;)
tagged: Baptism, Calvinism, Cooperation, David Rogers, Doctrinal Triage, IMB, Lord's Supper, NAMB, Private Prayer Language, SBC, SBC Executive CommitteeHills on Which to Die?
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life
Change is in the air in the SBC. The future positions of President of the IMB, President of the NAMB, and President of the Executive Committee, are all open. The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force is studying ways to be better stewards of the resources God has commended into our hands in order to fulfill the Great Commission. These are exciting days, in which a whole lot of things are up in the air in the SBC that have never been so much up in the air before. These are also challenging days in which God is looking to us, perhaps as never before, to be wise and responsible stewards of the opportunities and resources He has placed in our hands.
There are many facets of denominational life on which I do not feel qualified to comment. I am not a denominational leader, or the son of a denominational leader (well, maybe I shouldn’t be so quick on that one 
). In any case, on a lot of the administrative, organizational, and personnel issues, I am a bit out of the loop, having been out of the country during a good part of the Conservative Resurgence years.
But there are some key matters regarding the future of the SBC on which I feel I have a few things to say.
In my opinion, some of the most important issues we are facing in the SBC have to do with doctrine and parameters of cooperation. In the Body of Christ, we are already united positionally with all those who are truly “in Christ,” though this unity is not always expressed on a practical level as well as it could or should be. However, cooperation within the SBC is a different matter. Just because we do not cooperate fully with another church or group of believers in the same ministry project doesn’t necessarily mean we are not walking together in unity. Sometimes, it is in the best interest of the advance of God’s Kingdom for some churches and groups of believers to work more directly with some churches and groups of believers, and for other churches and groups of believers to work more directly with other churches and groups of believers (while at the same time accepting and recognizing those they don’t work with so directly as full-fledged members of the Body of Christ).
It’s funny how many of the sharpest conflicts we have as Christians are with those who are closest to us. For instance, I generally spend very little time debating doctrinal issues with those of other denominations. I have never discussed on a blog, for instance, the use of musical instruments in public worship with someone from the Church of Christ. I realize there will always be other believers, who don’t see eye to eye with me on this or that. However, when we work together on the same ministry project (e.g. the Cooperative Program), and jointly contribute our economic and other resources, certain issues all of the sudden become much more relevant. They affect us at a more personal level.
Most of us are already familiar with the theological triage model (if not, read here). As I understand it, there are certain doctrinal issues that affect our foundational unity with other supposed members of the Body of Christ. These are level-1 issues. There are other doctrinal issues that affect our cooperation with other churches, or groups of believers, in certain ministry projects. These are level-2 issues. And then, there are level-3 doctrinal issues, which do not necessarily affect either our unity or cooperation with others.
For us, as evangelical Christians, level-1 issues are, for the most part, pretty straightforward. We pretty much share common beliefs on what constitutes the basis of salvation, and qualifies us as members of the Body of Christ. However, each of us has different criteria on what we consider to be level-2 and level-3 issues. In the case of some, this is more a matter of personal preference, and, in the case of others, a matter of deep conviction. One Christian (or church) may have a relatively small amount of level-2 issues (and a correspondingly large amount of level-3 issues), while another Christian (or church) may have a relatively large amount of level-2 issues (and a correspondingly small amount of level-3 issues). Some dyed-in-the-wool non-denominationalists think we should have no level-2 issues at all.
In recent years, the SBC has gone on record, defining certain issues as level-2 issues. Specifically, as a main plank of the Conservative Resurgence, biblical inerrancy was recognized as a clear level-2 (and not level-3) issue: it was held out as “a hill on which to die.”
With the changes in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, in addition to inerrancy, biblical complementarianism (and more specifically, male eldership in the local church) was also codified as a level-2 issue for Southern Baptists. To a large degree, for many, this issue is tied to the issue of inerrancy. The line of thinking that brings many to adopt a more open position on egalitarianism, and the possibility of female eldership, is thought by others to involve accommodating the clear teaching of Scripture to cultural norms and preferences, thus compromising on biblical authority. Some have made an argument that holding to a more open position on egalitarianism, and the possibility of female elders, does not necessarily contradict a belief in biblical inerrancy. Whether or not this is really the case is beyond the scope of this post. The impression remains, however, in the minds of many—probably the majority of Southern Baptists—that there is a definite link between the two. They have decided these particular issues are, so to speak, “hills on which to die.”
For the future, there are several additional issues that are up in the air and awaiting clarification as either level-2 or level-3 issues for Southern Baptists. On each of these issues, there are currently a significant number of Southern Baptists who hold to different positions. In general, all of these issues are issues on which those holding to the same conservative view of biblical authority (e.g. inerrancy) legitimately differ in regard to their understanding of what Scripture actually teaches. What remains to be seen is whether there will continue to be room in the Southern Baptist tent of cooperation for those holding different views, or only for those holding certain views on these particular issues. In other words, will each of these issues be “hills on which to die” in the same way inerrancy, complementarianism, and male eldership, have become such in Southern Baptist life?
In the case of inerrancy, complementarianism, and male eldership, those not agreeing with the officially approved Southern Baptist position, have, for the most part, found greener pastures in which to graze. Though, no doubt, many of these feel disenfranchised from the denominational structures and relationships that nurtured them in their faith, they have, at the same time, in many cases, found ministry partners that are more compatible with their own views, and as a result, potential channels for less conflictive and more fruitful ministry.
Some make the argument that every item included in the Baptist Faith & Message is, as a result of its inclusion, a de facto level-2 doctrine. For the most part, I would agree that this is the case. However, there is one item included in the present BF&M that, from my perspective, must be viewed as exceptional, inasmuch as it does not, from all appearances, coincide with the belief and practice of the majority of Southern Baptists. Evidently, I am referring to the phrase in Article VII on the requirement of admitting only duly baptized believers as participants in the Lord’s Supper (otherwise known as “close” or “closed communion”): “Being a church ordinance, [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
The big question regarding this issue (as I understand it) is, would God’s kingdom be better served by one convention that makes room for those on the different sides of this question, or by two separate conventions (or 300 separate conventions), organized on the basis of differing convictions on these issues. If the answer (as some people appear to infer) is separate conventions, the implications would be enormous. If this particular point of the BF&M were rigidly enforced, we would probably be looking at a division bigger than that occasioned by the Conservative Resurgence. Many, many churches and people would be forced to choose which way to go—either with a theoretical “closed/close communion Baptist Convention” or with a theoretical “open/flexible communion Baptist Convention,” or some other option. Would that be best? Or, would it be better to not make a hard and fast level-2 issue out of this? Do we need to amend the BF&M to reflect the current diversity of belief and practice among Southern Baptist churches? Do we need to continue with the current de facto “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on this issue typically employed by various trustee boards? Or, do we need to enforce a hard-line conformance to this particular item in the BF&M? Which option would best serve the advance of God’s Kingdom?
Closely tied to the issue of closed/close/open communion, is the issue of so-called “alien immersion,” or that of which baptisms do we as Baptists recognize as legitimate. The BF&M, as I understand it, is not quite as specific on this question. On the heels of the Landmark controversy of the late 19th century, and the bitter arguments that accompanied it, a tacit truce was called among Southern Baptists, in the interest of moving forward together for the advance of God’s kingdom. Many of those holding to more hard-line positions on these issues ended up forming their own separate associations. But, since these issues were never completely resolved among us, it appears they are rising to the surface once again.
And then, there is the matter of Private Prayer Language, which is not dealt with one way or another in the BF&M. Some have suggested that the view favoring the legitimacy of PPL is of such a minority status within the SBC that those who hold to it might find a spiritual home more compatible to their own beliefs and practices elsewhere. However, the 2007 Lifeway study revealed that an open position in regard to this issue is more frequent among Southern Baptists than many had supposed. I believe that it is important to take into account that many of those within the SBC who are open to PPL are, in actuality, more doctrinally compatible with the SBC than they are with the various Pentecostal/Charismatic groups out there. To suggest they find another group more compatible with their beliefs and practices is not a viable alternative, outside of forming a separate convention composed of Southern Baptists with similar convictions. But, would this really be a positive development for the advance of God’s Kingdom? Is this truly “a hill on which to die”?
Another issue for the future is the issue of Calvinism. In Baptist life, there have always been those who have taken different views on the so-called “Doctrines of Grace.” Early on in Baptist history, there was a clear distinction between Particular and General Baptists. Nowadays, Freewill Baptists are a separate denomination. But there still remains some degree of flexibility among Southern Baptists on the so-called “5 points” of Calvinism.
The question for the future, however, is to what degree will there continue to be flexibility on who is qualified and who is not to be a denominational employee or officer. Although I would not fit the classical mold of “5-pointer” in my own beliefs (see here for further information), I have had the experience of working together on a church planting team with someone who was an avowed “5-pointer” who, at the same time, was one of the most conscientious and active personal soul winners I have ever known. For me, there is no question but that there should be room for someone like this within the SBC tent of cooperation. However, others may well not feel the same way. Then again, some “5-pointers” may prefer to work together only with other “5-pointers.”
Once again, the question is, as I understand it, what is the best way forward for the advance of God’s Kingdom. Is God’s Kingdom better served by separate conventions—a theoretical “5-point” convention, a “4-point” convention, a “3-point” convention, and a “who knows what we believe” convention? Or is this an issue on which we can agree to disagree, and continue to partner together fruitfully in the particular ministry projects that unite us as Southern Baptists?
We need to be honest with each other. The SBC is currently made up of people with different opinions on each of these issues. It is not likely, anytime soon, that those on any one side of any of these issues are going to convince all (or nearly all) of those on the other side(s) to abandon their position, and join their ranks. The differences among us on these issues are real and substantial. As I see it, we are at a crossroads. We can either each go our separate way, and form separate organizations, and channels for cooperation more in line with our particular convictions; or, we can agree to disagree, and yet, still work together on the same ministry projects, within the same organizations, for the advance of God’s Kingdom.
What is the best stewardship of the opportunities and resources God has placed into our hands?
One more thing: If we do choose to continue to work together, is it good stewardship to continue to go back and forth, bickering on these particular issues amongst ourselves? Are these issues really and truly “hills on which to die”? Is the best way forward for each group to continue to hold its ground, and play a game of “chicken,” waiting to see who holds out the longest, while, at the same time, a lost world is dying, and on the road to hell? Or, is there still some possibility of a “truce” on these issues, agreeing to not make a particular view on any one of them a shibboleth for continued cooperation within the SBC?
That, as I see it, is one of the major issues facing us in the days ahead, as Southern Baptists.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Interesting dissertation; well written.
The one point I’d pick at is the statement; “Then again, some “5-pointers” may prefer to work together only with other “5-pointers.”
In my experience, the prevalent condition seems to be “non-5-pointers” who object to working with “5-pointers”, and not vice versa. I’m a calvinist and have never objected to working with anyone who wasn’t .. nor have I seen that of any other calvinists … but I have certainly seen cases where the reverse was true.
Bob,
The words “some” and “may” are important in that sentence. The “some” may well only be 1 out of 100. But to tie up loose ends, so to speak, I didn’t want to leave out that possibility. I think the onus to accept one another as full partners in cooperation cuts both ways.
David,
Nice of you to say so, today. Good post.
I was talking with a young seminarian about a conversation he had regarding a tertiary issue. I won’t mention this issue, but suffice to say any time it is brought up on this list, it generates a flurry of posts. Here is what I told him would be a fitting response to the pastor with whom he had been having the discussion:
“Since you know him, challenge him on the grounds of his convictions. Praise him for his convictions and say you respect him for them. Then ask if he reciprocates. Then ask why not. Then ask why he would take offense if you said the very same thing about his convictions that he just said about yours. Don’t preach. Just let him do the preaching.”
The youngster demurred since he felt inadequate to the task and his previous contact with the pastor was less than congenial. However, I believe the above paragraph contains a strategy for dealing with tertiary issues that are not hills to die on. Suffice to say, our interlocutors expect us to have respect for their convictions but if we disagree with them, we are not afforded the same privilege. Or conversely, we expect them to respect our convictions without a willingness to treat them as we expect to be treated. Until we learn first and foremost to treat ALL disagreements within Baptist circles with godly humility and respect, we will never make progress on the front you describe above.
I was saved in an Independent Fundamental Landmark Sovereign Grace Baptist church and cut my teeth on the Trail of Blood and the old (not the liberal, radical, etc. New) Scofield Reference Bible. Since then I have been a member of GARBC and SBC churches as well. The one constant seems to be the willingness to divide over the most picayune of issues. While we discuss trying to get along and cooperate within the SBC, I think we have set our sights too low. We need to learn the lessons of Cedarville University and Liberty University and learn to cooperate with GARBC’s and IFB’s at the local level and not just the collegiate level. For me, this had to start at the personal level where I had to come to the conclusion that my fellow Baptists of whatever stripe were not a threat, but a challenge; not an assault on my convictions, but a stimulus to them. If we cannot adequately defend our position to those who love us most (or are supposed to anyway), why then would we insist on making this a hill to die on? Just as importantly, if a brother has staked a banner on a hill as an unassailable position, why do we feel compelled to sally forth? Why not rather pat them on the head and say, “Good for you,” and go about our business of building the Kingdom instead of trying to bring them into conformity with our image through disputation and argumentation?
And the question I never hear asked is, “What if we succeed?” What if we finally moved the denomination in our preferred direction? What would that do with all those who disagree with us? Do they desert and form their own association like the ABA did or the CBF? Or do we just continue to irritate them and build up a stockpile of ill-will? Or do we simply find another issue to endlessly divide over? I look at the Conservative Resurgents who have now succeeded and see that rather than being content with success have gone on to promote division over a variety tertiary issues. I do not find this activity God-honoring. My fear is that continues “success” will only lead to continued hair splitting. That’s what happened in Landmark circles and is currently happening in IFB circles – ongoing disputes are continuing to fracture already marginalized groups making them ever smaller and ever less effective.
Rick,
Excellent analysis. I believe you are right on target. I would add everything you say here as an addendum to my post. Thanks for your thoughtful input on this.
You know, we could split up into groups and name them Paul, Barnabus, Silas and Mark (Acts 15:36-41). At one time these men were together and because of a difference of opinion and/or personal offense they ministered in different directions. Even if one is wrong we usually have to wait on the Holy Spirit to work the work of grace in their heart like He did ours. Regardless, the Holy Spirit did work in the separation that existed. Like the aging process, we seem to soften as we minister the grace of God in what we believe. Walking out our faith usually sweetens the spirit, it never makes it bitter unless “I” is at the center.
Yet another great post, David.
Another nail struck directly on the head, David.
It will be interesting, in the next few years, as the debate over these issues play out.
I’m waiting expectantly, but so far, none of the search committees have asked for my resume. Very disappointing!
Bruce,
Good observation. Actually, I think the unity of the Church (capital C) is best served, at present, by the separate associations of churches (small c). The alternative, a worldwide organizational union of all the churches, tends too much to hierarchical tyranny, and ultimately to doctrinal deviation, as the Constantinian “experiment” has proven over the centuries. In the meantime, it is of utmost importance, though, that we each “wait on the Holy Spirit to work the work of grace” in each of our hearts, and that we, at least, recognize that work of the same Holy Spirit in the hearts of all those in whom He is working, even though they don’t dot their i’s and cross their t’s just like us.
Dave,
It will be interesting indeed. I think you just poisoned the pot, though, by playing your cards a little too soon on the resume thing. If you hadn’t have done that, no telling, you might have gotten a call sooner or later. Now, we will never know for sure.
Brother David,
I like this statement….
“It’s funny how many of the sharpest conflicts we have as Christians are with those who are closest to us.”
That is so very true. Somehow, those that call themselves Southern Baptist’s must take to heart the instruction of Isaiah…..
Isaiah 1:17-18 “Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (18) “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.”
James instruction is much like Isaiah’s…..
James 1:25-27 “But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. (26) If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. (27) Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
There seems to be an amazing simplicity to unity, yet many times we find ourselves making it so complex. The complexity seems to lead some to demand other denominations or suggestions of a better fit somewhere else. But as you have accurately written, the Baptist Faith and Message does allow for two trains of thought. Some will try to make it say everything,….others will allow for it to be less complex. The BF&M does seem to leave abundant room for ministers to teach the truth of scripture without the document being a prescriptive or deterent as this point. In other words the document doesn’t seem to have piled up too many unusually hills to die on for now. I have always pushed for a smaller, less complex statement,…but it seems to be pushing the other direction. Like Dave,…no one from the Executive committiee has called lately for a resume.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I think Scripture has some pretty specific things to say in regard to our unity in the Body of Christ at large. However, it doesn’t have a whole lot of specific things to say about how we slice up our various cooperative arrangements within the Body. Therefore, I think a good bit of this is up for us to determine ourselves, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How can we be the best stewards of the resources He allows us to oversee? And, how do we best represent before the world the unity to which He has clearly called us in Scripture? Nothing I see in Scripture demands a SBC with a certain number of adherents, or a certain list of parameters. But I do think He calls us to be faithful and wise in the decisions we take on this, though.
On another note, man, you guys keep trimming the list on the resume thing, playing your cards so quick. Before long, if it keeps going this way, their list of potential candidates is going to be pretty short.
Regardless of how things get set up I wish someone would come up with a better structure of literature for Bible studies in the SBC Sunday School. It doesn’t matter why Sunday School began we need to use this time “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry” thru verse 16. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing that we can use the existing material that is published and teach it the way we want. I don’t buy that anymore and it sounds like a cop-out statement. The people of the Church in the SBC are dying from lack of truth. They already don’t read their Bible, much less, the Explore the Bible material and such. Coming from such well educated people, we are only given crumbs from the table of knowledge through the published material we are offered. If what is offered to the Church is from a unified effort (compromise) then we are in trouble. I mean that in a nice way.
Brother David,
Well put,
“Nothing I see in Scripture demands a SBC with a certain number of adherents, or a certain list of parameters. But I do think He calls us to be faithful and wise in the decisions we take on this, though.”
And, …..since I know many of the guys downtown (Nashville),…I’m pretty sure my downloaded resumes are used as “fire-starters”
Really,..I love those guys, and work with them whenever I can.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Bruce,
Your best opportunity for depth of teaching is in the church. The BSSB (dba Lifeway) will never be the highest resource for you in that regard. The overseers in the local churches must dig in, disciple and study to show themselves approved.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Excellent post! You stated: “One more thing: If we do choose to continue to work together, is it good stewardship to continue to go back and forth, bickering on these particular issues amongst ourselves?”
That is the heartbeat of the issue. If we forge forward together, agreeing to disagree, will the SBC Impact site continue to post such material as “Arminius: Influencer of Separation,” or “The Fourth Person: Man in the Middle”? Since we would (hypothetically in the future) agree to disagree, then such posts would seem not only gratuitous but also counterproductive to the Great Commission Resurgence. Unless, of course, these theological differences matter so much that we must continue to debate the issues.
Perhaps the “theological tent” of the SBC is too big. I have mentioned this to several of my professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC, where I attend college. But then again, if each church maintains local church autonomy, then I suppose the “tent” has the potential to grow ever wider. It is a perplexing issue, I admit. Nonetheless, I appreciate what you have stated here. Thank you for sharing.
William,
I make a big difference between “bickering” and “discussing issues.” I think there is always room for discussing issues, with an open Bible and an open mind. And, I hope SBC Impact remains a place in which this is able to take place. We must continually be on guard, however, that our discussions don’t degenerate into bickering.
Thanks for your input in the discussion.
100% Agreed, Chris.
The local overseers seem to be overprotective of the LifeWay source and I do not know why. I wish these overseers knew the importance of maturing the saints. It would be good, too, if the Convention pushed it a little more in that direction so our denomination does not die on the vine like others have. Soon, we will be liberal enough that we will accept what we cannot believe others have already allowed. When we distance ourselves from God’s word the truths of the Word begin to fade in the fog of deceit. Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” And He said that when he was at the point of starvation. That’s how important it is.
I find it interesting how we trust the Holy Spirit to enlighten our own understanding of Biblical truth… yet we so very often demonstrate that we do not trust the same Holy Spirit to enlighten the understanding of those with whom we disagree.
Spiritual maturity is a journey, not a destination… and those who think they have arrived, have in truth yet to begin.
Grace Always,
David,
Will the GCR address any of the issues you raised? It seems as if these matters must be resolved in SBC life if we’re to move forward with the Great Commission. Great Post
Dwight McKissic
Greg,
I agree, in principle, with what you are saying here. However, I think that, in order to move forward in the SBC, we do need to recognize the value, and indeed need, of certain parameters of cooperation. We must draw the line somewhere or another, since we are acting on the good faith of all those people and churches who give of their time, energy, and money to carry out the specific ministry projects we have agreed to cooperate on. Our attitude, and maturity, and trust in the Holy Spirit, in the way we do this (as you indicate in your comment) is indeed paramount, though.
Dwight,
I am really not sure if the GCR Task Force will deal with these specific issues or not. I imagine some might say it is beyond the scope of the task that has been entrusted them by the convention. However, I agree with you that these are crucial matters which must be resolved before we are able to make much progress on the other things. If there are people on the Task Force who are able to see the big picture (and I have no doubt but that there are), I don’t see how they can just sweep these questions under the carpet.
I have been thinking for several weeks regarding what the purview of the recommendations will be that the GCR comes out with.
I don’t believe that the GCR is going to say anything one way or another regarding various “2nd tier” or “3rd tier” issues. I think bringing up such issues is a double edge sword since: (a) it will open debate for the ‘nth’ time as to whether a given issue [say PPL] is in fact a 2nd tier as opposed to 3rd tier issue, and (b) what is the “correct” SBC view [pro PPL, anti PPL, tolerate either]. No matter what the GCR task force says these issues are going to cause some backlash without doing much to open the floodgates to a Great Commission Resurgence.
I don’t think any of these issues are Hills To Die on:
(a) PPL,
(b) re-baptism or baptism [i.e. reprising the argument that the IMB BoT had a few years ago]
(c) “5 point Calvinism” vs. some other soterology
Also, I don’t think that such things as:
(a) renaming the SBC to remove “Southern” from the name,
(b) changing the formula for CP giving and/or allow current bypassing the state conventions be categorized as “CP giving”,
(c) re-organizing the agencies
is going to get to the root of launching a GCR. However, from my standpoint, it might be OK to adopt changes in any or all of the above three areas.
I think the attempting to resolve the current ambiguity regarding “close”, “closed” vs. “open” communion is not likely to give rise to any net benefit. Most people evidently think the current BFM language in this area is “OK” even if they personally ignore it.
I’m not an SBC leader, the son of an SBC leader, a second cousin of an SBC leader, or any other relationship. Given that I think that all the points I’ve ennumerated above either are going to cause more harm than good and/or are peripheral to the essence ramping up the Great Commission, then I guess it is incumbent on me to come up with some areas that might actually give the GC a shot in the arm. I admit that I don’t know what the areas are that the GCR task force should address nor do I know what recommendations in these areas would bear positive fruit.
Roger,
As I mentioned to Dwight, I am not sure that these issues are really within the designated purview of the GCR Task Force. For the record, neither do I think that resolving them is going to bring about a Great Commission Resurgence. That, in my opinion, is more than anything, a matter related to prayer, obedience, and local church-based revival.
However, I do think a good part of the questions before the committee have to do with how we, as a convention, may be the best stewards of the resources God has entrusted us with, with a view toward working toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission. And, I also think that the present charged atmosphere among many Southern Baptists, related to discussions on, and, at times, bickering over, these matters, is an important barrier to a more effective stewardship of Great Commission resources.
I agree with you that neither PPL, re-baptism (or “alien immersion”), or 5-point Calvinism, should be viewed as “hills on which to die.” The problem is when others within the convention, taking a different view than I do, insist that they should be hard and fast 2nd-tier issues. Do I (and those who think like I do on these issues) just lie down, and do nothing, since they are not really “hills on which to die”? Such an approach would, in effect, amount to ceding influence (and eventually control) over these issues to those who feel more strongly about them.
You say that most people in the SBC evidently think the language of the BF&M is okay on the area of close/closed/open communion. I think this is the case largely because this particular point has not really been enforced up until now. But, if, as some are currently demanding, Boards of Trustees begin to enforce this more rigidly, appointees and employees are systematically denied opportunities for denominational service, and those in the pews begin to catch wind of what’s going on, I imagine this would quickly become a much more incendiary issue.
David,
This is a very interesting and well written blog post, with some good questions and scenarios. However, in scanning over the responses I am surprised that no one has challenged you on your revision of history or misrepresentation of Dr. Mohler’s triage.
Dr. Al Mohler wrote in his article… “The truthfulness and authority of the Holy Scriptures must also rank as a first-order doctrine, for without an affirmation of the Bible as the very Word of God, we are left without any adequate authority for distinguishing truth from error.” Can you please explain why you wrote… “In recent years, the SBC has gone on record, defining certain issues as level-2 issues. Specifically, as a main plank of the Conservative Resurgence, biblical inerrancy was recognized as a clear level-2 (and not level-3) issue: it was held out as “a hill on which to die.”?
I am also a little surprised by your summation… “We can either each go our separate way, and form separate organizations, and channels for cooperation more in line with our particular convictions; or, we can agree to disagree, and yet, still work together on the same ministry projects, within the same organizations, for the advance of God’s Kingdom.” Is it really that cut and dry, either / or?
I am curious why you believe the SBC has come to a “crossroads” where it is now… get in, get out, or get run over? Why must the choice be leave or compromise?
While it is true that the “differences among us on these issues are real and substantial”… and that “it is not likely, anytime soon, that those on any one side of any of these issues are going to convince all (or nearly all) of those on the other side(s) to abandon their position”… does that mean that they are not important and that we should just stop engaging in dialogue? I am going to come down on the other side of this equation and say that because we have so much in common we must continue to engage.
Joe,
If I understand the terms of the debate correctly, “inerrancy” is a position that falls within the domain of truthfulness, reliability, and authority of Scripture. One can affirm the latter without necessarily adhering to a finely nuanced position on the former. And for the record, inerrancy is often the subject of many straw-man arguments. For instance, the Bible records contradictory accounts of Saul’s death between I Samuel and II Samuel. To say this undermines inerrancy is spurious for a number of reasons. By the same token, one can believe in inerrancy but subscribe to a hermeneutic that need not include an assent to a literal 6-day creation. These are clearly tier-2 arguments.
You also asked if it was really an either/or between get along vs. going separate ways. You are correct in that there is at least one more alternative – the status quo. We can continue to bicker, fight, form partisan factions within the SBC, snipe, carp, backbight,and gossip as we’ve always done. My guess is that you aren’t wanting to go this route either. Case in point: Mark Driscoll. Hard NOT to be either/or, isn’t it? At least within the current cultural configuration of the Convention. (Can one be OCD when it comes to alliteration? I guess it came with my ordination certificate.) Still, what other alternatives do you see?
I don’t think David is advocating an end to the dialogue. Rather I think he is proposing a less polemical way of addressing it.
Joe,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I was hoping someone would engage me on this “from the other side of the equation.” And, you have not disappointed with the points you raise.
With regard to inerrancy, to be honest, I wrestled with how to word that part. I am aware that Dr. Mohler specifically mentioned biblical authority as a level-1 doctrine. You will notice that, in how I worded it I said that, for Southern Baptists, as a result of the CR, inerrancy was recognized as clearly level 2, and, I emphasize now, NOT LEVEL 3. I seriously considered including a footnote indicating that, for many, from a certain perspective, inerrancy could be considered as a Level 1 doctrine. In the end, I did not, because I felt the post was already complicated enough, and did not want to derail the chain of thought.
My point was that one of the results of the CR was to make inerrancy a litmus test for denominational cooperation (i.e. Level 2). This, in my mind, does not preclude it also being, from a certain perspective, Level 1 as well. Perhaps I should have said “as a minimum, Level 2,” though that would surely have raised more questions, as well.
A side issue to this is, is it possible to be truly born again, and an authentic member of the Body of Christ, and not accept inerrancy (according to the Chicago Statement, for example)? I have wrestled with this. While, on the one hand, as I understand it, someone who is truly submitted to the will of God, will also, as a consequence, want to submit to the Word of God, I know of many, who, for some technical reason or another, while claiming to be submitted to God, and have a personal relationship with Jesus by grace through faith, would have a caveat or two in regard to the Chicago Statement. I, personally, accept inerrancy wholeheartedly, and have no caveats at all with the Chicago Statement. But, as I understand things right now, I have a problem declaring each and everyone who does not accept it entirely as lost and damned to hell.
In any case, I definitely agree that biblical authority, in general, and more specifically, inerrancy, is a foundational issue, upon which much of the rest of our belief system depends (level 1, per Dr. Mohler). And, as Southern Baptists, it is a sine qua non for full participation in cooperative ministry (thus, Level 2, at the very least).
As far as the proposed dilemma between “going our separate ways” or “agreeing to disagree,” I agree with you there is, perhaps, a third alternative, involving continued dialogue. As I see it, however, any hopefulness tied to the prospect of dialogue, carries with it the assumption that there may still be a possibility that one or both sides may eventually yield some ground on their present position.
In my discussion with those in Southern Baptist life who disagree with me on these particular issues, I have tried, as best as I know how, to listen openly to their arguments, and consider them honestly, with the Bible as my guide. While I have perhaps come to understand a little better people’s reasons for their beliefs as a result of this dialogue, I have not yet been convinced by these reasons. From my perspective, I have seen relatively little effort by those on the other side to truly understand the reasons and argumentation behind my (our) perspective on these issues.
In spite of all this, however, as you say, perhaps there is still some value in continued dialogue. I supppose what I am writing here is, to an certain extent, an expression of my pessimism in this regard. Also, to point out the logical (and, in my opinion, inevitable) consequences, if neither side backs down on their positions on these particular questions.
However, if it comes to that, that does not mean we have come to the end of the world. God’s Kingdom will still go on. As my father once said, “… the Southern Baptist Convention does not have to survive … but I will not compromise the Word of God.” I know that, before the CR, he (and, no doubt, many others) seriously considered the possibility of leaving the convention (due to growing concerns over the liberal direction it was headed).
Personally, I think the best solution is to continue to allow for differences within the presently conservative constituency of the SBC on the particular points I mention in this post. If those who want to make each of these issues hard and fast level 2 issues continue to insist on having their way, and if their position ends up holding sway, though, it will leave no viable alternative for the rest of us, but to seek separate cooperative agreements with those who are willing and able to work with us.
Rick,
I am not following your argument on inerrancy verses authority in regards to this post.
David wrote… “In recent years, the SBC has gone on record, defining certain issues as level-2 issues. Specifically, as a main plank of the Conservative Resurgence, biblical inerrancy was recognized as a clear level-2 (and not level-3) issue: it was held out as “a hill on which to die.”
It seems pretty clear to me that David was referring to the CR in the SBC in which inerrancy was determined to be a tier 1 issue to die for (as Mohler explains). Thus my question as to why David placed inerrancy as a tier 2 issue, especially since he is basing his post on this being an argument between people with “the same conservative view of biblical authority (e.g. inerrancy)”.
I refuse to believe that our only alternatives are:
1) Go along to get along.
2) Go our separate ways.
3) Status Quo.
I don’t have all the answers, but I know bad solutions when I see them. Still, I would like David to explain why he has placed revised history and misrepresented Dr. Mohler’s position. How will we ever find agreement on tier 2 and tier 3 issues if we keep missing tier 1′s?
Thank you Brother David for your response, I was typing while you were.
Joe,
Having read your response to Rick above, I thought the following comment might help clarify my thoughts on this even a little more.
From my understanding, Level 2 doctrines, from the specific perspective of denominational cooperation, ARE “hills on which to die.” The fact that something is “Level 2″ or “Tier 2″ doesn’t mean that it is secondary in importance, in the sense of, “you can take it or leave it.” It means that, while not a matter which must necessarily cut off Christian fellowship with those who disagree, it IS a matter which will eliminate those who do not agree from effective cooperation on ministry projects (i.e. full participation in denominational life).
David,
Having read again your post and comments, I think the big question that you are asking is this… “to what degree will there continue to be flexibility on who is qualified and who is not to be a denominational employee or officer.”
What makes this such a tough question to answer is the treasured Baptist distinctive and biblical concept of autonomy. Not only do we believe that every local church is autonomous, but also each Baptist organization. In which case, we must trust democratic processes and trustee boards to act according to Scripture, mandate, and conscious.
It matters very little that I believe baptism and communion are 2nd level, or that I feel PPL and Calvinism are 3rd level based on my understanding of Scripture. What matters is what the majority believe the Bible teaches (whether it is the majority of members in a church, messengers at a convention, or trustees on a board).
May God grant us better understanding and application of His Word as we continue to dialogue and endeavor to be faithful.
Joe,
Thank you for hitting the “reset” button on this thread.
Yes, that IS the issue – who is qualified. And how much leeway do we allow in those qualifications.
Years ago. Decades ago. I had a Bible college prof point out to me that in Baptist ordinations, we spend a great deal of time on doctrinal qualifications while the NT passages in Titus and Timothy spend almost no time listing doctrinal qualifications. There is no set of “right beliefs” enumerated in the NT that qualifies a man for any position.
Instead, all of the qualifications are character traits. He pointed out (and this was in the days long before Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and waaaaay before Ted Haggard) that if we spent more time on the Biblical qualifications we would likely have far less church scandal which ultimately does more harm to the cause of Christ than any doctrinal heterodoxy.
Joe,
I think the question you highlight does sum up well the underlying issue treated in this post.
And, ultimately, as a result of the way the convention, and its various entities, are set up, the majority will indeed determine what decisions are made in regard to these questions.
Unfortunately (in some respects, but perhaps not ultimately), this majority rule process invites a corresponding politicization of the process, including the normal lobbying and propaganda battles that come along with politics.
The point I am making (especially to those of the so-called “BI” persuasion, if any of them are listening) is that, in this process, it is possible to win the battle, but end up losing the war. There are some hills worth dying on, and others that have their degree of importance, but may not be “worth dying on,” in regard to parameters of denominational cooperation. If you continue to insist on making hard and fast level-2 issues of each of these issues, it is possible that you may, on occasion, win the majority among messengers at conventions, or Boards of Trustees. But, the likely consequence of doing so, will be alienating and excluding a good many people who could (and, in my opinion, should) make good allies in the fight against the most important things we are fighting against; or, to frame it in more positive terms, in favor of the more important things we are fighting for (i.e. the fulfillment of the Great Commission).
In other words, when all is said and done, is it really worth it?
David,
When you said,”In other words, when all is said and done, is it really worth it?” all depends on what doctrines you’re talking about.
David W.
David W.,
I am talking here specifically about:
1. closed or close communion v. open or modified open communion
2. so-called “alien immersion”
3. PPL
4. various degrees of Calvinism
David Rogers,
You ask… Is it really worth it?
1) That we follow the Lord’s commandment to make disciples and teach them to observe all things that He has clearly commanded, especially in regards to His church (male pastors, communion, etc)… yes it is worth it.
2) That we have missionaries, representatives, and leaders in our convention who have been Biblically baptized… yes it is worth it.
3) That someone claims to have a PPL is problematic for me since I cannot find it in my Bible, and if it were truly private no one would know about it.
4) Calvinism could become an issue if it progresses to Hyper-Calvinism and negatively effects our mission mindset.
Of course; since each church is autonomous they can do as they please. But as you noted above… “cooperation within the SBC is a different matter”.
Brother David,
I would say that since two of those (1 & 2) have to do with commands…..those should be given greater consideration and be carried out in a simple manner as the Saints glorify God.
Obviously, PPL and degrees of Calvinism are not commands and are driven by subjective behaviors. (Some that adhere to a PPL may see that as a command in private somehow though)
Blessings,
Chris
Joe,
So you are saying, to lose perhaps over 50% of our constituency as Southern Baptists over fine and nuanced points of these particular practices and doctrines, which many (such as myself) claim to be able to defend biblically, would be worth it?
If that is really what you think (and if your view represents a significant amount of others), I don’t foresee this having a happy ending.
I take that back. I do foresee a happy ending, because I believe God is in control, and He makes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him. And, the progress of His kingdom and of the effort to fulfill the Great Commission does not depend necessarily on the prosperity of the SBC. But, there could well be a lot of turbulent waters to navigate in the meantime.
Chris,
As I understand communion (#1), the command of Christ implies welcoming all those who are “pursuing a life of repentance” to the celebration of our common union and identification with Jesus. I believe it is possible that some, due to their misunderstanding of Christ’s command to be baptized, are genuinely “pursuing a life of repentance,” and yet have not been duly baptized. For me, to turn such away from the Lord’s Table, would involve disobedience. I understand that others see this differently, though.
The question is, Is this difference of perspectives an unsurmountable one, as far as cooperation in the SBC is concerned?
I also believe that the authenticity of baptism (#2) hinges upon the faith and repentance of the one being baptized (e.g. a truly converted adult), the mode of baptism (immersion), and the purpose of baptism (identification with Christ, in His death, burial, and resurrection). I don’t believe that a duly appointed administrator of baptism affects authenticity, though.
As I understand the Bible, this is perfectly consonant with Christ’s command. In fact, to demand that someone be “re-baptized” who has already been baptized (as I understand it) would do violence to Christ’s command (as I understand it). However, I realize that others see it differently.
The question is, once again, Is this difference of perspectives an unsurmountable one, as far as cooperation in the SBC is concerned?
David,
When I say it is “worth it”; I mean that it is worth having the discussion on the topic and not just ignoring it or acting as if a command from our Lord is insignificant.
This is what I believe about doctrinal accountability among autonomous Southern Baptist entities:
1) The Bible is truth without any mixture of error.
2) Truth/Doctrine should never be forsaken or sacrificed for unity.
3) Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and always voluntary.
4) Doctrinal accountability is warranted for representative individuals and/or entities.
5) Good stewardship requires doctrinal accountability.
6) The trustees of any agency have the right to set any policy or guideline they desire or deem beneficial.
7) There will always be dissenting minority viewpoints on any topic.
Brother David,
You and I seem to have similiar thoughts concerning those commands… and these varying perspectives however; those being different from others must not be “unsurmountable” because the perspectives have survived together for at least my 30+ adult years I have been ministering and cooperating in the SBC.
So, I do see your point,…. that if the tent is being pushed into a reduction, it is not being reduced for lack of doctrine, ….there possibly is another motive or reason.
It is typically about control and alliance… certainly that is the basis in re-baptism (re-baptism in itself is kind of an oxymoron)
-Chris
Joe,
Thanks for the clarification. That is helpful.
Out of your list of 7, the only one I would have any real question about is #6. I suppose that, technically, this is true. Trustees, provided they are duly elected or appointed, do have a certain amount of leeway to carry out the task they have been entrusted with. However, I would add that they are appointed with the understanding that they are representing the wishes of the constituency that appointed them (through whatever process this appointment takes place). If, therefore, policies or guidelines they set violate the will of those who appointed them, there is an anomalous situation.
Also, in certain majority rule processes, it is possible that a 51% majority carries out its preferences, in tyrannical fashion, not taking into account the views of the other 49%.
In organizations such as the SBC, which represent a portion of Christ’s Body, it doesn’t seem to me like things should ideally work this way. I realize there has to be some process or another for making decisions. But, when people are affected adversely by these decisions, and there is not a clear consensus within the group, I think the “rights” of trustees should be viewed with a certain degree of tenuousness.
Joe,
Also, I would add that your #2 should not be confused with:
“My personal understanding of disputed truth/doctrine on secondary matters should never be forsaken or sacrificed for unity.”
David Rogers:
You said to Joe White:”Joe,
So you are saying, to lose perhaps over 50% of our constituency as Southern Baptists over fine and nuanced points of these particular practices and doctrines, which many (such as myself) claim to be able to defend biblically, would be worth it?”
Who is going to decide the doctrinal accountability?
I fear as SB the tent is going to continue to get smaller. I think we may eventually lose that 50% and it will still not solve all of the problems.
Tom,
You say: “I fear as SB the tent is going to continue to get smaller. I think we may eventually lose that 50% and it will still not solve all of the problems.”
I think that if the “BI” perspective were to gain ascendancy within the SBC, your fear may well be well-founded. However, I am still optimistic that this will not be the case. I am hopeful that the current push toward a Great Commission Resurgence represents a desire to focus on those things that unite us as conservatives within the SBC rather than those which divide us.
I am also hopeful (though perhaps a bit less so) that some of those in the “BI” camp will come to see the ultimate road to which their demands will take us, if they are carried through to their logical consequences, and come to their senses, and see these things are really not “hills on which to die.”
I think most of the recent “polarization” in SBC life (by “recent” I mean in the last ten years) is a tempest in a teapot.
People are spending more energy on these squabbles than is warrented. I think there is more downside from having the fights vs. the downside from “giving in” to the other side.
Personally I’d rather switch than fight. In fact, I consider myself as a adjunct BI guy as well as a non BI guy.
How can I possibly straddle this fence? It is no problem in daily life since the difference has no practical outworking.
BI (or non BI) is NOT a hill to die on. It is not even worth being wounded on.
Roger said: “How can I possibly straddle this fence? It is no problem in daily life since the difference has no practical outworking.”
Nail hit squarely on the head.
This is one of the reasons I spend so little energy on these issues. In practice, many of them make no difference whatsoever.
So I came in a little late, but want to comment on a comment made my Joe White’s comment:
4) Calvinism could become an issue if it progresses to Hyper-Calvinism and negatively effects our mission mindset.
I see you have addressed many of the issues, but I want to address this. The modern missionary movement was started by a group of Calvinists, like Andrew Fuller and William Carey. Charles Spuergon, a powerful soul winner was a 5 pointer. Jonathan Edwards, who was influential in the Great Awakening was a Calvinist. I myself am a Calvinist who works closely with our Evangelism team, have studied and taught evangelism strategies. There have been those of the reformed tradition who have moved to Hyper-Calvinism, but the argument at this junction, with the movement of these young, Evangelical students towards Calvinism has little danger to move to Hyper-Calvinism.
Sorry for hijacking your post for a minute, I’ll climb down from my soap box return it.
Dan,
I appreciate your point on William Carey and other Calvinists. However, their positions were contrary to the hyper-Calvinism that was prevalent in the Baptist churches. In fact, at a ministers’ meeting in 1786, Carey raised the question of whether it was the duty of all Christians to spread the Gospel throughout the world. J. R. Ryland, the father of John Ryland, is said to have retorted: “Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine.”
Roger & Rick,
RE: “How can I possibly straddle this fence? It is no problem in daily life since the difference has no practical outworking.”
So far, the main practical outworking in this has been in the lives of those IMB and NAMB candidates whose applications have been denied because of these issues. Admittedly, the number has been relatively small up till now. However, if the hardline “BI” guys get their way, from what I read in what they write, the practical outworking could be much more significant in the lives of a whole lot more people. And, when confronted with this prospect, it doesn’t seem to bother them.
I suppose the argument could be made that the SBC is in better shape now, since the moderates and liberals have pretty much found other channels of cooperation. Some of the “BI” guys are probably thinking that, in keeping with this, it could be even better yet, if the “open communionists,” PPL-supporters, and Founders crowd would all go their separate ways as well.
My point is that, to a certain extent, this is already happening, as one-by-one, churches and believers, are jumping ship, and finding other networks to cooperate with. And, it appears, at times, we are one atep away from seeing this process accelerate a whole lot more, pending the results of the recent propaganda campaigns of the “BI” crowd.
Would a leaner, meaner, more doctrinally-narrow SBC be a good thing? Some apparently think so. Personally, I don’t think it would be a good stewardship of God’s resources, if it can be avoided.
But, then again, a lot of these new networks and channels of cooperation that are springing up as a result of this dynamic are doing a lot of good and interesting things for the advance of the Kingdom. Who knows? Maybe that is part of God’s plan after all.
Brother Dan,
The truth is …..a stance in Calvinism or Arminianism has absolutely nothing to do with obeying Christ in the command to disciple and baptize. Yet many pastors are convinced and deceived into believing it does.
In other words, whether you fain with passionate love and fascination over what either of those men had to say,…following Christ’s commands do not become optional.
Blessings,
Chris
David Rogers:
You said–”Who knows? Maybe that is part of God’s plan after all.”
Amen! So let it be.
In response Joe, you are right, and I am familiar with the quote, and I admit that some have turned to the Hyper or High Calvinistic approach, but I doubt strongly that those younger SBC pastors (like myself, I am 32) looking at Calvinism will end up Hyper.
Those in the younger SBC are looking at Calvinism as a way to understand how God is moving, and how they fit. We have lived through the apologetic surge, that taught us how to “argue” people to Christ. We became frustrated when we found this approach was not helping the Kingdom. In speaking for myself, I want evangelism that comes from God, is empowered by God and is dependant upon God, and not my ability to make the best argument. I have tried that approach, and it falls short.
What I am saying, and I believe much of the debate now is, can we work together, knowing that some of us lean closer to the reformed doctrine than others. Is it a deal breaker? I hope not, I would hate to see an SBC where I am no longer welcomed because there is fear I will become a hyper-Calvinist.
Dan,
I am glad to hear that you do not believe your Calvinism or the Calvinism of many other young pastors will end up Hyper. I also do not think Calvinism is currently an issue of cooperation in the SBC. I only mentioned it because David listed it as number 4 on his list.
However, my comment presents an hypothetical scenario whereby I can see Calvinism becoming an issue… IF “it progresses to Hyper-Calvinism and negatively effects our mission mindset”. To that statement I hope you would also agree. And while this may run contrary to your belief about the future, this is not a statement that has zero precedence or possibility.
My concern is less your statement and more the prevalent attitude that it has already happened. There can be little doubt that there have been comments claiming that the reason the SBC is in decline is that Calvinism has come into the church. THAT concerns me. Hypothetical scenarios that are treated as prophecy and fact is more often what emerges. If I trusted the ability of people to put in practice the principle of “if”.
Mr. Barnes,
You have interesting ideas. But is that picture your real face?
Joe White,
I wonder if the Joe White of today would walk in unity with the newly converted Joe White of yesterday? And will the Joe White of tomorrow wag his finger and walk away from the Joe White of today?
Grace Always,
Fear. What ifs. What if Calvinists become hyper-Calvinists is like saying what if Christians in the Southern Baptist life become atheists. It has happened many times over. What ifs are crippling us.
Great point, Debbie.
“What ifs” are the Christian’s lottery. By putting 6 “What ifs” in a row, the chances of it ever happening is 1 out of 25.8 million.
I’ve recently listened to some sermons regarding creation. The poor evolutionist is laying his life on “What ifs” that exceed the 6 in a row. Bottom line, we need to commit to the principles of God’s Word and never waiver. Whether it is multilevel or many colored, we must execute our own faith on nothing but what God has clearly said.
Dan, Greg, Debbie, and Bruce,
Your concern over my “what if” statement is ironic and almost comical. David’s entire post is built on a “what if” premise. What if we call a truce? What if we make these issues hills to die on? What if this issue becomes a test of cooperation? What if 50% of our constituency leaves the SBC?
When David responded to Tom Parker… “if the “BI” perspective were to gain ascendancy within the SBC, your fear may well be well-founded”… no one cried foul.
And when he said to Roger and Rick… “if the hardline “BI” guys get their way, from what I read in what they write, the practical outworking could be much more significant in the lives of a whole lot more people”… no one declared his view to be “crippling us”. Why?
This entire post operates in the realm of fear and what if.
Joe,
You have a good point… almost.
The difference is that the “BI” guys I reference actually are advocating the views and consequences within the SBC I reference (making hard and fast Level-2 issues out of the specific issues I mention here).
While the Calvinists within the SBC (at least the ones I know of) are not actually advocating Hyper-Calvinism. Perhaps there are some out there. But you will have to point me to them.
In any case, I think we are all agreed that it would not be a good thing if decisions in the SBC were steered by a Hyper-Calvinistic mindset.
Joe White,
The “What if” of any topic is necessary to descern both the good and evil of any decision. It is when a decision is made on a “what if” that really does not give it a solid rock to stand on. I believe the same size house can be built on a rock as it can on sand. The final result comes from the rain. Plotting our course upon a firm foundation after all of the “what ifs” is our best course of action here.
Thanks for helping to make it clear. Sincerely.
David,
Nice try at pitting my comment on Calvinism versus yours on the “BI” perspective. However, let us not forget that both the Calvinism question and the “BI” perspective were broached by you. Calvinism is not my issue, it is however one of the four that you mentioned.
You wrote… “The question for the future, however, is to what degree will there continue to be flexibility on who is qualified and who is not to be a denominational employee or officer.” It was in response to that hypothetical question about Calvinism that my hypothetical comment was made.
One simply cannot have it both ways. If one wishes to engage in “what ifs” about the future, then one must be willing to except “what if” responses. Yes; we are in complete agreement “that it would not be a good thing if decisions in the SBC were steered by a Hyper-Calvinistic mindset” and it was upon this presupposition that I said I could foresee a problem in the future.
David,
This was a good article with good questions. I really enjoyed conversing with you and others about them.
Joe,
Fair enough. Let’s leave it at that. No sense in continuing to argue about whose hypothesis is more hypothetical. I think we have both been able to make the points we were wanting to make.
Blessings.
David,
The problem with your post is seen in that even the BFM2K would not even be a maximum statement of beliefs. You are already saying that there should be caveats. I mean, I would rather it be a minimum statement, as it has always been…giving the different entities the freedom to make even more decisions about who is qualified to serve, and who is not. But, if we make the BFM2K a maximum statement, then there should be no caveats…whatsoever….if you want to serve on an SBC entity, or be a missionary, etc.
I can live with it being a maximum statement, even though I’d rather it be a minimum statement. But, if it’s going to be a maximum statement of who will be eligible to serve, then there should certainly be no caveats allowed.
Also, “alien immersion” is a non issue to you? Really? I just find this extremely hard to believe.
Also, if the so-called BI guys get thier way, then our SBC will be stronger, and stay grounded in the Scripture, and will be faithful to our Lord.
David
Brother Vol,
This term, “alien immersion” gets kicked around a lot. What do you believe is a good definition of that term. I ask this sincerely because the term it seems is pretty wide.
From a Baptist perspective….What is “alien immersion”?
I think knowin this would be helpful.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I would say that it means accepting a baptism from a Church that did not believe like SB’s about baptism and salvation. I’m not saying that it has to be a Southern Baptist Church, but it should have the same beliefs about salvation that we do; before the baptism would be considered Scriptural and valid.
David
Methodist baptism? Does it have to be immersion?
Church of Christ baptism?
Trine immersion in a Brethren church?
Non-denoms at a house church?
Once the camel’s nose is in the tent, where do you stop?
For that matter, my hardcore Landmark friends have a hard time finding a place to start once you get done debunking the Trail of Blood.
Rick,
I think it would be the way these issues are handled once they have been established. A person who is saved and does not wish to obey the church By-Laws or Covenant would identify their real and true heart. It is not the letter of the law, it is always the heart. Same goes for the church. They would have to properly address the matter, too. Each item would need to be set-up with wisdom so it provides discernment and, of course, clear biblical support to protect the existing church body.
Chris,
I left out something from my statement to you. I meant to say, “They would need to believe the same about baptism and salvation before it would be considered a valid, Scriptural baptism.”
And, btw, if I truly believed that the Lord wanted me to join a Church, then I should be willing to do whatever they require to join…whether that’s go thru a 6 week, new members class; or promise to attend regular and give; or get baptised with the same baptism as the rest of the Church. If I am not willing to do what it takes to join a Church that I feel led to join, then what does that say about my heart???? Maybe those people are not people that you would want in your Church to begin with???? Maybe they are rebellious, hard headed, divisive type people?????
David
Perhaps we should take this verse into account:
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Acts 15:19
While I understand that this passage was referring to a very specific and pivotal point in Church history, I think we can generally extrapolate the point that we shouldn’t put additional burdens on others that shouldn’t be theirs to bear.
I agree with Volfan to a point. If I want to join a church, I should be willing to accommodate whatever practices they require of me to join. Perhaps I have to give my testimony. Maybe sign a covenant. Who knows? But isn’t there a limit to what a church should require? We’d obviously be offended if you had to be of a certain income level, Body Mass Index, or HIV+ status in order to join.
I am a little cautious on the Baptism issue. Should we re-baptize people if the method and heart were right, but the baptizer doesn’t fit within the Southern Baptist mold? I’m not arguing about the issue of sprinkling or pouring. I’m just talking about someone who was baptized (immersed) as a believer. Especially in a denomination that places such an emphasis on the number of baptisms, isn’t it a little dishonest to proudly report 20 baptisms this year when there were only two conversions and the rest were membership transfers? Some churches require all new members to be rebaptised, regardless of whether or not you came from a Southern Baptist church before.
I’m just afraid that some of us get a little panicky about making sure someone’s baptism was legit and end up diminishing the value of a biblical baptism because the baptizer is not in our mold.
David W.,
My issue is not so much with a “maximum” or “minimum” statement, as with what is best for the advance of God’s Kingdom. Personally, as I have stated on various occasions, I have a caveat with the phrase on baptism as a requirement for admission to the Lord’s Supper. If, as a result of my view on this, I am disqualified from service with the IMB and/or other SBC entities, then, there are, no doubt, many, many more who have a view similar to mine, or a view even more open than mine. I would venture to guess that more than 50% of current Southern Baptists, and SB churches. Do you not think this is a significant consideration to take into account? Do you really think it would be better to have a “close/closed communion” convention, and a separate “open/flexible communion” convention? Is this issue a “hill on which to die” issue for you, just like inerrancy, and male-only elders (pastors) are “hill on which to die” issues? Or, is it possible that, even though this is something you believe in, it is not such a deal-breaker as these other issues?
I mean, I consider myself to be solidly conservative in my convictions. I could sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy without any caveats. I am solidly complementarian. I believe in believers baptism by immersion as the only legitimate baptism. I believe in all of the points of the BF&M, with the only exception being “close/closed communion.” Do you think my differences with you are of such a nature that it is not good for us to cooperate together in the same denominational ministry projects? Would you have a problem conscience-wise supporting someone like me, as a missionary or denominational servant, with your cooperative program giving?
As far as “alien immersion” is concerned, I believe that, before admitting people as members in our churches, and as denominational servants, they should give a clear salvation testimony, as well as a clear testimony as to having been obedient to the Lord’s command to be baptized, in keeping with Scripture. The only difference is I do not believe the legitimacy of baptism hinges upon the legitimacy of the administrator of that baptism, but rather upon the repentance and faith of the one baptized, the mode of baptism, and the intent of the one being baptized (obedience to the Lord’s command, and identfication with Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection).
A question for you. If someone had been legitimately baptized (according to your own criteria), but a church asked them to be re-baptized in order to become a member, do you think they should be re-baptized, with the sole purpose of meeting local church membership requirements? Do you not think this would be a cheapening of the purpose of baptism, converting it into a mere local church membership ritual?
If I felt that the Lord wanted me to join a certain Church, and they asked me to get baptised to join, I would do it. I used to be a Methodist. When I joined the Baptist, they asked me to get baptised. I did it.
Also, I’d like to ask you a question, if a person was baptised by the Church of Christ, you’d accept it??? I mean, they told you that they were truly saved before the baptism, and they were, of course, immersed by the Church of Christ. You would accept a Campbellite baptism? whenever the Church teaches that a person must be baptised to be saved?
I cannot accept your answer on this one, David. It does matter who baptises you. Otherwise, we’d be accepting Mormon baptisms, Methodist baptisms(by immersion), etc.
Also, the Lord’s Supper issue….why would you not believe that a person had to be a baptised believer in order to take it? If a person is not a baptised believer, then what’s the point of them taking it?
David
David R.,
Also, your caveat may be about the Lord’s Supper, but the next guys might be about women elders…and the next guy might be about baptism by immersion only…and the next guy might be about the inerrancy of Scripture….etc, etc, etc. Where do we stop with the caveats?
David
David W.,
When I got baptized, I did not do it in order to join “the Baptist church,” or a Baptist church. I did it in order to obey my Lord’s command, and to identify with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. Quite frankly, if the reason you were baptized was in order to join a certain church, I question your motive for being baptized. However, I choose to believe that was not your true motive. I think this is a valid point to consider, though.
I have a problem with the terms “Campbellite baptism,” “Mormon baptism,” “Methodist baptism,” etc. I also have a problem with the term “Baptist baptism.” We are not baptized into any denomination or church (small c). We are baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ. And, we are baptized in water in identification with Christ, and by extension, His Body (capital B, in this case).
If someone was baptized by someone affiliated by the Church of Christ, I would want to know if, when they were baptized, they understood themselves to be identifying with the doctrine taught by the Church of Christ (i.e. baptismal regeneration). If so, I would think it appropriate that they be baptized correctly (into Christ alone, trusting in Christ alone for salvation).
The point of taking the Lord’s Supper is to remember the Lord’s body broken for us, and His blood shed for us. As I understand it, it is also a celebration of our unity as One Body:
1 Corinthians 10:16-17. “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”
1 Corinthians 12:29. “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
Do you believe it is possible for an unbaptized believer to be a member of the Body of Christ? I do. If such a person is not baptized because they are just being obstinate or negligent, I would question their salvation, and would not recommend they partake in the Lord’s Supper. If, however, they are sincerely convinced that their “infant baptism” was a true baptism, and claim to have a clear conscience before the Lord in this matter, I would ask them to consider the teaching of Scripture on baptism, but, then, leave the matter of their partaking in the Lord’s Supper up to them, examining themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), and answering to the Lord (Rom. 14:4).
As far as caveats are concerned, I am not advocating a free-for-all on caveats. I am, rather, pointing out a discrepancy between the current wording of the BF&M, and the beliefs and practice of the majority of Southern Baptists on this one particular matter. I do not know of any other point in the BF&M that so directly contradicts the majority position and practice of Southern Baptists (unless it be the section on the Christian and War
).
David R.,
No, I did not get baptised in order to join a Church. I got baptised to obey the Lord. And, that’s really the point, is it not? I got baptised the right way, for the right reason, by a Church that believes right about salvation and baptism. And, yes, we are baptised into the body of Christ when we get saved…not when we get into the water. The water is just a symbol of what really happened. Thus, the Church that baptises you needs to be a church that really knows what the symbollism is all about. And, we also should be baptised by a visible, real part of His Body…the Church…the local Church. And thus, we become a part of that local, real,visible part of the body of Christ….which the Lord wants all Christians to be a part of.
I could never accept a Church of Christ baptism…a Mormon baptism…nor any other denomination or cult that didnt believe right about salvation and baptism. And, I really cant believe that you, nor any other SB’s would, either. Your baptism….water baptism… is a statement of your salvation and willingness to obey the Lord; that you were sincere about your profession of faith. How in the world can a Church of Christ baptism show that, when they baptise for the remission of sin! Works! Religious ritual! And, a Mormon baptism? a cult? How in the world could anyone ever accept such a thing? They would especially need a true, valid baptism…not some works baptism by a cult that doesnt even believe in the diety of Jesus. David, I want to encourage you to really rethink some of this.
About the someone not being baptised and taking the Lord’s Supper, I believe you answered yourself. I would really doubt the salvation of someone who claimed to be a Christian, but would not obey the command to be baptised. And, our baptism should be taken care of first, before we enter into the Lord’s Supper. And, a person who was baptised as a baby needs to take care of what’s wrong, first. Saying all that; I’m not the Lord’s Supper police during the service. I dont watch to see who takes it, and who doesnt. We serve it to whoever is there, and they must decide if they are able to take it with us, or not.
About the caveats, if we allow one, then all are up for grabs. If you want to change this statement about the Lord’s Supper, then it can be changed by the SBC…which you, or someone else can bring up to be voted on and changed; if the majority of SB’s really believe that way.
David
You know, with the advancement of our society to record and video tape teachings and/or sermons, we would do ourself a service to create an online presentation of each of the level 1 topics and so forth, once they have been incorporated. New converts could do an online class at home or church before actually joining or connecting with any SBC church. If the local church has a specific teaching that deviates a little, they have the privilage of instructing converts and new members. I’m sure they do it already. That way, the message would be clear and pure each and every time. This would benefit the smaller churches with little or no resources. Regardless, something like that needs to be in place for our denomination.
David Volfan, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You said, “I got baptised the right way, for the right reason, by a Church that believes right about salvation and baptism.”
Can I read this to mean that any baptism that is missing one or more of these elements is no real baptism? i.e. if you get baptized the wrong way (non-immersion, I’m guessing, or as an infant) or for the wrong reason (like getting baptized in order to join a church? or do you mean just getting baptized to “seal the deal” on your salvation?), or a church that doesn’t dot the same i’s and cross the same t’s in its doctrinal statement as yours, then you’ve not been really baptized.
So when you say, “…yes, we are baptised into the body of Christ when we get saved…not when we get into the water. The water is just a symbol of what really happened,” you intend that it isn’t a valid symbol if any of the above three elements is in error. In other words, If I am getting baptized in order to declare my relationship with Jesus Christ in public obedience to his command and I am immersed by a Church of Christ preacher (who incidentally does not personally believe that baptism is necessary for salvation but only describes it as a “first step” of Christian obedience), then my baptism is invalid because the doctrinal statement of that church is in error?
What if I’m baptized in a Baptist church which describes it as “the door to the church” and a means to membership? Am I being baptized for the “wrong reason” and therefore have no real baptism?
Your post seems to raise more questions than it answers.
Brother Vol,
I was away from the computer for much of the afternoon yesterday, but I do appreciate you bringing more specific definition to how you view “alien baptism”. As you can see, the definition itself draws upon everyone’s subjective viewpoints and traditions (being convinced in our own minds), and from where I sit it is that ambiguity that causes a lot of confusion and tension in the body of Christ (more specifically the SBC) concerning baptism.
What I have come to understand is that baptism is a response to the Spirit’s moving in the church (called out ones) while making disciples. In other words, it was the Spirit encouraging the Eunich to baptism, not Philip,… and as Paul encouraged the Corinthians as well (book 1, chapter 1). It is impossible for a group to dictate being baptized as a function of a policy made by a local body beyond a biblical basis for such. If we believe in the inerrancy of scripture,…it alone (not some group) is the basis for a disciple that has confessed Jesus Christ as Lord, to follow his/her Lord by an expression to identify with his/her Lord of that confession in baptism (immersion). The believer is not identifying with any person/persons, but he/she identifies with Christ alone. If we say we identify with any other person or group, we (the persons confessing Christ and submitting to baptism) miss the point of baptism and become enamored with the person or group…i.e. 1 Corinthians 1.
It is also obvious that if someone is basing their salvation in the act of baptism, then they are not baptized at all…..since they would be pretending that righteousness is imputed on their merit within the act of being immersed or sprinkled, which is opposed to the Spirit’s call to identify with Christ. Some think (Roman Catholic, some Churches of Christ, and some Baptist) they are baptized into the church, when they by true confession are simply baptized into Christ, no matter the settings or location.
So, if I am teaching someone concerning the significance of baptism,… it seems to me I want to communicate to them that the hill to die on is Christ’s hill in baptism, not my hill. As the Apostle Paul would teach, pure doctrine would be the act of being baptized into Christ, not affiliations, teachers or comrades.
Getting baptism correct is not complex…it is wonderful edification.
Blessings,
Chris
Rick,
It is a way to be a part of the local, visible body…the Church. But, we dont get baptised to just join the Church. We get baptised to obey the Lord, and to declare that we are saved and belong to Christ.
And, yes, if someone is baptised in the wrong way for the wrong reason by the wrong church, then it’s not a valid baptism. A valid baptism is when the person is born again, by immersion, by a Church that believes that baptism is a symbollic act of obedience, and that it declares that the person being baptised has been saved by grace thru faith forever. Anything less than that would not be a true baptism. That’s exactly what I’m saying. It matters why you’re getting baptised. It matters how you get baptised. And, it matters what church is baptising you…for the baptism to declare what it really should declare.
Rick, a Mormon baptism is a baptism of what? exactly? What’s the statement there? What’s the picture there? That you are working your way to Heaven, believing in a Jesus that’s not really God?
A Church of Christ baptism. I ask the same questions. What’s the statement here? That the person being baptised is being baptised for the remission of thier sins? That they have a salvation that will last as long as they keep doing good works?
David
Chris,
You said,”The believer is not identifying with any person/persons, but he/she identifies with Christ alone.”
What Christ are they following if it’s a Mormon baptism? a Church of Christ baptism?
What salvation do they have if it’s a Mormon baptism? A Church of Christ baptism?
Baptism is not an individual, personal ordinance. It was an ordinance given to the Church to carry out. The NT is all about a community of Believers carrying out the Great Commission, and doing it together. Jesus set up the Church…the visible, local Church… with Deacons, Elders, taking the Lord’s Supper, etc. There are no Lone Ranger Christians out there…at least, there shouldnt be…not according to the Bible.
David
So my baptism by a Trail of Blood Landmark Baptist church means that I have no true baptism because they didn’t hold a “perfect” belief about the nature of baptism?
For the record, they believed that the authority to baptize rests in the local church and that it is a local church ordinance that has been handed down in chain-link succession since the time of Jesus Christ.
Rick / volfan007,
I agree with the baptism issue. I would not accept another’s baptism, either. I would consult the candidate with the purpose of them having a clear conscience, too. A clear conscience is necessary for them in prayer and worship after they are in the local body. Just wanted to throw that in.
But, Bruce, what if at the time of my baptism, I was fully into the Landmark thing and thought “proper authority” was a valid criterion for scriptural Baptism (keeping in mind that among Landmarkers, “proper authority” means “a church just like us”), does that mean my baptism is not valid because I had an imperfect understanding of the ordinance at the time I was baptized? And is my baptism in a Landmark church valid because they felt that theirs was the only scriptural baptism?
Brother Vol,
I’m not disagreeing with you in post 78…. because it is simple to find out “the substance of the” Christ anyone is following….that was Paul’s point to the Corinthians.
Certainly, baptism is a church ordinance…how can it be otherwise?…because only the church is able to be baptized. In other words, water baptism doesn’t make the church appear…. Baptizing is what the church (those following the “biblical Christ”) is doing.
And I certainly agree….any believer that has convinced themselves that being a lone ranger is to bring Glory to God is being convinced by evil present in them,…not Christ. You said it right… “There are no Lone Ranger Christians out there”…. only those running from Christ think they would like to be….
Blessings,
Chris
Rick,
I just think a legalist approach needs time to mend. I would recommend you being baptized with the right heart attitude. I came from a 1611 KJV background. When I was born again, everything was new and I was baptized. Some may take longer than others to come around. Regardless, the issue would not be immediate baptism. There may be a period of time to allow the legalistic scales to fall from the eyes.
So I’m not really baptized because I was legalistic at the time and am no in need of re-baptizing?
If that’s the case, how do we know ANYONE’s baptism is good enough?
If you were saved at Landmark and baptized and your conscience allows you to proceed with your walk of faith, then we have no scriptural reason not to accept your baptism. I was baptized at 6 when there was no true saving faith in my heart. After I received saving faith and trusted Christ 19 years later everything was new. I actually wanted to be baptized at that point.
No one really knows your heart until you walk it out in service for a time. I would say, accept your baptism until your fruit proves to be either barron or plentiful. If the leadership had reason for concern at the beginning and your service and fruit did not produce comparitively, they would be responsible to you to meet and bring the issue up again. Obedience in this area is critical for us as believers and I believe, if we miss this at the beginning, it will have an affect on what we produce in the future.
David W.,
According to your definition of a Church of Christ baptism, or Mormon baptism, I would not accept them as valid either. If someone is, in their understanding, and intention, being baptized “for the remission of sin,” or as a work in order to merit salvation, then, it is baptism for the wrong motive, and thus, not a valid baptism.
However, as I said before, baptism is not something that should be tied in to any denomination, or sect, or cult, or local church, as a litmus test for its validity. Valid baptism is baptism into Christ, and Christ alone, no matter who administrates it.
It may be a “Baptist pastor,” who, unbeknownst to the baptismal candidate, was really a false believer. It may be in a “Baptist church,” that, for whatever reason, was full of false believers. When you are baptized, you never know for sure the deep, dark secrets of the one performing the baptism, nor even of the group they happen to be a part of. But, when it comes time to give account of yourself to God, I don’t think He holds you accountable for that. He is more interested in the condition of your heart, and your intention to be obedient to His command.
Something similar happened early in church history in the Donatist controversy, when “priests” who had baptized many people, later on gave in under the pressure of persecution, and renounced their faith. The Donatists said that everyone who had been baptized by those “priests” was not truly baptized, because the ones who baptized them were really traitors, and not true believers. The Catholics, however, said, it was not the state of the baptizer, but rather the intention of the baptizee, that was the crucial thing. Then, they turned around, and excommunicated all the Donatists. Of course, as Baptists, we would probably invalidate most of the baptisms on both sides, since, by this time, infant baptism had already crept in, and many of them apparently understood they were being baptized “for the remission of sin.”
The point is, however, when you are baptized, you can never know for sure about the true heart and doctrine of those who are baptizing you. But, thank God, He does not hold us accountable for that. He holds us accountable for our own repentant heart, and obedience to His command.
David:
I think the SBC will have to face head on Richard Land’s ERLC affinity for the politics of James Dobson.
Robert Parham at ethicsdaily.com has recently written of the chasm between Baptist and US Senator Lindsay Graham and the politics of Richard Land and the CP funded ERLC.
Max Blumenthal in Republican Gomorrah gets close to the SBC in his new book. The NPR Here and Now interview of a few days ago gets to the heart of the underbelly of American politics denounced by Susan Eisenhower Land and his ERLC persists in flirting with.
As Adrian Rogers son I urge you and the children of Billy Graham to take a close look at Republican Gomorrah and see if you need to have a strong conversation with Richard Land.
Stephen,
A bit off-topic. But, I would be interested to read the sources you recommend, if I can find the time.
Rick,
Why would your Landmark Baptist baptism not be a good baptism? If the Church baptised by immersion people who are saved, and they believe in salvation by grace thru faith, and that salvation is eternal; then why would you even ask if your Landmark Baptist baptism was valid?
David R.,
What the Church believes about baptism and salvation would be what’s important, beyond the fact that you’re a true believer. It wouldnt matter if everyone in the church was a fake. What matters is what kind of baptism did you get? When you made a profession of faith, what did the Church believe about salvation and baptism? I’m not talking about what the person getting baptised believes. It’s not a personal, individual ordinance. This was an ordinance given to the Church. And, David, the Church is always seen in a local assembly of believers.
David
David W.,
You are going to have to explain yourself a little better. Because what you have just said in comment #89 seems very strange to me. Maybe you meant to word it differently.
This is what I am talking about:
“It wouldnt matter if everyone in the church was a fake. What matters is what kind of baptism did you get? When you made a profession of faith, what did the Church believe about salvation and baptism? I’m not talking about what the person getting baptised believes.”
Are you saying it doesn’t matter what the person getting baptized believes? You can’t be saying that. I know you better than that. But that’s what it sounds like.
Also, this talk of “what kind of baptism” makes no sense to me. There is only one kind of baptism, as I understand it: baptism into Christ.
Also, churches, per se, do not not believe things about salvation and baptism. Individuals believe things about salvation and baptism. Organizations, denominations, and even local congregations, may have creeds and confessions of faith.
So, are you saying we are baptized into a creed, or into a confession of faith?
The question about baptism being a “church ordinance” has been debated ad nauseum on the blogosphere lately. I believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Universal Church, if you want to insist on that language. But I don’t believe the Bible teaches that a local church must supervise baptism. Dave Miller’s excellent series on this (at his personal blog), as well as his more recent shorter posts over at SBC Voices, are conclusive on this matter, as far as I am concerned.
Does that fact make me persona non grata in the SBC as far as you are concerned? Is there not room in the SBC for those who take either side in this debate?
That’s what this post is really about.
David:
Chip Berlet, especially his online page two, has great and I think very fair review of this book easy to google and find homepage of http://www.religiondispatches.org
And you can find Robert Parham’s essay at http://www.ethicsdaily.com
Thanks for prompt reply and interest.
And you may want to check out how I put all this together in two threads at http://www.baptistlife.com/forums
I think there are four things that matter to validate a baptism. First, it must a believer who is baptized. Second, it must be by immersion. These are irreducible minimums. Third, the baptism must be in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit (which would negate baptism by non-trinitarian groups) and it must be done as a symbol of salvation by grace through faith, not as a saving act.
Who are we to call baptisms invalid or require re-baptism if the biblical necessities have been met, whether by a Baptist or an AoG or anyone else.
If we re-baptized biblically baptized people, we are negating the meaning of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice by forcing people to be baptized twice to join our church.
Dave,
Just curious. Do you believe baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit necessarily means pronouncing the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?” or does it merely mean baptizing with the authority of the Triune God?
I can see how this carries implicitly a belief in and submission to the Trinity. What I am wrestling with, though, is what it says about those who may later “apostasize” from a trinitarian faith? Are we back into a Donatist dynamic again? How do you ever know that the person or group who baptizes you will continue to remain orthodox in their belief and practice? Or that they do not covertly believe something that you think they do not at the moment of your baptism? Is it possible for someone who is not truly regenerate to authentically baptize someone else “in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit”?
I can see how it would be necessary for the one being baptized to understand their baptism as in the name (with the authority) of the Triune God. And, I can also see how those who are baptizing can be held accountable for baptizing in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit. But, unless it is nothing more than a formula, how can the one being baptized ever be 100% sure that the person or group baptizing them is truly trinitarian? Is it not a good faith assumption that the public confession of that person or group really is authentic? But, what if the person being baptized is misled or confused about the trinitarian nature of those baptizing them? Would that necessarily invalidate their baptism?
David R.,
Okay, the person who is getting baptised is saved. They go to a Baptist Church that has the right beliefs about salvation and baptism, but the Church is full of fakes and hypocrites, as you alluded in an earlier post. The baptism is valid, because the saved person getting baptised is a)saved; b)getting baptised by a church that believes right about baptism and salvation. I really dont know what the spiritual condition of the people baptising has to do with this conversation.
Secondly, when you said,”Also, this talk of “what kind of baptism” makes no sense to me. There is only one kind of baptism, as I understand it: baptism into Christ.” So, are you saying that the water baptism is when a person is baptised into Christ? Really? That’s when a person is baptised into Christ, according to you? That sounds like the Cambpellites. And, if that is not what you’re saying, then why would a person need to be baptised in water? If baptism into Christ is the only baptism? Then, why in the world are Churches baptising people in the water?
David, there is a spiritual baptism…when the Believer is placed into Christ…that happens the moment that we are saved. And, there is a water baptism, which symbollically shows to the world that we were placed into the body of Christ. But, they happen at two different times. The Baptism of the Spirit happens at the new birth. The baptism in water happens, or should happen, sometime after Spirit baptism; in obedience to the commands of our Lord.
David
Dave,
In your comment #91, you go from saying what validates a true baptism, to saying “Who are we to call baptisms invalid or require re-baptism if the biblical necessities have been met, whether by a Baptist or an AoG or anyone else.” Which is it? It sounds like you’re confused. You give us 4 things that validate a baptism as true, then scold anyone that calls a baptism invalid. Your four requirements would knock out a lot of denominations baptisms. They would think that you were being narrow and divisive and requiring too much.
David
Oh, and David R., who is the universal Churches Pastors? And, where do they take up the tithes and offerings? And, where do they assemble for worship and breaking of bread and learning the Apostles teachings? And, what time do they have services so that I can attend? And, do they have a good youth ministry?
David
David W – I am willing to be as narrow as the scriptures. But I am not willing to go beyond biblical standards to denominational or extra-biblical standards,
David R – I wouldn’t demand a certain formula. My point is that we only enforce standards that are biblical and essential to the performance of a baptism that symbolizes salvation accurately.
Mostly, I am saying that I would not accept baptisms from UPC or other “Jesus Only” churches or other cults that deny the trinity.
We might diverge a little on this, I don’t know. I agree that what is primarily at issue is the belief and understanding of the one being baptized. But I might disagree, if I understand you correctly, on the application of that. If someone came from a church that practiced baptismal regeneration (as an instance) I would re-baptize them even if they did not agree with the doctrine of the church doing the baptism.
I think, from what I have read, I am in 98% agreement with you, but give, perhaps, a slightly higher significance to the doctrine and practice of the overseeing church (if such exists).
Vol, a little more clarification. I am saying that I think the Bible requires those things (not me). Baptism is clearly by immersion of believers. It must be done in the name of the Biblical God and be as a symbol of salvation, not as a saving act.
The other issues we often discuss are not stated in scripture as the ones I delineated above are. We should enforce the biblical standards and not go beyond them.
Vol: If for whatever reason, you were to leave the church you currently pastor, and seek to join another Baptist church, and they were to require you to be baptized again, would you submit?
David W.,
In your comment #94, you did not really answer my question in #90.
You say: “The baptism is valid, because the saved person getting baptised is a)saved; b)getting baptised by a church that believes right about baptism and salvation.”
But I made the point in #90 that a church as an institution can’t believe anything about baptism and salvation. It is only the people within the church who believe. A church can have a creed or confession of faith. So, are you saying, we must be baptized into a certain creed or confession of faith?
And yes, I make a distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism, one being a symbol of the other (though there are certain aspects in which the correspondence is not perfect). Nevertheless, Paul says in Ephesians 4 that there is one baptism. In any case, what we are discussing in this comment stream is water baptism, if I am not mistaken. That is the context in which I made my comment. And, I believe water baptism is always into Christ, at least in a symbolic manner. I do believe we are literally immersed into Christ through Spirit baptism. Water baptism has to do, however, with our identification with Christ, in His death, burial, and resurrection. That is what I mean by we are baptized into Christ.
As far as your questions on the Universal Church are concerned, I do not deny the importance of the local church. I agree we must assemble in local bodies. That, to me, however, is beside the point in the particular question we are discussing. My point is that it is next to impossible, without adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5, to demand local church supervision of baptism from what the NT says. I can agree with the phrase “baptism is a church ordinance,” but only up to a point. Jesus gave the Great Commission, including the command to baptize, to the 11, in Matthew 28:18-20. He also said, “I am with you to the end of the age.” He knew full well, at that time, that each of them, within the next 70 years or so, would die, and that there would be at least 19 centuries of church history afterward. So, I believe the Great Commission, including baptism, was given to the Church. Since there is nothing specifically said here about local church structures, guidelines, etc., I take this to mean the composite Body of Christ down through the ages. This is not an independent, competing body from all the local churches that have been organized ever since. Indeed, there is much crossover between the two. But, this is the way I can say I believe that baptism is a “church ordinance” without also affirming, at the same time, that some local church or another must always supervise baptism in order for it to be considered valid. Reading that last point into the Great Commission, is a classic example of eisogesis, from my perspective.
Can I jump in as comment 101?
A lot of the fuss over 2nd and 3rd issues deal with biblical commands being joined to human deduction. Ex..Closed Communion is not commanded in Scripture, but is a deduction to insure regenerate church membership. Also, Alien immersion should always be valid as long as it is (a) immersion, (b)symbolic. the rejection of alien immersion since JR Graves revolved around the fact that Ch of Christ might bring in their theory of regenerated water baptism. this can be handled within the church without a 2nd baptism.
Good blog. Thanks for this piece.
GA Baptist
Dave M.,
First of all, where do I go beyond Scripture? And, secondly, where do we disagree? You almost sound like me about baptism.
David R.,
So, you agree that the Local Church is where we assemble to worship, learn the Apostles teachings, observe the Lord’s Supper, fellowship, give our offerings, etc. BUT, it’s not where we get baptised????? I mean, just about everything in the NT revolves around us being a part of a community of Believers called the local Church. But, baptism is somehow, some sort of individual, personal thing????? Where the Church is not involved in it??? commanded to do it??? And, who were the eleven that Jesus gave the Great Commission to? Where they just individuals? Or, were they the first ones to set up the Church???? Where they supposed to be Lone Ranger Christians out there…doing thier own thing? Or, were they supposed to be leading and setting up the Church that Jesus founded????? I really am having a hard time following your logic on this.
David
007:
Why the multiple question marks??????? It comes off your being mighty rude and disrespectful to David Rogers? How dare he question your view of Baptism??????
For the future one question mark at the end of a question is the usual english practice.
Vol, I do not think we differ in very significant ways in this debate. Only one place. I do not see that the Bible indicates anywhere that WHO does the baptism is a significant issue, as long as he is an orthodox Christian and the baptism has biblical symbolism.
I think (for instance) that to re-baptize someone because their previous baptism was done by AoG or other Arminians is beyond what scripture would allow. I see that as having denominational, not biblical roots.
FYI, Robin Foster and I have had a pretty vigorous and courteous debate on these issues over at SBC Voices – one about church oversight of baptism and last week about Eternal security and how it relates to baptism.
If “who” was doing the baptism was important, don’t you think the apostles would have rebaptized everyone that Judas Iscariot baptized?
As for the commission given to the 11, how does this comport with the sending out of the 70 and what was their relationship to the 11 and the commission?
David W.,
I would think we have gone over this enough that you would know where I am coming from on this. But, here goes anyway…
Of course, we assemble to worship, learn the Apostles’ teachings, fellowship, give our offerings, etc. AND get baptized, all in the local church. I have never said we don’t, nor that it is unimportant that local churches do all these things. What I am saying is that official local church supervision is not absolutely necessary for any of these things, unless you consider any time 2 or 3 gather together in Jesus’ name to be the equivalent of official local church supervision.
Two or three believers can perfectly well gather together randomly and worship Jesus together, study the Bible together, have fellowship, and give offerings to support Christian work or help the poor, etc. It happens all of the time. And, just because it is not voted on in the minutes of a church meeting, or a line item in a church budget, or reported to a church elder, does not mean it is a bad thing, or something that should be forbidden. By the same token, I believe that, as disciples of Jesus, and members of His Body (universal), we are authorized to obey His command to baptize as well.
Jesus did not say, “Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of every nation, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you to do–provided you do it according to proper local church protocol.” He simply said, “make disciples, and, the way you do this is by baptizing them, and teaching them to obey my commands.”
One of His commands is to not neglect assembling together. And, another is to obey your leaders in the Lord. There are many more one another exhortations that imply an on-going, committed relationship with a definite set of people we see on a regular basis. So, by deduction, I would say, as part of the Great Commission, we should teach everyone to be active in a local church.
I am not, in any way, shape, or fashion, against the local church. Nor do I wish to minimize the importance of the local church. It is just I want to be careful to teach what Scripture teaches, and not go beyond that. And, Scripture says nothing whatsoever about the need for a local church to supervise baptism, nor of a certain type of administrator in order to make baptism valid.
Dave M.,
You say: “I do not see that the Bible indicates anywhere that WHO does the baptism is a significant issue, as long as he is an orthodox Christian…”
Just curious again. Since we can never be sure what is in the heart of anyone else, nor what they truly believe, would you say, more accurately, that who does the baptism is not a significant issue, as long as they make an outward confession of being an orthodox Christian?
Otherwise, I don’t see how someone could ever have total assurance of the validity of their baptism.
Yes, David. It is the symbolism of the baptism that I believe is significant. In other words, if a man is found to be false in some way, it does not invalidate all the baptisms he has done.
I do think it is important that “atmosphere” (that’s a bad term, but I am trying not to die of H1N1 right now, so word usage comes hard) is faithful to the biblical symbolism of baptism.
If the baptism is done in the name of the biblical God for the purpose of symbolizing but not procuring salvation, that is what I think is essential.
Here’s a question for you, trying to understand all this. Jimmy, a new convert, knows he needs to be baptized. Unfortunately, he goes to a UPC for baptism (non-trinitarian). His heart is right, but the baptizer is wrong. As he grows in Christ, he realizes the UPC is not biblical and starts coming to First Baptist, Anywhere.
If I understand it right, you would accept his baptism because his heart was right.
I would probably re-baptize him, because his baptism was done in the name of a false view of God, even though his heart is right.
In 100 years of baptism, this might happen once, so a lot of this is theoretical.
Actually, I think you and Vol and I would behave identically in about 99% of baptisms. We sometimes forget this as we discuss the 1%.
FYI, if someone offers you the Swine Flu, just say no.
Dave,
I agree about the 99%.
And, actually, I am not real dogmatic on the particular issue we are discussing between us in these last couple of comments. I am thinking through the implications of baptizing “in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit” and validity of baptism. To me, the natural reading of this, is “with the authority of the Triune God.” And, it would seem to me that, in order to baptize with the authority of the Triune God, one must be truly submitted to that authority (i.e. an authentic believer). The problem with this, though, is: does that leave the validity of someone’s baptism hinging on the authenticity of the faith of the person who baptized them?
I don’t know if anyone else sees the same inherent conflict I see here.
As far as I can surmise, the possible solutions to this are:
1. The ideal is indeed that the baptism be performed with the authority of the Triune God, by a truly converted individual. But this ideal does not necessarily affect the validity of the baptism of someone who, in good faith, submits themself to baptism at the hands of someone they understand to be representing the Triune God, even though they later prove to be an impostor.
2. “In the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit” is a formula that must be pronounced at the moment of baptism.
3. There is a particular organization that has a monopoly on authentic baptisms done “in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.” This is basically the Roman Catholic view. I see the “BI” view as closely akin to this, the particular organization not being a worldwide organization under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but rather a duly constituted local church.
I’m not sure if there are other alternative solutions. Out of these three, I obviously accept number one. But that does not totally solve the tension for me. I would be interested to hear other proposals.
I think my solution would not depend on the actual faith of the baptizer, but the symbolism invoked at the baptism.
In other words, Rev. Smith is a false believer (as Jesus said there would be), but he is a pastor in good standing at First Baptist. His false heart has not yet been revealed.
At the moment he performs baptisms, he does them by immersion. He does them in the name of the biblical God, though he is not truly converted. He baptizes with the proper symbolism.
I would not re-baptize someone baptized by him. At the moment of baptism, the mode, manner, and meaning were all correct, even if the pastor’s heart was not.
We should assemble a post of hypotheticals related to baptism and turn the discussion loose.
Another way of stating my #1 above is:
A. In the case of someone performing baptisms, in order to be obedient to Christ’s command, they must baptize in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit (i.e. with the authority of the Triune God).
B. In the case of the one being baptized, in order to be obedient to Christ’s command, they must be in submission, in their baptism, to the authority of the Triune God, to the degree they understand Him. Of course, not all new believers have a mature understanding of the intricacies of the Trinity. But, they must not be in rebellion to this truth. This normally would mean they would not submit to baptism at the hand of someone they knew to reject the Trinity.
C. In the case the one being baptized, in good faith, believes they are submitting to the authority of the Triune God, but unbeknownst to them, the baptizer is really not submitted to the authority of the Triune God, God does not hold the person being baptized accountable for knowing the heart and belief of the one baptizing them. Thus, they are not deemed to be disobedient to His command. However, the one baptizing (who is not truly in submission to the authority of the Triune God) is accountable for their disobedience in this regard.
Dave,
RE: “The symbolism invoked at the baptism.”
That is an interesting way to phrase it. Do you think, however, it would be possible for a known unbeliever to perform a baptism invoking the proper symbolism? In other words, is the symbolism invoked an entirely separate matter from the faith of the person invoking it?
I guess it would be possible for someone to say the words and invoke the proper symbolism without truly meaning it. Don’t know.
That’s why it is great to work in hypotheticals. Anything is possible.
My point, though (on which I think you agree) is that we should only make issues of that which is essential to a biblical baptism.
To Joe, I believe you are missing my point. I am not concerned with the “what if” statements, I am concerned with the number of folks in the SBC who believe the “what if” is already true. There have been several comments linking the decline of the Southern Baptist Convention to the influence of Calvinist, saying that evangelism is being hindered. That’s not someone saying “if Calvinists… then no evangelism”. That is someone saying it’s already happened. If your “if” was simply an “if”, then we could talk theoretical interpretations, but the fact that many have dropped your “if” and see the statement as already happened fact, it’s a division and for me, Mr. White, that is less than comical.
And Reverend Miller, yes, the picture is real and for a small fee can be used on your church website.
David,
I appreciate you well reasoned and insightful comments. They agree with my thinking on every issue you write about so in one sense there is probably no need for me to comment. I want to agree and comment on your 2 statements that one of the most important issues we are facing in the SBC have to do with parameters of cooperation, and it’s funny how many of the sharpest conflicts we have as Christians are with those who are closest to us.
I think the area of cooperation and the way we keep drawing lines in the sand as to who we will cooperate with has been the defining mark of the CR not theology or inerrancy. This has been in the DNA of the conservative resurgence since its beginning. The issues you have named as hills on which to die such as Calvinism, PPL, BI views on Baptism and others were not even being mentioned in the 1979 but we continue to add hills. We began with inerrancy and getting rid of liberals in the seminary. Then it was the BJCPA, the WMU and the BWA. In the mean time a campaign continued to clean out the seminary and the IMB of suspect professors and missionaries.
At the same time many of those attacking fellow Southern Baptists had no problem cooperating with the Moonies, the Reconstructionists, Jerry Fallwell, Oliver North, the CNP and others whose theological views, if they even had any theology, were way outside traditional Southern Baptist standards.
I apologize for plowing old ground but I believe it relates to what is happening right now in the SBC and the changes you have referred to that are coming. I look at what happened the last time we had a study and reorganized the convention structure. It precipitated many of the problems we have now at the NAMB and other areas in our convention. All change is not good. I fear that the GCR task force will pay little attention to the issues you have raised and little to the Great Commission. I think the task force is dominated by mega church pastors and SBC entity heads who would like to marginalize the state conventions and associations and anything else in Southern Baptist life that they cannot directly control in the same way they have the WMU, the BWA. That is why we hear language referring to any money left in the state conventions as money skimmed away from the SBC entities.
I don’t see us dividing into separate conventions as you mentioned. After all, the group that controls the SBC trustee boards will control the convention. I do see the possibility of us remaining one convention but divided into separate groups of churches or state conventions remaining SBC in name only and doing their own thing while ignoring the national SBC.
What I find interesting about the baptism “hill” that some have constructed… is why some pastors try to undo the biblical context of the baptisms of Simon, the Apostle Paul, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus, and others that are obviously conducted as a response to the Spirit’s moving on their lives,…and done immediately,…. yet the history of Acts seems to become vague or counter to how some paint the local church context of today. Philip, the Apostle Paul, and the Apostle Peter would most likely be accused of not being “Baptist” enough by some that claim to be “Baptist”. So, as long as baptism is seen as a means of local church performance where the performance is elevated beyond the meaning of being baptized into Christ, those disciples will continue to be confused of its actual substance.
Blessings,
Chris
Ron,
Thanks for your comment. If I understand you correctly (in the context of other comments I have read from you), the difference in our perspectives is I believe that inerrancy, and even complementarianism (due to its hermeneutical link to inerrancy), have truly been “hills on which to die” in the SBC. I think we are better as a convention because we were willing to take a courageous stand on these issues.
However, I think (and, from what I gather, you agree) that now we have “successfully” defended these hills, we are in danger of going “hill on which to die”-happy. “Hills on which to die,” by their very nature, should be few, and far between. As I understand Paul Pressler’s book by the title “A Hill on Which to Die,” that was the thesis behind it. Not everything we face is, when all is said and done, truly a “hill on which to die.” But, some things are. And, inerrancy (being the epistemological grounding of so much of what we believe) is one of them.
As I believe I have shared here (if not here, on some other blog somewhere), my dad confided with me several months before his going to be with the Lord that his biggest concern for the future of the SBC was the divisive influence of the extreme right-wing vanguard of the CR– the “young turks” he called them, and also, somewhat in jest, “the tire-slashers,” (meaning those who were willing to go to extreme measures in order to defend, whatever the cost, and whatever the consequences, the personalities and agendas tied to the CR).
Ergo, I do not believe the “BI” movement is the legitimate heir of the CR, but rather an attempt to co-opt and move it in a more extreme direction than originally intended.
David Rogers:
May I ask you a sincere question? With the CR in my opinion successful in the issues of ineranncy and complementarianism what is going to be a solution(s) to getting the many factions in the SBC working together. We seem extremly fragmented.
Tom,
Indeed, I believe that is the big question before us. And, quite honestly, if the “BI” crowd (for lack of a better term) is unwilling to back down on some of their demands, I am not very optimistic about “getting the many factions in the SBC working together.”
With the apparent conciliatory tone in general at the last convention (I was unable to be there), and the prospects of the GCR Task Force before us, there is some reason for hope. Indeed, I don’t believe that a majority within the convention support the “BI” agenda. Neither do I believe their support is growing.
However, to the degree the “BI” crowd continue to push their agenda through their propaganda channels, and influence trustees, I am afraid the factions will continue, and our efforts to contribute toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission will be affected adversely.
This post, is, to a large degree, an honest plea, on my part, for those who identify with the “BI” movement to stop and think about where their demands are ultimately leading us:
If you have those sincere convictions before the Lord, so be it. But, if you insist that everyone else in the SBC must share them, would it not perhaps be better to form your own more narrow associations comprised of those who share your convictions than to continue trying to strong-arm so many conservative, “mainstream,” Southern Baptists out of places of denominational service and influence?
David:
I believe that the degree to which the “BI group” is taking over the Boards of Trustees of the agencies is over-blown.
As you know there was a significant scuffle at the IMB BoT a few years ago regarding “PPL” and “Baptist vs. ‘alien baptism’”. While it is true that there were some flareups, it is my observation that now cooler heads have prevailed. Of all the things that we need to address in SBC life, I’d say that the supposed BI problem [if it is a problem] is not even in the top ten.
More important are dealing with such things as:
(a) Need for a better paradigm for supporting church plants in many areas of the USA. Our current methodology funds for a while a given church plant but does not make a the type of long-term committment that is needed for many inner city churches to be viable.
(b) Changing demographics which is causing our rural roots in county seat towns to be obsolete — in many of our “Bible Belt” states a third to a half of the rural counties have LOST POPULATION in the last 30 to 50 years.
(c) Huge increase of Latinos and Asians in many urban areas which we are only beginning to reach
(d) The arcane money trail from local church to state convention to Exec Committee to NAMB back to state conventions to fund church planting. There must be a better way.
When we get a handle of this stuff then I’ll be ready to talk about how the “BI guys” are stiffling us with their crusade regarding “regenerate church membership” and/or hone in on a tighter definition of ‘closed’ communion and/or tighten up on the definition of Baptism.
I think this whole “BI” debate does not deserve more than 5% of the total bandwidth but it seems to be getting over 50% in some circles.
Roger,
It is hard to argue with what you say. It is indeed possible that I have spent so much time reading blogs that I get an out-of-proportion perspective on the danger of the BI agenda, and the influence they wield in the convention.
In any case, I write mostly about the things on which I feel I have something in particular to contribute. And, one of my main areas of interest is the relationship of ecclesiology and Christian unity. And, for some reason, this seems to engender a lot of interest among a lot of other folks as well.
Hopefully, however, you are right, and these issues will prove to have been “a tempest in a teapot,” and we can concentrate our efforts on being more effective at reaching the lost and making disciples.
What really concerns and upsets me is to see the way that the BI guys are being labeled and talked about in this comment thread. I believe the words used are “extremists, narrow, hardliners, uncooperative, propaganda, push their views thru, hinder the Great Commission, strong arm tactics, extreme right wing,” etc. Wow, what a call for peace and unity! Yea, that makes everyone that would be labeled a BI guy warm up to anything having to do with people who would call names like this.
The BI guys that I know love the Lord, believe the Book, and are actual soul winners. The BI guys I know are actually concerned with sound doctrine. I dont see the BI guys out there leading off their worship services with AC/DC’s Highway to Hell, nor do I see them drinking Jack Daniels down at the local pub. I dont see BI guys turning thier worship services into creative, ballet dancing; nor are they cussing from the pulpit and talking about having hot sex with their wife and giving details. I dont see BI guys flowing with every wind of doctrine that flows down the holler, and they believe that baptism is a very important doctrine…as are other doctrines in the Bible….doctrines that we Baptists hold to….due to thier being so clearly taught in the Bible. I see so called BI guys actually doing missions, giving to missions, and praying for missions.
So, why so much negative labels and name calling towards the BI guys?
David
007:
Who are all these people doing the name calling? I see a lot of name calling in your post 124. Can you not see your inconsistency?
Tom,
Read the comments above. Surely you can see what I’m talking about.
David
BTW, David R., I dont see the open communion, close communion, closed communion being a hill to die on. And, if the SBC votes to change that statement in the BFM2K, I wont lose any sleep at night.
Baptism, on the other hand, is a totally different story. PPL is a non issue in my opinion, if…if…the people can truly keep it a PPL… personal and private. If they dont, then it should be dealt with. Also, whether one is a 5 point Calvinist, or just Calvinistic, is not a hill to die on…unless the 5 point Calvinist is making it an issue. So, there you have my answer to your main post.
David
007:
You said:”The BI guys that I know love the Lord, believe the Book, and are actual soul winners. The BI guys I know are actually concerned with sound doctrine. I dont see the BI guys out there leading off their worship services with AC/DC’s Highway to Hell, nor do I see them drinking Jack Daniels down at the local pub. I dont see BI guys turning thier worship services into creative, ballet dancing; nor are they cussing from the pulpit and talking about having hot sex with their wife and giving details. I dont see BI guys flowing with every wind of doctrine that flows down the holler, and they believe that baptism is a very important doctrine…as are other doctrines in the Bible….doctrines that we Baptists hold to….due to thier being so clearly taught in the Bible. I see so called BI guys actually doing missions, giving to missions, and praying for missions.
So, why so much negative labels and name calling towards the BI guys?
What do you mean when you say they Love the Lord. Who is it that does not?
What do you mean when you say the believe the Book? Who is it that does not believe the Bible?
What do you mean when you say they are actual soul winners? Who are these people who are not actual soul winners?
What do you mean when you say they are actually concerned with sound doctrine?
Who are these people using AC/DC in their worship services?
Who are these people drinking Jack Daniels at a local Pub?
Who is doing the ballet dancing?
Who is doing all of this cussing?
Who is talking about the hot sex?
Who said Baptism was not important?
Who is following every wind of doctrine?
Who is not actually doing missions?
Who is not giving to missions?
Who is not praying for missions?
I will not call you any names but surely you are not expecting to be taken seriously when you write such things as you have in post number 124. Lots of words but all to general.
Who’s down at the local pub watching people drink Jack Daniels?
Andrew,
Is it you?
David
Never touch the stuff. I’m more of a piña colada guy myself (virgin, of course)
David W.,
I guess a big part of the language I have used in this post, and following comments, roots in the question: Who fired the first shot?
As I say in my post, a lot of times our conflicts are sharpest with those who are closest to us. I don’t spend time arguing with the Church of Christ over musical instruments in public worship. Before the “BI” agenda started becoming more and more visible, first, by way of the IMB BoT guidelines, and next, by way of many blogs, white papers, and other assorted media, I would have said the same thing about the particular issues dealt with in this post. They were not headline issues, because they were not directly affecting either my personal ministry, nor the collective work of the SBC, to any large degree.
However, since about 2005, a lot of water has gone under the bridge.
You say you don’t see “open/close/closed communion” as a “hill to die on.” I am glad. I have read various others, however, who apparently do.
It sounds like, when all of the fireworks are done, we aren’t that far apart on PPL or Calvinism, either. But, from what I have read, there are others who see these as “hills on which to die.”
When you say baptism is a totally different issue, I am not sure if you just mean, plain old believers baptism by immersion. Because, if you do, I am right there with you. If we don’t believe in believers baptism by immersion, we are no longer Baptists. However, if you also mean we must not–never, ever–accept baptisms from folks like AoG, Nazarenes, Freewill Baptists, etc. as valid, and those who do accept them should not be allowed full cooperative status within the SBC, that is where we part ways. And, I believe that is where you would also part ways with a majority of present-day Southern Baptists.
The difference between our perspectives is, I am not proposing kicking “BI” people out of the convention, or excluding them from denominational service. However, I have read plenty of blogposts in the last several years that advocate just that for people who believe like I do.
Brother David R,
Sorry for coming late to the dance but dance I will.
You said; “The difference between our perspectives is, I am not proposing kicking “BI” people out of the convention, or excluding them from denominational service.” However, your very post and positioning anyone who disagrees with you as a BI crowd and also the “BI having an agenda” places us as ostracized from convention nominations. We only state our positions and if they differ they differ. You say you do not want to kick us out but you have effectively done so by placing us at variance with you. What shocks me the most is that we take the stands that your Dad posited and you are taking stands against the stands your Dad posited. However, you place us outside the SBC that your Dad told us was the beliefs of SB.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
1. I am not advocating disallowing people with “BI” views from positions of denominational service. If people want to vote against someone in a convention election, they are free to vote for or against whomever they choose. That is a non-issue. And, I don’t mind others saying they shouldn’t vote for people who believe like I do. What I do mind is saying that people who believe like I do should be automatically disqualified from holding positions of denominational service. Those are apples and oranges, as I see it.
2. Please point me specifically to where anything I have stated goes against “stands my Dad posited.” I don’t believe you will be able to do this.
3. Once again, I am not placing you, nor any of the “BI” folks, outside of the SBC. That is a complete misreading of what I am saying here.
David Rogers:
Tim Rogers said to you–”What shocks me the most is that we take the stands that your Dad posited and you are taking stands against the stands your Dad posited.”
David you said to Tim–”Please point me specifically to where anything I have stated goes against “stands my Dad posited.” I don’t believe you will be able to do this.”
David I think Tim Rogers words are uncalled for. I’m with you Tim Rogers needs to back it up or publicly apologize to you.
David, it just points out to me how quickly some will attack others and in this instance Tim is attacking you. He is trying to say you are opposing what you father stood for and I have yet to see anything you have blogged about that takes a position against your father.
We shall wait and see if Tim Rogers can back up his claim. I do not think he can.
David Worley (my misguided friend who cheers for all the wrong teams) or Tim Rogers,
I would wonder about your comment on labeling as far as BI goes. I know I never mentioned BI.
But, isn’t BI a term that is self-selected (ie. SBC Today’s logo)? So, calling a group BI isn’t really an insult to me. Its a description, like saying someone is Calvinist or Premillennial.
To me, BI describes a group of people who take a (to me) strict view of what a Baptist is, emphasizing ecclesiological authority, especially over baptism, and discouraging cooperative ministry with non-Baptists (ie. Dr. Yarnell’s statements). They emphasize our identity as Baptists more strongly than perhaps others do.
I disagree with most of what is described in the preceding paragraph, and might use BI to describe it in shorthand. Actually, I’ve tried to stop using the term because it seems to incite people.
Here are my questions:
1) Is my description of the beliefs of the “BI” group accurate?
2) Is it unfair labeling to use that term?
The funny thing about the whole BI thing is how it separates us. Those who are familiar at all with my blogging would probably identify me as “anti-BI.” Yet, when you look at theology and style, I probably have more in common with the BI group than most of the other groups that are out there.
Blogging always magnifies our differences. In that small area (ecclesiology & some baptismal issues) where we disagree, we focus all our attention.
Dave,
As far as I can remember, the term “Baptist Identity” first began to be used in the present blog discussions, when someone on the IMB BoT said the reason for the new policies was to maintain a “clear Baptist Identity.” I’ll have to look up the exact quote when I have more time.
The guys over at SBC Today picked up on it, and self-identify as “Restoring Unity through Biblical Discipleship and Baptist Identity.”
Before this, Malcolm Yarnell had begun to use the phrase “Baptist Renaissance.”
My memory is similar to that. It is also my recollection that Dr. Yarnell used the term some as well.
My point above is two-fold. First, to ask if I am understanding it correctly and then to assert that the use of the term is descriptive and not an insult, unless it is done in an insulting way.
Here is the quote I was referring to:
Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc Committee, May 2007, regarding the new guideline on glossolalia:
“The Ad Hoc Committee has concluded that even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates.”
Brother David,
Certainly you can look in a sermon your dad preached and here him say, “Moderation is not the cure for the alcohol culture moderation is the cause of the alcohol culture”. Also, it is in his book that he gives definition of a moderate as one that believes the bible is the inerrant word of God but allows those that do not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures to assume leadership roles.
I believe those two will do well for starters.
Brother Tom Parker,
I believe it is now you who owes me an apology.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Rogers:
I have not a clue what you are trying to say in Post 141. That you even said to David Rogers “What shocks me the most is that we take the stands that your Dad posited and you are taking stands against the stands your Dad posited.”, is beyond my comprehension. You are not helping the cause of the SBC in using this type of approach.
Tim,
1. Where have I ever argued for moderation in the use of alcohol, or allowing those who don’t believe in inerrancy to assume leadership roles?
2. What do either of these questions have to do with this post?
David:
It will be very interesting to hear the response from Tim Rogers. Where does he get this stuff from? I am very afraid it is this approach that is framgmenting the SBC to a point of no return.
David,
You wrote, “ If I understand you correctly (in the context of other comments I have read from you), the difference in our perspectives is I believe that inerrancy, and even complementarianism (due to its hermeneutical link to inerrancy), have truly been “hills on which to die” in the SBC. I think we are better as a convention because we were willing to take a courageous stand on these issues.”
I must not have communicated accurately our differences. I am willing to die on the hill of inerrancy or the authority of scripture. I wonder why you would think otherwise. However, it really does not matter to me so much if the word inerrancy is used as long as what they believe about the Bible is in agreement with inerrancy. I am also concerned that their beliefs are reflected in their lifestyles. This is where the CR leaders have failed over and over and why I cannot support the CR. (See Wade Burleson’s latest post on CR leaders Sam Currin and Coy Privette.)
However, inerrancy is not a hill on which I have needed to die since I have never been in a situation in SBC life where I was threatened because of my belief in inerrancy. As an Arkansas Baptist, a Southwestern Seminary student and an IMB missionary my belief in inerrancy was strengthened in each situation. Unfortunately that did not keep the CR leaders from mounting all out attacks on each entity. In Arkansas Joe Atchison, Ronnie Floyd and Arkansas’ Dave Miller were the front men in the attacks. At Southwestern, Owen Collins, Miles Seaborn and other trustees were the front men. At the IMB Ron Wilson, Bill Hancock and other trustees were the front men. In each case CR leaders were unwilling to defend these organizations or speak the truth because they were too cowardly and were afraid to oppose the CR political machine in their drive to control every facet of SBC life.
I do think we would be a better convention of we had taken courageous stands on the issues you mentioned but I have not seen much courage on the part of CR leaders. It is easy as a Southern Baptist to take stands against liberalism, abortion and homosexuality. It takes real courage to stand for truth when you know it may cause you to be ostracized from the leadership of the convention and be dishonestly called a liberal or moderate.
I guess I am not willing to die on the hill of complementarianism if that means that a woman should not serve as senior pastor. I have always assumed that was true but must admit it is not an issue I have enough confidence in to die for. I have been a Southern Baptist for over 50 years and visited SBC churches in many states but I have never even seen a SBC church with a woman pastor. I know there are some but I don’t even know where they are. Does this sound like it is an issue we need to be fighting over. If you listen to the CR leaders, you would think we were being swarmed by women pastors and churches calling women as pastors. Maybe you and our Dave Miller and Volfan can help me understand it by answering the following questions. I am being sincere. I have difficulty understanding this issue.
If complementarianism means a woman cannot serve as senior pastor does that also mean she cannot preach from the pulpit in a worship service? Does it also mean as Paige Patterson seems to believe that a woman cannot teach Hebrew or History at a seminary since theology is involved in teaching those courses? Does that mean a woman should not be allowed to teach music since there is theology in our hymns? Does that mean woman should not be allowed to sing special music from the pulpit since the hymns contain theology? If a woman is not allowed to teach theology to men, why was Dorothy Patterson on the BFM 2000 committee that prepared the theological document stating our conventions theological beliefs? Was she not teaching theology to the men of our convention by helping prepare this document? Can two persons both be inerrrantists and have different views on complimentarianism? I believe they can. That would not be true on issues such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the resurrection and many other issues.
As you know, one of the greatest movements of people into the Kingdom of God has taken place in China in the last 35 years. Many of the leaders of the house churches are women. Mayby a majority. Why would God bless such a movement if this was clearly in violation of the teaching of the Bible on complementarianism?
When Dan Vestal was a pastor, he supported complimentarianism. He later switched his position as a member of CBF. When Frank Page was a seminary student he opposed complimentarianism. He later switched his view. It seems this is an issue that people have trouble making up their mind about.
Dave M.,
No one was talking about you calling guys the BI guys. What I was referring to can be found in my comment #124. I’m talking about the negative names and phrases used by David Rogers in his comments about the BI guys. So, I really dont know where in the world you’re coming from with your statement about you calling fellas the BI guys as being negative and mean, etc. I was more referring to David Rogers statements, in his comments.
David
Ron,
I am trying to figure out how best to answer you. I don’t want to dodge your questions. But this comment takes this post in a different direction than I intended, and answering it thoroughly would involve some pretty detailed and complicated thought.
I think I will just leave it at, apparently we are both in agreement that inerrancy is indeed a “hill on which to die.” I am glad this is the case. As I mentioned in my post, I have kind of been out of the loop regarding a lot of the administrative and personnel issues (such as those you mention in your comments). I have heard enough to suppose that there have indeed been episodes in the application of the CR in which people were not treated with the kindness and respect with which they should have been treated. I am sad this is the case. But, for me, it does not invalidate the need for a SBC in which a strong belief in biblical authority (i.e. inerrancy) is an underlying principle and guideline for all that we do.
As far as complementarianism is concerned, I will admit you ask some good questions, questions that groups like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have spilled pages and pages of ink answering. As I see it, a plain reading of Scripture leads to the conclusion that elders of a local church should be men. I have read some explanations of professed inerrantists defending the view that such is not necessarily the case. From everything I can gather, up to now, these explanations involve quite a bit of hermeneutical “dipsy-doodling,” or willingness to accommodate the plain reading of the text to present-day cultural realities.
I do want to make room in my Christian fellowship for sincere believers, who submit to the authority of God’s Word, but, for some reason or another, read the text differently than I do on this issue. However, asking those who contribute their finances, time, and effort through the CP and SBC entities to support female elders would place the vast majority of these churches and believers on the throes of a moral dilemma, as they would, ipso facto, be supporting with their own gifts, time, and energy, something they believe the Word of God clearly disallows. Because of this, I believe it is a good thing that the SBC draws the line on this point as far as cooperation in ministry projects is concerned.
Brother David,
It seems that in your post on 12/4/2006 you said;
However, I do not see quite as clearly that the Bible necessarily commands total abstinence. Injunctions against drunkenness? Yes, indeed. Warnings against the dangers associated with the abuse of alcohol? Without a doubt. But, across the board, no exceptions, total abstinence? A little harder to make the case biblically.
While you personally affirm that abstinence is your position you certainly advocate moderation in the use of alcohol by your position of Biblical teaching.
As to your allowing people that will not affirm inerrancy in leadership, in article dated 8/28/2006 you said;
And one more thing. Let’s try to be extra careful to not eliminate from “fellowship” any of those whom Jesus Himself invites to the table.
This is the last statement you made concerning an intent of trying to work together with “all” Great Commission Christians. While you do not push for someone that does not believe in inerrancy, unless you believe someone that does not is not a Christian, you certainly open the barn door wide for placing in leadership those that do not affirm inerrancy.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers:
Surely you spent all day to find the quotes you post in post #148. For me your post proves nothing other than once again your trying to make an issue where there is not an issue. You are very good at this.
Quoting Chip Berlet on Republican Gomorrah
Dismiss the Christian Right at Your Own Risk
What Blumenthal has captured in chilling reportage is the reality that the Republican Party has been “shattered” by a sociopolitical movement that has raised political partisanship to the level of a cosmological struggle. Emilio Gentile, a political scientist in Italy, refers to this as the “sacralization of politics.” Not participation in political struggles by the religious, but the elevation of politics to the level of the sacred. For most in the Christian Right, if you are not working with God, then you are a witting or unwitting purveyor of ungodly sin. For the most apocalyptically-aroused participants in the Christian Right’s new political crusades, this involves the struggle against Satan in the End Times.
If you think that references to the Crusades are far fetched, consider that at the Christian Right’s 2009 Values Voter Summit in Washington DC, the exhibit hall had a table from the ultra-right Catholic group Tradition, Family, Property (TFP) for whom the Crusades and Inquisition were high points of Christian devotion. One earnest young man wore the ceremonial blood-red sash favored by TFP, recalling the red flags that accompanied Torquemada into a Spanish town and which preceded the condemned heading toward the flames at the stake. Not my brand of Christianity, thanks.
The Christian Right and its allies peddle a form of apocalyptic aggression that can be embraced by those anticipating Armageddon, those fighting corrosive sinful society, and secularists with a highly dualistic worldview. As sociologist Brenda E. Brasher has observed, in political struggles, dualistic apocalypticism “leaves no room for ambiguity in the stories told about the ‘Other.’ There is a real hardening of sides. We are good, they are evil. This is not a disagreement, but a struggle with evil incarnate, so there is no structure for a peaceful reconciliation.” The stories surfacing in the angry teabagger, townhaller, and birther movements reflect this aggressive apocalyptic dualism in both religious and secular forms.
Republican Gomorrah ends with a warning about the resilience of the Christian Right: when the country experienced the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression… the entrepreneurs of personal crisis celebrated ideal market conditions for their next great crusade.”
Blumenthal’s book is a stirring trumpet call for those who have already written off the Christian Right as a powerful force on the political scene in the United States. The death of the Christian Right has been greatly exaggerated. By the end of Republican Gomorrah, it is clear the leadership of the Christian Right is composed of many highly motivated and skillful people. Disagree with them as you wish, denounce them if you must, but dismiss them at your own risk.
End quote:
David:
Until SBC explores its leadership’s leanings through Richard Land to James Dobson on the mindset that troubles Chip Berlet above, it will settle into a status quo subculture that learned almost nothing from the 60′s when it was understood rightly to be a captive to Southern White Culture.
Berlet and Max Blumenthal have explored the grip Francis Schaeffer have on James Dobson, and Hankins at Baylor have explored his grip on Land and Mohler.
Until you cure this cancer on the SBC then you will continue to be of 2nd rate service in the Kingdom of God.
Tim Rogers:
BTW you had to go back almost three years to find these quotes. You must have more time than most of us. It is a pity than you have even gone down this road as you have with David Rogers. He deserves better treatment than this but you seem to enjoy going after people. What do you want from David Rogers? What is your purpose? He is no longer a missionary.
The Bible does not say Thou shalt not drink but you and others believe that it does and have made a real big issue out of it. It will and has led to divisiveness. Is that what you want?
The issue of inerrancy has been with us a long while now and some like yourself will never be satisfied of somes view of inerrancy for fear they might get placed in leadership. It sure seems to me to be a convenient way to keep some out of leadership.
I do not think the CR had in mind your attacking Adrian Roger’s son like you have. It just shows how far some will go.
It is pretty clear to me why many in Baptist circles many say or write very little for fear that people like yourself will go after them.
Tim,
This is disingenuous and dishonest.
You say, “While you personally affirm that abstinence is your position you certainly advocate moderation in the use of alcohol by your position of Biblical teaching.”
This is an unwarranted conclusion. I remember this conversation (or one of the many like it on this list) and you are making a bald faced accusation based on no evidence.
The fact is, the Bible does not teach abstinence for all men in all places at all times. That prohibitionists have construed it to say so, does not make it true. Additionally, just because he has an honest hermeneutic that says, “The Bible does not say that,” does not in any way imply that he exercises his freedom to imbibe. For that matter, a love-limited liberty may be constraining him to act on his conscience not to imbibe.
I have known many men over the years who have an honest Bible hermeneutic and who will state that it is an exaggeration to say the Bible commands abstinence, yet who have consistently practiced and advocated on behalf of abstinence. I’m sure if you had attended a church that used wine in the Lord’s supper as I did growing up, you would understand how this is not only possible, but not uncommon.
Tim,
Goodness gracious. You sure had to stretch there.
So, are you saying that someone who believes that Scripture itself does not demand total abstinence is, de facto, advocating moderation? I certainly practice, and recommend (e.g. advocate) total abstinence. But, what is your point here? That only those who believe Scripture itself demands total abstinence should have a voice in the SBC? You really would be advocating a “leaner, meaner” SBC, if such were the case.
And, in the quote on “fellowship,” you fail to make the all-important distinction (which, by the way, is one of the main points I am making here on this post) between fellowship and cooperation. We are commanded to share fellowship with all true believers. But we cooperate in ministry projects on a more limited basis, according to the circumstances. I have never stated, and never will, that I believe that those who deny inerrancy should be included in SBC leadership roles.
David,
I will be glad to leave the subject of complementarianism to a late time. I had seen it mentioned several times above so I thought it was already tied to the discussion. One other question to think about before that discussion. Fanny Crosby at one time had many hymns in the Baptist hymnal. They were written by her and included much theology. Do you think Paige Patteson allows her hymns to be sung at SWBTS since that would be placing those hearing the tunes in a postion of listening to a women teach theology through music?
Yes we can agree that inerrancy is a hill on which to die. I also agree that the need for a SBC in which a strong belief in biblical authority (i.e. inerrancy) is an underlying principle and guideline for all that we do. Unfortunately in my dealings with the conservative resurgence little that was accomplished had anything to do with Biblical authority. Most had to do with man made carnal authority. I refer you again to Wade Burlson’s lates blog on Sam Currin, Coy Privette and Chuch McAlister. That is the CR I that has dominated our convention for 30 years.
Tom Parker and Rick Plesley,
Your observation of Tim Rogers comments are Right On. I have observed the same for four years coming from Tim Rogers. I often wonder what kind of Church Tim Pastors. He is so Jealous of anyone who is a Witness for Jesus Christ on these Blogs.
Wayne Smith
Wayne:
My major problem with Tim Rogers is he appears to attack people’s credibility as a Christian in a most unchristian manner. He believes his position is the right one and any others are wrong and there is to be no discussion. I also wonders how he Pastors his church. I wonder if his people feel free to bring up legitimate questions and concerns without unnecesary fears. I do not get that impression from his blogging.
Guys,
I appreciate the support. But I’m going to call a moratorium on piling on Tim. What he has written, and what I have responded, is here for anyone to see, and form their own opinion.
No offense, but any further comment taking Tim to task for this will be deleted (once I am able to get to it, that is. I will be traveling today and tomorrow).
David Rogers:
I thank you for your spirit of fairness and I shall cease and desist.
David Rogers,
Your display of graciousness throughout this discussion is a tribute to the Rogers family legacy in the SBC…
I suppose your post (Hills on Which to Die?) was destine to stir the dander of the BI guys who view every second and third tier issue as an “Ant-Hill” on which to die. As I see it the issue before the convention, and the one we must resolve in Orlando, is NOT the moderate use of alcohol, complementarianism, prayer languages, or any other of a host of issues the BI guys like to argue over. No, the great issue before us is “Cooperation”.
Will we seek in Orlando to undo the “Narrowing of the Parameters of Cooperation” that has in the past few years caused so much damage to the convention, especially among the younger generation… or, will we become a de-facto BI/Landmark Convention where there are no second and third tier issues which are left to the liberty and conscious of the individual, and where any real autonomy of the local church is crushed under the heel of conformity?
Grace Always,
Brothers,
Tim Rogers is right that abstinence is a biblical calling, even with wine.
Numbers 6:1-8 Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the LORD, (3) he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes. (4) ‘All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin. (5) ‘All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long. (6) ‘All the days of his separation to the LORD he shall not go near to a dead person. (7) ‘He shall not make himself unclean for his father or for his mother, for his brother or for his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head. (8) ‘All the days of his separation he is holy to the LORD.
Tim Rogers is wrong in his application of abstinence as the standard of holiness. Christ is the standard of holiness alone.
Ephesians 5:15-21 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, (16) making the most of your time, because the days are evil. (17) So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (18) And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; (20) always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; (21) and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
God is not looking or leading us back to the Nazirite vow for holiness. He has demonstrated the holiness in and through Christ. The Apostles application and substance of abstinence is self-control, which leads us back to Christ, not back to the Nazirite vow. If some men choose to abstain that is good and wise. If some men choose not to abstain and remain filled with the Spirit that is good and wise. Holiness is not diminished in either circumstance, because it depends upon the Spirit (Christ), not the man. It is best to remain biblical with respect to holiness and abstinence.
I agree with Tim that abstaining has its advantages in our day and age,..so therefore I actually abstain. Yet biblically that does not make me any more holy than a brother that does not.
Blessings,
Chris
Greg Alford,
Oh brother. I think I’m about to bust out laughing at the silliness of your comment. I would laugh if it were not so sad.
David
007:
You said to Greg Alford:”Greg Alford,
Oh brother. I think I’m about to bust out laughing at the silliness of your comment. I would laugh if it were not so sad.
David”
007 I really am glad you have such a good since of humor. You had the same sense of humor when it was felt that it led to another blogger on another site to say he was leaving that site after one of your famous comments. You said your were LOL! BTW you laugh at something as serious as that but you can not see how humorous your comments are on this current blog. I know who is silly and it is not Greg? But the Doctor would say a good sense of humor is good for the soul.
It seems in the current state of affairs in the SBC your good sense of humor is really going to be needed in the days ahead.
Tom,
God bless you.
David
007:
So, when you do not want to engage someone in conversation you use your old standy:
Tom,
God bless you.
David
I truly wonder how much sincerity there is in those 5 words. Only you know.
David/Volfan007,
I don’t think it very nice you calling my compliment to David Rogers for his gracious spirit; “Silliness”. No Sir, that was not very nice of you at all… David Rogers is indeed a gracious brother, and I’m sure everyone else on this blog would agree with me that he is! (wink, smile, laugh)
Seriously Dude… If you would like to address the specifics of something I have said please feel free to do so… Otherwise, I think most everyone sees through your comments for what they are.
Grace Always,
I think the one thing that we bloggers have never learned is when to just walk away. This has been a pretty good discussion line. However, somehow it starts to go downhill and it just keeps going.
Anyone else see the irony of this? David wrote about “Hills on Which to Die.” The focus was standing on things that matter and letting stuff go that doesn’t matter. He has handled himself with his usual grace.
I have no authority here, but I would make a request. Let’s either comment on the issue here or lets walk away from the discussion. Just walk away, guys.
Maybe we could start talking about the YANKEES instead.
Dave Miller:
I agree with you and I will walk away after this comment, but at what point does one not stand against another Christian brother or sister when he or she is tearing others down in their blogging comments, particularly about another Christian brother or sister.
For me it is a Hill on which to die when I see someone putting another Christian brother or sister down. It is difficult for me to do nothing. I am all for being nice but at some point someone has to say to someone else enough is enough and call them out.
You may disagree with what I am trying to say but really that is ok.
Let him that hath ears to hear, let him hear:
Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Rick,
That’s why I quit commenting here.
David
But why aren’t we talking about the Yankees?
My momma always said, “If you can’t say anything nice….”
I am breaking off all fellowship with you, Rick.
Not a problem, Dave, as long as we can still cooperate in ministry endeavors.
I will accept people who disagree about Calvinism, about eschatology, about ecclesiology, whatever. But I will not compromise about the Yankees.
Hey, we’re up to number 3 on the all-time most commented posts at SBC Impact now. If we keep it up, we could pass number 1 & 2 as well!
Go, go, go, commenters! Let’s bring down Dave Miller’s “Are Divorced Men Fit for Church Leadership?” post!
I refuse to contribute a trivial post simply to lengthen this thread for no good reason other than to proliferate comments. Hence, something of substance:
“The difference between good judgment and bad judgment is experience.
The trouble is, most of that experience comes from bad judgment.”
– Anonymous
I’ll just start making meaningless comments at my old post – like I have here!
About the Yankees, the true underbelly of where Baseball is today
How money trumps Billy Beane Baseball
http://www.tnr.com/article/against-moneyball?page=0,1
Even so watching Marianna close is a wonder to see.
David Halberstam has great tale in The Teammates about the 46 World Series that includes the man who almost married Aunt Virginia, Leon Culberson, who goes in for Dom Domaggio and Enos Country Slaugther steals home.
Perhaps this is because the complementarian/egalitarian argument is only part of the story? I find that I lean complementarian but have some sharp disagreements with the attitudes I often find accompanying (or at last being tolerated by) complementarians. I may believe in male headship, but I don’t believe in male superiority (y’know, there is a biblical pattern where God choses as leaders not those who are most capable in the flesh, but those who are least capable in the flesh, because it makes them dependent on God, not on themselves. There’s always the possibility that male headship is part of that pattern). Too often we tolerate men taking male headship as though it is a sop to the male ego.
But what bothers me about both the complementarians and the egalitarians is that both seem to think that if you just get the structure of authority right, everything else will fall into line. I’m not sure that’s scriptural. Again and again we see Jesus responding to structural authority issues (especially of the ‘Make me the leader!’ variety) with teaching on the attitude with which authority is to be exercised. The disciples (and as far as I can tell, we’re not any different) easily got caught up in who’s going to be in charge, who’s going to be in which position, and look at the authority you’ve given us! (any more, I tend to read “The demons are subject to us in Your Name” as having something of the flavor of “We Da Man!”). Jesus’ response to this is “This is the way you, as my people, are supposed to handle positions of authority – don’t be like the Gentiles, the greatest shall be the servant of all, don’t get caught up in the authority you have, get caught up more in having your names written in heaven, etc.
I take this as an indication that Jesus is more concerned about us learning to exercise authority in a Godly, servant manner than in setting out authority structures. It’s not that the correct structures are irrelevant, it’s that getting them right doesn’t matter much if the attitude with which we exercise authority is wrong. It seems to me that the questions “Are we being like the Gentiles in giving lip service to servant leadership, but actually lording it over those under us” and “are we following Jesus example (as scripture commands us) by not regarding our own positions of authority as something to be grasped (see Phil 2:5,)” are higher priority questions than “does scripture teach complementarianism or egalitarianism”. Too often, though, I get the impression that we get that priority flip-flopped.
Brother Ben,
I don’t disagree with you that many men are unqualified to lead the flock of God since they are “not” above reproach in the area of Lording it over.
But, the Daniel Vestal change of understanding that you mention has all to do with the authority of scripture, more than it has to do with the authority of man. Daniel, my former pastor and still a friend of mine, told me personally that he changed his view based upon his interpretive “hermenuetic change”,… as he was convinced by another of his friends in Waco on this subject of women overseeing the church. The concerns by some over his change is not his lack of freedom to change, or his inclination to change. The change he made was a clear substantive change in the role that God has commanded of man based upon biblical authority. Regardless of Daniel’s or my changing viewpoints and passions to include folks in ministry, the authority of scripture stands unchanged.
The maneuvers one has to make in order to have the Holy scriptures command a woman to oversee the church is untenable. The attempts to help God along will not stop men and women from the pursuit, yet the authority of scripture establishing the order in the church will not change. As believers obey the Word of God, it becomes clear that men are allowed and commanded the responsibility to oversee the church. In doing so, if a man is found “Lording over” this command and privilege to serve as ordained by the creator God, he then is unqualified to lead and the church should obey the Lord and not have him lead. The overseeing of the church is not a great mystery based upon the authority of scripture.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Does the scripture speak authoritatively on this aspect of church order?
1 Corinthians 12:13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
Colossians 4:1
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
1 Timothy 6:1
Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.
Titus 2:9-10
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
I suppose I would not be out of line if I said, the change the abolitionists have made was a clear substantive change in the role that God has commanded of masters based upon biblical authority. Regardless of abolitionist passions to free slaves, the authority of scripture stands unchanged.
The maneuvers one has to make in order to have the Holy scriptures command a slave to be free in the church are untenable. The attempts to help God along will not stop masters and slaves from the pursuit, yet the authority of scripture establishing the order in the church will not change. As believers obey the Word of God, it becomes clear that masters are allowed and commanded the responsibility to oversee slaves. The overseeing of the masters is not a great mystery based upon the authority of scripture.
Or do you not believe that the Bible speaks authoritatively on the subject of slavery? Surely, you are not going to undermine the authority of the Bible with a hermeutical sleight-of-hand, are you? I would be curious to see if you can provide an explanation for what is wrong with my paraphrase above as it applies to all three of the contrasting pairs in this verse or just two of them:
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
If there is no Jew or Greek and no slave or free in Christ, why is there still male and female?
Brother Rick,
Thank you for pointing us to this distinction, because it is an extremely misunderstood concept in the church today. I’ll try to answer your questions this way……
First of all, slavery is not a God created order. Slavery is a man induced activity based upon evil in the heart of man to control his political and financial standing.
The creation of Adam and Eve, …and the order that was cast in creation is not comparable to slavery since God has created the helper (woman) (Genesis 2:18-25) in the state of perfection and without sin, thus Paul could be accurate when he wrote from God….
1 Corinthians 11:2-3 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (3) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:8-9 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; (9) for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
The Apostle Paul is very clear that man and woman were created perfectly, without sin in a God created order and it was good. This is quite the opposite with slavery. Slavery is not good, and is actually not an order. It is oppression and evil that is delivered from the heart of man that is against God. Yet, even slavery does not effect the preaching of the gospel.
As Paul delivered his exhortation concerning “being a slave” it was from the perspective of his common teaching that we be content with where God has placed us, in order that “in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior”.
Your comparison of slavery and God’s created order can only be seen from the perspective that one is of a perfect created order (man and woman), and the other is predicated and induced from the evil heart of man. So the truth is,….those in Christ are free whether they are enslaved by man or not enslaved by man, and the God created order of man and woman continue to exist for the purposes of edification in the church, which is a tremendous blessing for the man and the woman that are all “made to drink of one Spirit”.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris:
What I was responding to wasn’t just Daniel Vester’s change, but the comment that we’ve seen changes of mind in both directions. This tends to tell me that there’s other things besides those two positions that are affecting evaluations of these issues. I think a large part of it is that while we willingly give lip service to the idea of servant leadership, we more often operate on the principles of worldly, fleshly authority. This leads to attitudes being tolerated (and at times commended) on (at least) the complementarian side that aren’t in line with scripture. People seeing those attitudes will have a hard time not attributing those attitudes to the complementarian position, and will look for other ways. The answer to this isn’t to just affirm a complementarian positon, the answer is to deal with the real problem, that we haven’t yet gotten the basics of servant leadership down.
I note that in my previous comment, I managed to, via a typo, leave the ’6′ out of the reference to Phil 2:5,6. This is rather ironic, as I see this verse as one relevant to the issue of servant authority that is largely ignored. We’re told that Jesus didn’t regard equality with God as something to be grasped. We’re also told (v 5) that we’re suppose to have the same attitude. I can’t see how this would not affect the attitude with which we exercise authority. The implication is that we’re to regard our own positions of leadership and authority as not something to be grasped. This will not be something easy teach, as you have to deal with issues such as distinguishing between not grasping the authority you’ve been given vs merely abdicating the authority you’ve been given. You’ve also got the problem that effectively teaching this will likely raise some people’s hackles (“‘hain’t no man going to tell me how to run my family!”). I”m just not sure I’m see any attempt to teach it at all.
Thanks Ben for the clarification.. I agree with what you have said my brother.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
My question was not on the origins of sexual dimorphism vs. slavery. My question was on the authority of scripture. I appreciate the distinction you’ve made between the two, but to say slavery is not “god ordained” is to fly in the face of
Exodus 21
“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death
I’m no Bible scholar, but it would appear from the proximity of the verses that slavery is as God-ordained as the death penalty.
In any case, the origin of slavery is immaterial to the issue of Biblical Authority. Does the New Testament speak authoritatively on the treatment of slaves and their expected behaviors? If it does not, then why doe it speak authoritatively on the roles for men and women? If it does, then why do we get to pick and choose which authoritative rules to apply?
In essence you are saying that the qualitative difference between the human-created institution of slaver negates the authority of Paul’s instructions while the God-created institution of the divine order of the sexes affirms the authority of Paul, right?
Brother Rick,
You are right; in the war of words “ordained” is not a good term to use. Certainly God uses slavery to bring about His purposes after the fall of man. In fact, he uses a lot of stuff. Probably a good topic for another post.
What I am saying about the creation of man and woman, is that God did create an order and for good reason (demonstrating the authority of scripture)….did he not? Even with the order established by God in creation, all of scripture from Genesis on has never changed the created order has it? God’s fulfillment of the Law did not change the created order did it? The truth is …faith has never changed since the fall (it was simply delivered), whether male or female before God …a man or woman stand alone as justified or not before Him. The Apostle Paul’s writings did not somehow morph the created order into something new….it only exposed what it was all along. This was the same intent in Paul’s message to the Romans concerning why God allowed the Jews to be the custodian of the Law (“entrusted with the Oracles”..Romans 3).
Jesus death on the cross did not morph the order of man and woman, it helped us sinners recognize the beauty of what He has created and established for His church in the beginning.
Not sure about your final paragraph… because slavery does not negate Paul’s instruction,…slavery only demonstrates the contrast when compared to the light.
It sounds to me that you may be implying that the New Testament record reveals the relationship of the created order (man and woman) has changed from its established order (pre-fall) to something different now.
BTW…you seem biblically scholarly to me
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I think we are talking past each other. You said, “The attempts to help God along will not stop men and women from the pursuit, yet the authority of scripture establishing the order in the church will not change.”
In Titus 2 where we find:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
We also find:
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
Does this scripture ordain order in the church?
Do both roles (women and slaves) apply today? Why or why not?
Why does abolition of slavery not overthrow the divine order ordained for the churches?
If the divine order for slaves in church is anachronistic and an artifact of society, how do we know the divine order for the sexes in church outlined in the same scripture is not anachronistic?
I’m not looking for a complementarian/egalitarian case. I’m looking for a hermeneutic that treats contiguous scriptures consistently. We don’t preach on the divine order for slaves and masters in our churches (or at least we haven’t since the 1860′s) yet we still preach on the divine order for the sexes in our churches (with the same 1860′s style application). I’m wondering why one applies and the other doesn’t.
Brother Rick,
I think we are possibly speaking past each other…or I am not smart enough to understand the questions…. Probably both…..
I take a crack at the questions…..
Does this scripture ordain order in the church?
Absolutely, scripture does ordain order in the church
Do both roles (women and slaves) apply today? Why or why not?
Sure, if you happen to be slave, then scripture teaches us how to behave. If we happen to be a husband or a wife, then scripture teach us the benefits of the order established in creation.
Why does abolition of slavery not overthrow the divine order ordained for the churches?
Abolition of slavery in America came as a benefit to many who were oppressed. All the while others remained as slaves, because it was a benefit to them. Christ’s fulfillment of the law does not command slavery, yet marriage (the order established in the union) and the creation of this perfecting relationship of man and woman has not been abolished in His fulfillment.
If the divine order for slaves in church is anachronistic and an artifact of society, how do we know the divine order for the sexes in church outlined in the same scripture is not anachronistic?
I have yet to find a good reason to find the divine order as being out of date in the church. The culture certainly pushes for equality on everything, yet God created an order with a purpose in the beginning that has yet to be abolished, so that the church will be edified.
Blessings,
Chris
Randall Balmer’s Review of Baptist raised Harvey Cox’s new book on the emergence of Spirit as a driving force over Belief goes to the heart of this discussion.
It is in the Fall books issue of the Christian Century.
I would hope David Rogers in particular will search it out cause it goes to the heart of where I think you fellows are missing the boat.
In a more concrete area, hope some of this discussion will part on Wade Burleson’s Recent blog on Sam Currin, a driving force in the SBC separation from the Baptist Joint Committee, which made the career of Richard Land and the many ways he associates with James Dobson possible.
It troubles me many congregations who have nothing in common with the political goals of Richard Land continue to support his questionable work through their Cooperative Program dollars.
In your reform discussions I do hope you will join Wade Burleson and the significant discussion raised by Chip Berlet in Re the Republican Gomorrah or else you will continue to see Through a Glass Darkly and a Very Dark Glass at That.
Pray, Pay or Get out of the Way is the topic of a recent Ed Setzer blog on his reservations about the GCR task force and leaders.
Wondering if any of you have similar concerns.
It is being discussed in the SBC Forum of Bl.com
And should Richard Land continue as head of his agency and funded by the Cooperative Program since in Alabama for instance, the Number one state in CP giving, several leading CP congregations, Dawson Memorial in Particular, are dually alligned with the CBF
Too many Hills and another Death, similar to Shackelford and Martin and Jack Harwell. From strong conservative Blogger from NE Georgia:
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2010/10/lots-of-people-in-sbc-life-ought-to-be.html