed polity revealed in scripture than I am.
Peter,
This has been a pretty reasonable exchange of ideas. I would rather engage in discussion that some kind of verbal battle.
I really enjoyed that website you listed on your blog today. My mouth still waters for the 30,000 calorie sandwich.
In response to Dave Miller’s comment that he has a problem with the notion that “Baptist IS Biblical”
I see no problem with that assertion. Throughout Baptist history, Baptists have wholeheartedly believed that “Baptist IS biblical.” We’ve always been “In Search of the New Testament Church.” Heck, my dad published a history of Baptists by that title just last year. It’s been a recurrent theme throughout Baptist history.
Personally, I believe a healthy dose of triumphalism ain’t all that bad of a thing. If all the post-modern folks (especially those around my age) are going to be triumphalistic about their post-denominationalism, I might as well enjoy a little triumphalism when it comes to my Baptist beliefs/Baptist identity which undoubtedly is a slightly different Baptist identity that which many of you cling to. I suspect that all of us might have more in common that we’d like to think though…
As a side note, Bart, my dad packed the Miller Chapel this afternoon for a special Religion Department-sponsored lecture entitled “Baptist Identity and E.Y. Mullins.” The lecture which included numerous Mullins quotes was quite anti-Landmark and at least once student complained it was anti-Catholic (although that’s another story). As much as folks like to make the phrase “Baptist Identity” into something very negative, we mostly moderate Baptists see that phrase as a positive, something that should be emphasized more in local Baptist churches and in our seminaries and undergrad departments.
One more comment: Some of you Southern Baptists enjoy assigning new definitions to time-tested terms. Some might call that creativity. But the historian in me finds it slightly annoying. Historically speaking, Dave, you are not an ecumenical Baptist. Carlyle Marney was an ecumenical Baptist. Perhaps Billy Graham would qualify as an ecumenical Baptist. Your post may have been more appropriately titled “Why I Am Not A Separatist Fundamentalist”
Always A Yankee Fan,
BDW
Dave,
First, Dave, to dismiss the comment I posted as some sort of “verbal battle” in contrast to “reasonable exchange” is trite. In what way were my words “verbal battle”? I offered as sincere a comment as I know how to write. I’m surprised at this response.
Second, you are the one who drew on the blackboard, connecting the Driscoll dots and the moral concerns raised as demonstrative of “Baptist exclusivity” of the “BI” persuasion over-extending, which, you suggest, even “spurred” your thinking toward Baptist Ecumenism. Further you used “furor” and “hysteria” to describe such example. Yet, when questioned about such, you imply you’re not interested in “verbal battles” but engaging in discussion. Again, surprise is my response.
If you’re uninterested in answering, I think that’s a perfectly acceptable response. If that is the case, however, please do not project such disinterestedness on others who come here to offer legitimate, sincere questions to your premises and therefore conclusions. I do not come here often, but when I do, I assure you, Dave, it’s not to sharpen my knife for “verbal battles.” I have no time for mundane pursuits.
With that, I am…
Peter
Big Daddy Weave,
Thank you for beautifully illustrating a point I have been trying to make for a long time. One’s stance on “Baptist Identity” is not directly tied in to being a conservative, moderate, or liberal. That is why I consider myself Evangelical before I consider myself Baptist. “Baptist” merely describes my general views on secondary issues of ecclesiology that, although important in their proper place, do not affect the essence of my faith. “Evangelical,” however, refers to the core beliefs of my epistemology — the authority of infallible divine revelation; and the basis of my eternal hope — justification by grace through faith in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. Put another way, I believe that, in the last day, when I am called to give account of my life before my Lord and Savior, my Evangelical identity will be of much greater significance than my Baptist identity.
BTW, not meaning to imply by this that I question your belief in biblical infallibility, justification by faith, or substitutionary atonement. To tell you the truth, I am not sure where you stand on these issues. Just pointing out that it is possible to hold to Baptist ecclesiology, and yet, at the same time, deny these other more significant doctrines.
Peter,
If you have a question, I would be glad to answer it. You stated your opinion and I read it.
I knew nothign about Mark Driscoll until I started reading the shrill stuff people wrote about him on blogs. I started to research him and found him to be a man attempting to do God’s work in a difficult situation.
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but my post today had very little to do with your writings. I started by reading about Driscoll on a non-SBC site. I responded more to another blog which was written and later pulled down which called for the SBC agencies to have nothing to do with him.
If you felt this was some sort of anti-Peter blog today, I can only say that that is in your mind, not mine.
Do I agree with what you write? Sometimes. I think the Driscoll response was extreme at best.
If you have a question or a point to which you would like a response, please state it clearly. Again, I do not intend to engage in futile sparring.
BDW,
I only used the term ecumenical baptist out of orneryness. I heard it used repeatedly as an insult and so I embraced it – but only in light of my redefinition.
Peter, Dave…
Not sure what’s going on here, guys (I haven’t followed this closely), but the temperature seems to be rising a bit quickly in this thread. We’re all guilty of such sometimes, but I would ask that each of you do what you can to calm this exchange a bit.
(Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.)
Sorry, John,
I was trying avoid derailing what I thought had been a pretty good exchange of ideas.
If my attempt to derail conflict added to it, I apologize.
I am a Baptist, for I believe it is the closet thing we have to a New Testament Church. If something comes along that is closer, I will be that.
When we stand before God there will be only one identity-the Children of God. There will be no evangelical identity, no baptist, no protestant identities; only the Redeemed, by the blood of Christ.
John,
My thermometer reading is fine on this end, brother. If you care to show me where I’m losing my cool, I’ll be glad to apologize and immediately bow out. I respect your venue here…
Dave
I came here sincerely to engage your comments. Instead I’m met with subtle implications :sorry to burst your bubble, but my post today had very little to do with your writings.” So that’s your idea of “reasonable engagement”? The fact is, it doesn’t matter what your OR was, I responded to a comment you made in the thread to Bart, fully acknowledging “If it were not my posts to which you refer, we’ll just assume it’s others who…are being cited as evidence that you disagree with “Baptist Identity” or that your thinking on Baptist ecumenism was “spurred by some of the recent Driscoll furor.”
Furthermore, Dave, to write “If you felt this was some sort of anti-Peter blog today, I can only say that that is in your mind, not mine.” is both absurd and offensive. My coming here had jack squat to do with the main post. It had to do with your descriptors of “furor” “hysteria” and trying connect the dots to “BI” guys wanted no “involvement with someone who didn’t share all our ideas,” consequently tainting both SEBTS as well as all Baptists.
Again, you ignore, but ask this question: “Do I agree with what you write? Sometimes.” Dave, what in the world would motivate you to include this? My points have been clear (if not, where?), straightforward (if not, where?), and sincere. Instead I’m made out to be somehow coming here charging you with questioning all my writings. Well, give me a Georgia peach.
You explicitly assert “I do not intend to engage in futile sparring” but cannot seem to drop it before getting one last, tidy little dig: “I think the Driscoll response was extreme at best.”
Oh my. After dissing my entire first comment as “some kind of verbal battle”; after painting me paranoid for remotely thinking you had my complaints about Driscoll in mind; you now boldly proclaim “the Driscoll response was extreme at best“! I have to say, this is the weirdest exchange I’ve had in a long, long time. And, I’m actually getting a pretty good laugh out of it.
Thanks for your final encouragement that if I have a question to “please state it clearly.” Why of course. I’ll have my thinking cap on, really rolling it over a lot, what I’ll ask Dave about his post…
John,
No need for another caution. I’m out. I cannot help but write this as I part, for I think it is eye-opening. I logged on at BaptistLife during the height of the “furor” over Driscoll. Only a microscopic part of the community there–at least as I can tell– would be close to me theologically (and most here). Yet, I was treated with dignity. The guys (nor gals) made any subtle or overt effort to make my contributions to the thread to be about me. Instead, they engaged the words I wrote and I trust I also them.
She’s all yours (drop me an email if I have written something for which I need to apologize). I wish you guys the best.
With that, I am…
Peter
This is just kinda sad here Dave.
cb
Peter,
I’m not accusing you of “losing your cool”, and I don’t think it’s necessary for you to “bow out”. It just seems that you and Dave were both a bit frustrated with each other, and things were starting to get a bit tense.
Dave,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I saw things, the “verbal battle” comment was your way of saying you didn’t really want to debate a point Peter made that you did not agree with, because it was likely something that would become somewhat contentious and you saw it as tertiary to the main post anyway. (Note: if I’m on target with that assumption, you probably could have said this in a better manner.)
Peter,
I understand why you’d be frustrated.
Dave & Peter,
Everything from that point seemed to escalate frustration.
Guys, I don’t know what else to say. For whatever reason, this conversation blew up a bit. Can we go back to the point frustration began in this thread, forgive each other, get back to the topic at hand, and leave the flash-point topic of Mark Driscoll out for now?
Thanks…
Peter,
The concensus seems to be that I misread your intent and overreacted to what you wrote and was overly aggressive in my response to you.
It is my intent to engage in conversation, not to escalate arguments. It appears here that rather than responding with the gentle answer I snapped back based on my inaccurate understanding of your intent.
I apologize for doing that and ask your forgiveness.
John,
Thanks for your reply and sincere intervention. I am aware more than most know that my keyboard tends to project colorful language into my commenting practice, not to mention my posts on my site, which many times draw immediate sparks. Some attribute it (no one here I’m thinking of, I assure) to the deadness of my spiritual life, and others to my seeping pride.
And, while I am not beyond it being either, I have my own self-revealed theory why I write like I write. And, whether good or bad to others, I see no reason to attempt to change it, if for no other reason, it is me. It is gut level honesty as I know how to be.
And, yes, ME is a miserable copy of our Lord Jesus. No debate. Yet for all that, I remain relatively confident that our precious Lord is not displeased with the majority of what I write.
Even so, David sincerely lamented in tearful, humble and honest prayer–”Lord forgive me my secret faults.” Those are the pesky little critters which sabotage full certainty–things about which one is completely oblivous.
My sincerest apologies for striking a match here, my brother John. Even an unknown match, safely tucked away in my closet of secret faults. For in the end, unknowns make little difference. Matches are matches. And matches start fires.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Dave,
Thank you for the soothing response. I fully understand. If you did misread me, and continue to read me still, it will not be the last time you do so.
Also, it goes without saying if I misread you, such will inevitably happen again, for I intend on hearing your voice as you contribute to the Baptist discussion.
The only hope for both of us–indeed for all who carry on a global conversation–is to ride a donkey and not a stud. I’m sure most of us find the thrill of studs more attractive. Yet we also recall, it is our Lord Who rides the donkey. Studs are just too dangerously quick off the line.
I fully accept your humble words of apology, my brother Dave. I wish but one request of you: that you accept mine as well. I am sorry for my part in torching this thread.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Thanks, guys. I appreciate your responses here!
Peter said, “The only hope for both of us–indeed for all who carry on a global conversation–is to ride a donkey and not a stud. I’m sure most of us find the thrill of studs more attractive.”
Peter, that is like offering alcohol to a drunk. My flesh is dying to post a couple of puns and smart-aleck comments about that one.
You’re killing me, dude!
BDW,
I’m enthused to know that the topic packed the chapel. Mullins was a favorite research topic of mine. And one of the favorite quotes that I discovered in my dissertation research had to do with Mullins. I love this quote so much primarily because my church is full of Texas A&M graduates.
Ben Bogard was opposed to Mullins’s election as SBTS president. In one article he decried Mullins as not suitably credentialed for the post. Bogard wrote that Mullins did not even have a credible Bachelor’s degree, having graduated from “an agricultural and mechanical school in Bryan, TX.” Mullins was a member of the inaugural class at A&M.
I chuckle every time I use that quote. I’m chuckling now.
Dave with all due respect you chose a poor title ecumenical and Baptist do not go together. You could have said tolerating Baptist, or Compromising Baptist.
Paul, I think you are probably right. Ecumenical is probably the wrong word. As I said above, I used the word because I had seen it used as a pejorative several times and I was just being my ornery self.
I’m a bit late to this discussion (didn’t notice it until tonight).
BDW,
Are we really in search of the New Testament church? This is the mistake of the 16th through 19th centuries. Roger William, after being a Baptist for a short time, became as “Seeker” because he was still seeking the true church. A sad condition indeed. Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Landmark Baptists are all confused as to what the true church is, something integral to the ecclesiology of each.
We enter the Kingdom of God by the new birth (John 3:3). Kingdom citizens who assemble in Christ’s name are his church with one Lord, one faith, one baptism – the true church. Period. You don’t have to seek it, it is where God’s people assemble (despite our many failings and errors and whether or not we baptize correctly).
If there is a problem with Baptist ecclesiology it is in not adequately seeing our identity with the entire Kingdom of God (David Rogers’ point, I believe).
However, I actually think J.R Graves idea that the local assemblies are the “executors” of the Kingdom has merit (despite Graves many errors), something which if contemplated adequately will partially dispel an inability to see unity in Congregationalism.
R Grannemann, wish you had come to the discussion earlier. Sounds like you would have made a great contribution.
Don’t you know that checking SBC Impact daily is an important part of every good day!
Hey Dave -
I had a question about your thoughts on there being only one “church” in each city. You wrote:
“The church of Ephesus. The church of Corinth. They met in different homes but they were one church.”
How does that effect pastoral ministry?
Am I the pastor of Northbrook Baptist and Immanuel Baptist and Friendship Baptist and New Covenant Bible and every church that meets in Cedar Rapids and…?
Wow Dave! You sound like the kind of guy who could be my pastor!
Eric,
Practically, it is a difficult thing. When I was in CR, there was a very active pastor’s fellowship and prayer time. We worked to respect our individual beliefs and styles while also realizing that we were part of something bigger, the Church of Cedar Rapids. We prayed together for the city. We had a few citywide events that built fellowship and unity. There were a few times when I was uncomfortable about something that was going on, but generally it was wonderful.
It is hard to put in exact words, but I was the pastor of only one church, but I felt like I was in a genuine partnership with Francis and Larry, and Barry and Mark and…
If you were the pastor of all those churches, you’d probably want a raise in salary.
Matt2819,
I don’t know. I hear your pastor is stunningly handsome, impressively articulate, gifted with wisdom and humor.
At least that’s what my mother says.
A raise in salary…and a lobotomy.
Another lobotomy?