Challenging Dr. Yarnell's BI Baptism viewpoint

Part 3: Conclusions

(NOTE: The biblical basis for these conclusions is found in the last two posts)
(Another NOTE: I am headed out today for a speaking engagement in Missouri. I hope someone wanders by and comments, but if you do, I will not respond unless I can find some wireless access somewhere - and who knows about Missouri, right?)

I feel a little bit like I am standing at the plate facing a Rogers Clemens fastball with a wiffle ball bat. I am about to engage the ideas of Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and others in regard to baptism. I am academically unqualified to challenge any of them. And it is not my intent to cast aspersions on the character of anyone here. Dr. Yarnell himself has been adept at disagreeing respectfully. He engaged in a lengthy debate with David Rogers and both demonstrated that disagreement is not disrespect.

I am challenging Dr. Yarnell because he seems to be providing the theological foundation for the Baptist Identity movement. I will be using quotes from a lengthy blog he put on Peter Lumpkins site a couple of months ago, which summarized his view on baptism. Again, while I will be questioning the biblical basis for his viewpoint on this issue, I will not be questioning his love for Christ or the scriptures.

Before that, let me share a few points that I think are clear from the biblical evidence. My past three posts have reviewed every place in the scripture in which Christian baptism is mentioned. I mostly ignored references to John’s baptism, since it seems to me to be a different thing than Christian baptism.

1) There is not a single scripture that gives evidence of baptism being performed under the supervision of a local church. People mention the Ethiopian Eunuch, but the pattern goes beyond that. I did not find a single piece of evidence to support institutional oversight of baptism as a requirement for baptism. That is not to say that local churches were not involved. There is just no evidence of institutional oversight of baptism.

2) I did not find any evidence of doctrinal evaluation of either the baptized or the baptizer. It seems that when someone came to faith in Christ, one of the first things they did was go find a pond or river to perform the baptism. It does not seem that they did a training class or a doctrinal evaluation. When you trusted Christ, you went and publicly testified to that by being baptized.

I wonder if that is where ideas of baptismal regeneration might have begun. People got baptized so quickly that people began to confuse conversion and immersion. It would be sort of like people who talk about “walking the aisle” today. We know that walking an aisle doesn’t save, but we use the phrase as a synonym for salvation because they often happen close together. Who knows?

3) Baptism seems to be presented in scripture as a “big picture” thing. Baptism is referred to as “into Christ” repeatedly, but never into a particular local church. Baptism is about identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and about walking a new life of obedience. But there is no place in which someone is baptized to join a local church.

I do not object to baptism as a requirement for membership. In fact, I support it on practical grounds. But I reject the notion that this is fundamental to the biblical view of baptism.

4) I see very little emphasis in scripture on who does the baptism. Paul even goes to great lengths in 1 Corinthians to downplay his involvement in baptisms. My suspicion is that in the early church, any baptized believer could baptize another believer.

Dr. Yarnell’s Position

In his post on SBC Tomorrow, Dr. Yarnell made 7 statements on what he liked about Baptist baptism. The implication is that all 7 are essential for a biblical baptism. They are copied below

The first reason that I am a traditional Baptist is because Baptists begin the Christian life in the only way that Jesus Christ gave to His followers--by hearing His Word, believing it, confessing it, and obeying it by receiving baptism.

Second, Baptists do not baptize babies, because doing so alters the command of Christ and the orderly practice of His apostles, who always placed conversion prior to baptism.

Third, Baptists do not baptize only in the name of Jesus, because doing so ignores the command of Christ, which was clear that baptism should be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.

Fifth, Baptists do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, because they understand that a church requires a covenant and that can only be done where two or more people (and people have visible bodies) have gathered.

Sixth, Baptists do not sprinkle or pour, because they know that only immersion is faithful to the New Testament witness regarding the cross and the empty tomb of the gospel.

Finally, Baptists do not baptize those who lack the assurance of their eternal salvation, because the doctrine that one may lose one’s salvation indicates a lack of submission to Christ’s own doctrine.

My Response

I agree wholeheartedly with his first, second, third and sixth points. I disagree with the fourth, fifth and seventh. I do not have a problem with him believing or practicing these. But I do not think they have the biblical authority of the other four points, and I do not want them to be seen as normative for biblical baptism. I do not want to see those points encoded in IMB policies or in SBC practice. I think they go beyond the biblical evidence and I oppose them being enforced on me or on missionaries.

Dr. Yarnell said, “Fourth, Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.”

I would ask someone to show me the scriptural support for this, without appealing to Baptist tradition or history. Where does the Bible support this? I have not found it anywhere.

I have performed baptisms for 26 years and the vast majority have been under the auspices of the churches I have pastored. But I have performed baptisms on people thqat could not or did not want to be members of our church. Normally, when we baptized, the person automatically becomes a member of the church. But I have had people who wanted to be biblically baptized but not be members of my church. I baptized them. I believe the Bible supports what I did.

The missionary who baptized his child in a pool on the foreign field without the approval or authority of any church – he was acting in obedience to Christ, not contrary to it. We are baptized into Christ, not into a local church.

If you want to hold that doctrine, fine. Show me the verses!

Dr. Yarnell then made an extraordinary statement, “Fifth, Baptists do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, because they understand that a church requires a covenant and that can only be done where two or more people (and people have visible bodies) have gathered.”

He is right about one thing. We do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, but into Christ. Time and again, the scriptures I referenced in the last two posts identify baptism as into Christ. There is not one mention of baptism into a church, illusory or local. The only one that comes close is 1 Corinthians 12:12, which says that we have ALL been baptized into ONE body. Sounds a little bit like a universal church to me. Most would say that the baptism in view there is not water baptism anyway, but the baptism of the Spirit, which water baptism pictures.

But the part that I find extraordinary is his statement that a valid baptism can only take place “where two or more people” have gathered. Do the baptizer and the baptized count in this number? If they do, the statement becomes empty of meaning. All baptisms must by definition have two people present. We have a word for solo baptism – swimming!

I suspect, though, that he refers to a group of people from the local church who witness the baptism. Ethiopian Eunuch? No such witnesses. In fact, there is no point in Acts in which a baptism is delayed to gather a group of witnesses or to seek the approval of the church.

We have the authority of Christ to baptize and do not need the oversight of a local church. I prefer it that way. I practice it that way. But the Bible does not prescribe it that way.

Again, where is the biblical support for this authoritative statement.

Finally, he says, “Baptists do not baptize those who lack the assurance of their eternal salvation, because the doctrine that one may lose one’s salvation indicates a lack of submission to Christ’s own doctrine.”

I have only one requirement for a baptism. That person must clearly and forthrightly express their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. I know my practice here is different from many others in my own denomination, but I do not believe I have the right to put any other stricture on baptism but that which the Bible does. If you profess faith in Christ and give clear testimony of your salvation, I baptize you.

I do not make a doctrinal test for baptism. Whatever Dr. Yarnell, Baptist history, or denominational practice says, I see only one test for baptism. Clearly professed faith in Christ. That’s it.

When someone comes to my church, I don’t care if they understood eternal security before they got baptized. I don’t care if they were Calvinist or Arminian when they got baptized. I only care if they were baptized by immersion after conversion as a public testimony of faith in Christ (not for salvation). I don’t care if it was done in a church, or in a pond, or by an ordained minister. Just three things: when, how and why? After I baptize them, it becomes my job to instruct them on sound doctrine.

To add a doctrinal stricture on baptism is clearly beyond the teaching of scripture. If you want to do things that way in your church, be my guest. Do as you please. But please do not tell me that I have to do what the Bible does NOT tell me I have to do. And please to not tell missionaries they cannot serve because even though they have done EVERYTHING the Bible tells them to do, they have not done the things you would like them to do even though the Bible does not command them.

Dr. Yarnell added this statement at the end. “These seven biblical doctrines concerning baptism speak much about Baptist identity. If we compromise these revealed teachings of Christ, we will begin to lose our Baptist identity because we will have compromised the Lordship of Christ. I am a Baptist because I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. And because I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, I must submit to His will. We may never compromise one aspect of Christ’s will, even in the name of supposed Christian unity.”

I agree with much of this. I believe in the Lordship of Christ and must submit to His will. But I am not required to submit to Malcolm Yarnell’s will, or his interpretations of scripture. He calls these “revealed teachings of Christ.” Fine, but show me where the Bible reveals these. I did not find them in scripture.

If “Baptist Identity” involves in forcing conformity on doctrines the Bible does not teach, I want nothing to do with it. I will submit to Christ and His Word, but will not be bound by Baptist tradition, heritage or history that is not firmly rooted in scripture.

I have more to say, and may take this up again later.

Conclusion

As I read scripture, there are several things that are decisive in valid, biblical baptism. First, it matters when you are baptized. It must be after your conversion. Second, it matters how you are baptized. It must be by immersion to picture identification with the death and resurrection of Christ. Third, it must be seen as a picture of faith, not as a saving event itself. These are the bedrock of biblical baptism.

The other issues that have been raised are not mandated in scripture. There is no evidence of institutional oversight in baptism. Baptism can (and usually should) be under the authority of a local body, but that is not biblically mandated. There are situations in which baptism not affiliated with a local church can be completely authorized biblically. I see very little evidence that the baptizer is of much biblical significance at all. And I see no doctrinal tests that are germane to baptism. The only requirement is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Everything else is discipleship.

Baptism into Christ: The Bible Does Not Support Baptist Identity Baptism

Why are we baptized? How important is the local church to baptism? These issues are roiling the blogosphere. The purpose of this series of posts is to deal inductively with the scriptural evidence. In the first post, I set the issues. In the second post, I dealt with 8 passages in Acts which mention baptism. Now, the attention turns to the epistles.

For matters of doctrine or practice in the Christian church, the epistles are crucial. The events of the gospels took place prior to Pentecost and the establishment of the church. There are teachings that deal with church issues in the gospels, but the teachings predate the church. Acts is a book of history. It tells us what happened during the period the church was being established. But it is the epistles that tell us why God did what he did. The epistles explain Acts.

When I study historical books, I look for patterns in the way God works. Our God, in his infinite creativity, seldom repeats his methods. But he does operate according to certain patterns that flow from his character. In acts, there are patterns of activity from which we can learn. But in the epistles, we see the purposes of God clearly spelled out.

The episodes in which baptism is mentioned in Acts demonstrate a pattern. Clearly, baptism was performed on only believers in Acts. It was, from all evidence, performed by immersion. It appears to me that baptism was performed almost immediately after the salvation experience. When someone put their faith in Christ, the next thing they did was go and look for a pond or river for a baptism.

What I find curious, and crucial to current discussions, is what is missing. There is not a single instance in Acts of a local church being prominently featured in a baptism. The proponents of Baptist Identity say that baptism is strictly a local church matter and only baptisms done under the authority of a local church are valid. But I have found NOT ONE verse of scripture which supports this view. It seems to be founded on tradition and a sense of Baptist supremacy, but not from scripture. At least not scriptures in Acts.

But, the Baptist Identity case is not lost. If the epistles tie the practice of baptism to the local church in a clear way, that would counter-balance the absence of evidence in Acts. So, we will examine the evidence in the epistles. I have identified 6 passages in the New Testament epistles which have significant teachings on baptism. We will examine each one briefly, then draw conclusions. This is not meant to be a complete exegesis of each of these passages. I am only interested in what they say about baptism.

Passage 1: Romans 6:1-4

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

What is baptism meant to do? It is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. We die with Christ to sin, are buried in the waters of baptism and then are raised up to walk a new life of obedience. Baptism pictures this.

It seems to me that Romans 6:4 settles the question of mode of baptism. Immersion is the mode of baptism that pictures the death and resurrection of Christ. No other form of baptism can symbolize death and resurrection like going down into the water then rising up from it.

But the most significant phrase to our discussion is “baptized into Christ Jesus.” This type of wording appears in several texts. Baptism is our initiation into Christ, not into the church. Baptism is a spiritual exercise, not an institutional one.

Passage 2: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Baptism is not the point of this passage, is used as an illustration of the unity of the body of Christ. But I would argue that what Paul says about baptism is powerful evidence. Corinth was a divided church, split into at least 4 groups, each following a particular personality: Paul, Apollos, Peter and Jesus. Paul exposed the silliness of human divisions and of splinter groups with divided loyalties.

Christ is not divided, Paul says. And Paul did not die for our sins. Neither are we baptized in the name of Paul. Paul then goes on to explain that he did only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus.

There are two points I would make from this passage. First, Paul makes it clear that baptism should not be the source of human division. We are not baptized into Paul, or into the Baptist church. We are baptized into Christ. The Baptist Identity groups claim that baptism is into a local church body, and refuse to recognize the validity of baptisms done by other groups with doctrinal differences. Is that not a violation of the spirit of what Paul is saying here? Would Paul not argue, “You are not baptized into the Baptist church or the Assembly of God, but into Christ?”

Second, Paul says he is glad that he did not baptize many of their number. The Baptist Identity adherents emphasize the baptizer. To them, who does the baptism is as important as how the baptism is done. If the person (or church) performing the baptism is not doctrinally correct (i.e. Baptist) then the baptism is not valid. Yet, Paul seems to dismiss the importance of the performer of the baptism. The performance matters. Baptism is important – immersion of a believer matters. But this passage seems to say that the performance matters much more than the performer.

And, again, in this passage, the central issue is Christ. Not a church, but a Savior. We are not baptized into human organizations, but into Christ.

Passage 3: 1 Corinthians 12:12

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 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.

The baptism mentioned in this passage is clearly Spirit-baptism. The only point I would make here is the wording Paul uses. “We were all baptized into one body.” If Spirit-baptism is into one body, shouldn’t we see water baptism, which symbolizes that spiritual work, as being into one body as well.

The weight of scriptures seems to lean towards baptism being “into Christ” and into the universal and united body of Christ, but not into a single, local body of believers.

Passage 4: Galatians 3:27

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Not much needs to be said here. We are baptized “into Christ.” It is about our relationship with him and not with a particular group of people.

Passage 5: Ephesians 4:5

One Lord, one faith, one baptism

We have one Lord who redeemed us. We come to know him by the one faith. And we profess that faith publicly by one baptism. All Christians are united in faith in our Lord. Baptism brings us into that One Body, the unified, universal body of Christ.

Passage 6: 1 Peter 3:21

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

This is a tough passage, with a lot of peripheral issues that will be argued till Jesus returns. The part that references baptism seems to be a little more clear than the rest of the passage.

This passage opens with a clear reference to the death of Christ, “the just for the unjust,” and then gives one of the more argued teachings of the New Testament. He refers to Jesus going in spirit to preach to the “spirits in prison” because of their disobedience in the days prior to Noah’s flood. This passage requires far more time and effort than is germane to this discussion. But the passage goes on to talk about the eight people brought safely through the waters of the flood. That is the key to the baptism teaching.

Baptism, it says, corresponds to the salvation of Noah's family. They were delivered through the waters of God’s judgment. Our baptism signifies that we have passed through God’s judgment and have found life through Christ.

The important thing here about baptism is that, once again, there is no mention of the church. Baptism carries universal concerns and is not tied to a local church. Baptism, in the New Testament, is always a "big picture" issue.

In my next post, I will deal with the conclusions I have drawn from this brief excursion through the scriptures. I wish to provide an opportunity for discussion and refinement of my arguments before I go on to my conclusions.

But here is my working thesis. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that ties baptism to a local church. I have found no biblical evidence to support the institutionalization of baptism that is being promoted by some within our convention. We are baptized into Christ and into the universal body of Christ.

What say you?

How Quickly It Goes By...

The prophet Isaiah compares people to grass, which springs up quickly, flourishes, then dies down as the days grow cold. Life, even long life, passes quickly. I am feeling that so strongly this year.

A week ago, I watched my youngest son walk the aisle to graduate from high school. In a few weeks, I will watch my second son walk another aisle and say “I do.” It all goes by in a flash. One day, you are playing catch in the back yard. Then, they are grown up and moving on.

I have talked to elderly people, men and women whose lives have been long and full, and they talk about it as well. “It seems like only yesterday…” Where has the time gone?” They give testimony to the truth of God’s Word. Life on this earth is brief. We are born, we flourish, then we face eternity.

We are given only a brief window of time in which to store up treasures in heaven. The great tragedy of the careless Christian living so many of us practice is that we waste our brief moments, our opportunities to live lives that count, that make a difference in the world.

Have you done anything today that will last for eternity? Have you done anything that really matters; that stores up treasures in heaven? The money you have made is not eternally significant. The pleasures of this world – fleeting moments of joy at best. That hit movie? What difference will that make in a million years?

But spending time in worshiping and glorifying God? That is a rehearsal for eternity. Telling someone about Jesus, proclaiming the gospel to the lost? That is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe. Encouraging a brother or sister in Christ to walk in obedience to Him? That will make a difference forever!

I do not really wish to be maudlin, but life is what it is. You have a few brief years to make a difference, to become more like Christ, to proclaim the gospel, to influence other believers. Or, you can squander those years in worldly pursuits; money, power, pleasure, ambition, advancement. Then, one day, this life will come to an end, and on that day, you will stand before your Savior to give account.

Are you doing anything today that will matter that day?

Baptism in Acts: Into Christ or into the Church?

I am exploring the nature of Biblical Baptism. I am a Baptist by both birth and conviction, but I have decided to re-examine my doctrine because of the current “Baptist Identity” controversy in the SBC. Read the previous post for the background on this.

Most of the key issues are settled in this discussion among Baptists. We agree about the subject (believers only), mode (immersion only) , meaning (symbolic of salvation, not salvific itself) and formula (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) of Baptism. But we have some disagreements about other, I think lesser, issues. We disagree on whether baptism is into the universal church, into a local body of believers only, or some combination of the two. The Baptist Identity group is arguing for a more institutional purpose of Baptism, more closely related to the local church. We also disagree as to whether there is much significance attached to the administrator of baptism. Does it matter who did the baptism, or that it was done according to biblical guidelines.

This trigger issue of this discussion has been policies adopted by the International Mission Board discounting baptisms of candidates who were baptized in churches that had significantly flawed doctrine, especially those that believed in the possibility of a Christian losing his salvation. Some argue that it shouldn’t matter, as long as the one baptized was a believer, the baptism was by immersion and person understood it was symbolic, not salvific.

So, what does the Bible say? That is the purpose of this study. We will go through the relevant passages of scripture. I am going to state my opinion strongly and hope that people who disagree will feel welcome to do the same – arguing Biblical evidence, not Baptist history or tradition. I am not ashamed of our Baptist heritage, but one of the tenets of our faith is that we are responsible to the scriptures, not to creed or tradition.

As a Baptist, I have to admit that it is a little surprising that the New Testament says so little about Christian Baptism. Most of the references in both the Gospels and Acts refer to John’s baptism.

I have chosen to largely discount all references to John’s baptism. Those passages help with issues like immersion but really have no impact on the focus of this discussion. Since the church was not established until Pentecost, and since John’s baptism is different from Jesus’ baptism, it does not seem like those passages will help us much in dealing with issues of the value of institutionalism and administrator in baptism.

I have found 8 passages in Acts which I believe are useful to look at, and 6 passages in the epistles. In this post, we will review the 8 passages in Acts, which give us some idea of what happened in the early church. Then, next time, we will deal with the more didactic portions of Paul’s and Peter’s instructions to the churches. After that, I will draw my conclusions, and leave you to do the same.

Passage 1: Acts 3:38-41 Pentecost

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 3:38 is one of the baptismal regenerationist’s favorite verses, but that is not our focus here. There are several answers to the false teaching of salvation through baptism which will wait another time. This is a discussion amongst Baptists, so we will focus on that.

In this passage, on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit falls on the church. Then, Peter preaches and 3000 souls are saved. I am not sure this passage has much to say about whether baptism was into the church or not. The church did not exist before that day.

It also does not say who did the baptism. Did only the apostles baptize? I would make one point. It would take a long time to baptize 3000 folks by immersion, if only Peter, or if only the 12 did the baptisms. I conjecture that many people probably got involved in the baptismal process, but that is conjecture – reading between the lines. It is an opinion, not evidence.

But this is a unique passage. Baptism on that day could not have really been into the church, because it was the inauguration of the church. Those who were baptized became the church.

Passage 2: Acts 8:12-13 Philip in Samaria

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

Acts 8 is sometimes called the Samaritan Pentecost and has some of the same issues as the Acts 2 passage. There was no organized church in Samaria prior to Philip’s ministry. They were baptized into Christ, received the Holy Spirit, and the Samaritan church was born.

I would point out two things. There is not here, or in any other Acts passage, any clear reference to the church being the focus of baptism. The message was the “kingdom of God” (a universal thing) and the “name of Christ” (again, universal.) There is no reference here or anywhere else to baptism into a church. Baptism is into Christ.

Passage 3: Acts 8: 37-40 Ethiopian Eunuch

And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.

This is the favorite passage for those who argue against the Baptist Identity position. Philip is taken by the Holy Spirit out into the wilderness where he meets a lone man. That man comes to faith in Christ and requests baptism. Philip performs the baptism and the man continues his journey. He is then spirited to Azotus and begins preaching the gospel there.

I have heard the Identity folks deal with this passage, but a couple of things are incontrovertible here. Philip was far from any church when he baptized the Eunuch. And there was no church established here. Yes, I am sure the Ethiopian established a church when he went back home. But he was baptized in almost total separation from any significant involvement with any established local church.

Can too much be made of this? Perhaps. But it is hard to argue that baptism must be attached to a local church in this instance.

Before anyone objects, I know BI folks agree that Baptism is into Christ. But the question at hand is how important the local church is in baptism. They place a much higher priority on that than I do.

Passage 4: Acts 9:18-19 Paul’s Baptism

And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.

Very little is gained in this discussion from this passage. Again, there is no mention of the local church, and there is no mention of who baptized him, though I suppose it was Ananias.

Silence is the weakest argument, of course. But I think that those who insist that baptism is into a local fellowship gain the burden of proof to establish that it is consistently true. And it is, in Acts, consistently NOT true, or at least not mentioned.

Passage 5:Acts 10:46-48 Cornelius

For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Again, there was no local church for the people to be baptized into. Some would argue that Peter represented the church in Jerusalem. Fine. But the people being baptized were not being baptized into the church of Jerusalem, were they?

One other trend you see beginning here. Baptism here is “in the name of Jesus Christ.” In other passages, we will see the phrase “into Christ.” It seems to me that baptism in the early church was seen as more into that universal body of Christ than into a local body. They were baptized into Christ, not into the church of Christ.

Passage 6: Acts 16:14-15 Lydia

The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Again, Paul may have operated on the authority of the church in Antioch, but there was no church there to which Lydia was baptized. If formed later (almost immediately after, but after nonetheless.)

Passage 7: Acts 16:30-33 The Philippian Jailer

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

This is the story of the Philippian jailer. It is one of pedobaptists favorite verses. They point out that the jailers whole family was baptized when he believed, and assume that there were children in the household, therefore proving infant baptism. I might point out (cruelly) that if this is one of your best proofs, you might be advocating a teaching without much biblical evidence. But, like baptismal regeneration, pedobaptism is not our focus here.

The point that would be made out of this passage is simple. Acts 16 gives the idea that there was already a small contingent of believers (Lydia’s household and the slave girl) by the time this event took place. But, when the jailer was saved, he was “baptized at once.” There is no evidence that Paul or Silas conferred with the local assembly. They just did the baptism. Once again, baptism seemed to be into Christ more than into a local body of believers.

Passage 8: Acts 19:3-5 Baptism of John’s Disciples

And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The only issue here is that the disciples of John were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” There is again no mention of a local church involved, though we assume one formed.

The study of baptism in the book of Acts is definitive in answering the questions about which we agree. It clearly establishes baptism of believers by immersion as a symbol of salvation. But, it gives little support to the idea that baptism is strictly into a local church and that one key is the administrator of the baptism.

These issues are basically insignificant in Acts. Again, I know that silence is weak evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. And I am convinced that if the baptizer or the administration of the local church was a key issue, it would be established in Acts better than it was here.

I invite comment, even disagreement. Again, if I am satisfied that I have made a mistake (horror of horrors – it happened once in the 80’s!) I will amend and revise my arguments.

Next time, Romans, Corinthians and other New Testament epistles – the authoritative evidence.

(NOTE: When I started this post, I had 8 passages copied over from Logos. As I wrote it out, I had only 7, so I changed the numbers. Then, David Rogers pointed out this passage, which must be the one I missed. So, I edited this to reflect the full 8 verses)

What is Biblical Baptism?

Just about every Christian believes in baptism. Just about every Christian believes in “biblical baptism.” The problem comes when we have to define a “biblical baptism.” R.C. Sproul is convinced he practices biblical baptism. I am just as convinced that he does not.

Encapsulation always risks oversimplification. But I see four prominent groupings of opinions on what comprises a biblical baptism.

1) Pedobaptism – baptizing children or infants into the church at a very early age. Generally, they believe that baptism replaced circumcision as the visible sign of our covenant with God. They mostly practice sprinkling or pouring, but do not usually consider the method of baptism to be a big deal. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians – most of the mainline groups practice this form of baptism.

2) Baptismal Regeneration groups – they believe that baptism is essential for a person’s salvation. Among these groups are the Church of Christ, some Apostolic groups and a branch of Pentecostals. Many of them also practice baptism only in the name of Jesus (non-trinitarian, often called “Jesus-only” for obvious reasons).

3) Baptist-Practice groups – they believe in baptism of believers by immersion, and practice it to varying degrees. Some believe this is the best way, but do not require it as the only way. They say it is a non-essential and do not require baptism for church membership. Generally, these groups do see believers’ baptism as the biblical way, and do not practice pedobaptism, and they usually believe in the practice of immersion. Many “Bible Churches” and other evangelical groups fall into this category, as do most charismatic and Pentecostal groups that do not believe in baptismal regeneration. There is also a small but perhaps growing movement of Baptist churches who are treating believer’s baptism by immersion as an option.

4) Baptist groups – we believe that baptism is an important act of obedience to Christ which symbolizes and publicly testifies to our conversion in Christ. We believe that immersion, which symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and testifies that we are “raised to walk a new life in him,” is the only acceptable mode of baptism. We believe that only those who make a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized, so we do not baptize infants. Because we believe this is an important act of obedience to Christ, we require baptism for church membership.

The Problem

I am not writing to argue the pedobaptist or immersion issues. They are settled in my own mind and I have no urgent need to deal with them. Whoever might read this will almost certainly be from a Baptist perspective, so dealing with these issues is moot. The same is true of baptismal regeneration. It is unlikely that any proponents of that doctrine will be reading this. I am also not going to spend a lot of time with the baptistic groups, except as they relate to the issue I will be dealing with. My focus will be on a growing rift between groups that are clearly within the Baptist circle. There is a strong difference of opinion brewing between those who are part of a group loosely called “Baptist Identity” and those who oppose them. For the sake of convenience, I will use the Baptist Identity term or even BI to describe that group. It is not meant as a pejorative, just a descriptive term. If someone would like to suggest another term, I would consider it.

Both groups believe that baptism by immersion of believers is essential. But there are several issues that have become points of contention. This controversy hit the convention when policies that reflected the Baptist Identity position were enacted at the International Mission Board.

The following are the points of contention:

1) Is baptism into the church (local) or into Christ (universal church)? Of course, everyone believes that ultimately, baptism is into Christ, but the BI groups believe that Baptism is strictly a church ordinance. (Their opponents also believe baptism is a church ordinance, but remove the word “strictly.”)

2) Does it matter who does the baptism? This is one of the key issues that came out in the IMB policies. If someone has been baptized in a church that believes you can lose your salvation, they are considered disqualified for missionary service until they have been rebaptized (or scripturally baptized for the first time). They are, therefore, making “man” of baptism on an equal footing with the mode of baptism. It is not enough to be baptized by immersion as a believer. You have to be baptized by immersion as a believer by someone who believes as we do. Others argue that a baptism is biblical as long as it is done by immersion after profession of faith and is understood as symbolic of salvation, not necessary to it.

Dr. Thomas White, in his CTR “White Paper” has identified 6 key issues in valid baptism: subject (believers only), mode (immersion only), meaning (symbolic, not saving or sanctifying), church (connected to a local church), administrator (representative of local church) and formula (traditional formula or at least in the name of Christ).

There seems to be little disagreement among us about subject, mode, meaning and formula. The issues that arise are relative to church (how important is it that baptism be officially connected to a local assembly?) and administrator (how much does the administrator of baptism matter?).

Methodology

I am going to reflect on these issues in several blogs. Again, I never know how many are reading what I write. But, I will follow this pattern.

Step 1: Definition of issues. I would love for people from both sides (all sides?) of these issues to comment on whether I have adequately represented your viewpoints. As I read blogs, one of the biggest problems I see is the constant tendency to misrepresent the viewpoints of those you argue against. So, before I go charging off writing about something no one believes in or cares about, I would ask proponents of all sides of these issues to correct me if I have misrepresented your viewpoint.

Step 2: Dealing with scriptures. I am working on an analysis of scriptural evidence. I am not an expert in Baptist history like Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell or Nathan Finn. I am not going to venture into whether we are descended from the Anabaptists or the English Separatists, or simians. I will leave that to those with more expertise than I. I am just going to look at scriptures about baptism. Ultimately, I think we would all agree that what ultimately matters is biblical truth, not Baptist history.

Step 3: Delineating my ignorance. You will, I hope, tell me how badly I have missed the mark and how I lack insight into the scriptures. I hope you will do it in Christian love and based on scripture. I maintain the power of deletion, and am willing to wield it arbitrarily. But I love a good theological debate. At some point, I intend to answer a critic with “I am rubber and you are glue – whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” I will just wait for the proper time.

It seems clear to me that if we are Baptist, we ought to at least find agreement on what that means, and on what it requires.

One more thing – as people make comments, and if I see the wisdom of those comments, I reserve the right to edit my post to reflect my new understanding and insight. I can’t have myself look stupid on my own blog, can I?

And, if no one reads this, at least I will grow from studying and writing.

Read Nathan Finn's Blog - Regularly!

http://nathanafinn.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/unplugged-on-the-imb/

Dr. Nathan Finn, a professor at Southeastern, is blogging a series of answers to key questions being asked by people in the SBC. His first blog, on the IMB policies, is worth reading. If you are smart, you will bookmark his site and read everything he says.

I know, that was an overgeneralization.

His next post, on Calvinism, was equally good. I have been thrilled recently at what I hope is a trend toward more intense dialogue and discussion on some blogs - leaving the Baptist Bluster Brigade behind.

Nathan Finn is one of the best examples of this.

Where is the Statesman?

In 1979, I was a seminary student, and travelled to the Southern Baptist Convention in Houston with my dad, an SBC pastor and former missionary. It was a moment that has defined our convention for nearly 30 years now. I voted for Adrian Rogers for president and stood to my feet when it was announced that he had won. I returned to the convention as often as possible in the 80's and 90's and voted to keep the conservative resurgence alive and well.

I remember the defining moment when Morris Chapman faced Daniel Vestal in 1990. Vestal was an undeniably conservative pastor who would not identify with the SBC conservatives for whateve reasons, and he mounted a strong campaign. As you approached the arena, the Vestal campaign had workers with flyers touting his conservative credentials. He was probably a bigger name in the convention than Dr. Chapman. My dad was in the bookstore when they announced the results. Dr. Chapman got nearly 60% of the vote. My dad wouldn't believe me that the vote was that big. That was the decisive moment, and the moderate groups gave up the fight at the national level and took it to the state level, and then formed the CBF.

I know that Dr. Patterson and Judge Pressler were the architects of the resurgence, but they had something that day that we don't have today. They had Adrian Rogers. He was the face of the SBC. He had a voice like Moses must have heard on the top of Sinai. He was a man of conviction and was unwilling to compromise. He was also a man of grace. Under the most intense scrutiny and heat, he was always gracious, calm, well-spoken. He had that knack for saying things that made you think, "Wow, I wish I'd thought of that."

The SBC is a splintered group today. There are a few "head-in-the-sand" folks who refuse to see that there is a problem, but most will admit that we have issues we need to deal with. We disagree about solutions, but most admit the problems.

What the SBC needs today is a new Adrian Rogers. I know, I know, the SBC is about every one of us and not one man. I agree. But look in scriptures. When God was ready to do a work, He often called and prepared one man. The human race needed to preserved; it was Noah. God determined to save Israel; Moses saw a burning bush. The Philistines were oppressing Israel; David. The Judges. Elijah. When God is going something big, He often raises up a leader, one man to show God's people the way.

We need such a man today. We need a man of God who will come to the forefront and be the SBC statesman. Maybe, without the unifying force of the liberal threat, such a statesman is hard to find. But we need one still.

There are several characteristics that must be found in such a man.

1) He must be raised up by God. This is not a job you volunteer for, or apply for. God raises up the man at the right time.

2) He must be a man of conviction. A finger-in-the-wind leader will never get the job done. This must be a man of deep passion for the Word and for the convention.

3) He must be a man of grace. There were a number of vocal, very aggressive spokesmen for the conservative resurgence. They played their part but they could not be what Adrian was. He was able to gracious in the face of a campaign of insults and attacks. When he moderated a convention, he was firm, but gracious. He responded to personal attacks with grace.

4) He must be a kingdom man. I never got the impression that Adrian was defending himself or advancing his own cause. He was already at the top of the denominational ladder when 1979 rolled around. It never seemed like he was out for himself. He served the Kingdom of God and the Convention. You might disagree with him, but it was hard to cast him as a man of selfish motives. (Some tried, but they seemed, to me, silly in the effort.)

It may not be possible anymore. In 1979, we were united by a common goal - restore biblical orthodoxy to a denomination headed in the wrong direction. We did not have time to quibble about calvinism or PPL. If you believed in inerrancy, that was enough.

And this is certainly not an attempt at hagiography. I am sure Dr. Rogers had his failings and foibles like anyone else. I saw him leaving the Orlando convention after Jim Henry was elected and he looked like you could fry an egg on his forehead. (Don't know why, but I know that look!)

I believe the SBC needs some reforms. I think we need to refocus. The onus is on each of us, each person, each church to do our G0d-given job.

But, I believe we need a leader. "Moses" Rogers led us very well. But, where is Joshua?

Is It All About Wade?

The Southern Baptist Convention has been hit with some bad news in recent days. Our numbers are not encouraging. After a decade or so of plateaued numbers, we have finally had a year in which numbers actually declined - the first ever (or in a long time?). We also have competing versions of resolutions in favor of making sure our churches are filled with the redeemed, not the lost. They are essentially identical, except one calls for repentance over our history of reporting inflated numbers and the other doesn't.

And so the blogosphere is abuzz. About Wade Burleson! We are declining, so lets talk about Wade! That will solve things, won't it?

Wade continually blogs about the so-called "Baptist Identity" movement, casting them in a very negative light. He has engaged in several debates on various blogs recently with Bart Barber or Malcolm Yarnell. The Baptist Identity movement, it seems, is intent on narrowing the parameters of fellowship so severely that anyone who does not bow and kiss Paige Patterson's ring will be excluded from the denomination (I know, I am exaggerating, because I am frustrated).

And the Baptist Identity bloggers have gone to town! It always amusing when bloggers spew angry invective calling someone to repent for their angry invective. One blogger called for the garbage collector to come and carry off all of Wade's garbage. Another wrote a long, angry, hateful blog about Wade, comparing him to Communists and accusing him of the politics of personal destruction. He writes blustering, hate-filled blogs, and the point is confronting Wade's blustery hate. And he is totally incapable of seeing anything but Wade's sin and evil. These guys are totally obsessed with Wade. Everyone is either pro-Enid (where Wade pastors) or anti-Enid. I have been suspected of being a Wade worshipper because I thought some of their accusations were unkind or ungodly.

Recently, I received the stern rebuke of the Baron of the Blogosphere myself. I told a blogger I thought the wording of his attacks on Wade were over the top. Wade confronted me, saying that only he was allowed to respond to a blogger who blogged about him.

Wade Burleson was put in an historical position when he confronted the IMB Board of Trustees about their policies on private prayer language and baptism. He called attention to what I believe was a very bad set of policies. I will always be grateful that he stood and that he brought the narrowing of denominational fellowship to the attention of the denomination.

But, contrary to what several seem to believe, the problems in the SBC are not caused by Wade Burleson, and he is certainly NOT the solution to them. Our problems have nothing to do with him. He may have brought some problems to the forefront.

But we are not going to solve the problems in the SBC by talking about Wade Burleson. (I know, I am writing about him here - love the irony?).

We need to deal with issues that confront us. We do not need to argue about whether Wade is a modern day John the Baptist or another Rasputin.

John Lennon wrote the song, "Imagine," and dared to imagine a world without religions and borders. I imagine an SBC blogosphere that doesn't revolve around what Wade Burleson thinks or says. He can have his say, like anyone else. But it isn't about Wade.

I am going to do my little part. I probably should just leave the blogosphere behind. I am not sure what Kingdom purpose most of it serves. But I am going to keep interacting with Baptists who care about the future of the SBC. I am leaving the Wade-osphere behind (I know - who cares about what I am doing, right?). I may read Wade's blog from time to time to read his latest manifesto on Women in Ministry (should that be womanifesto?) or the evils of Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber. Its entertaining. I will keep reading Bart Barber until the day I get to nominate him for SBC President. But I am leaving the Obsessive Anti-Wade blogs behind. These poor folks bluster like a spring storm about Wade's bluster. They write angrily of his anger. Talking to them is pointless, because they believe that they are the ministers of justice, protecting the SBC from the Antichrist of Enid. They seem to care more about destroying Wade than correcting the Convention.

I have learned something recently. There are some really good blogs out there that don't center and focus on Wade.

Look for me on those.

Christ or Christophe?

I enjoyed the movie, "The Truman Show" which featured Jim Carrey. It involved an unwanted baby who was taken to a hidden lot on a faraway island and given a make-believe family. His life was turned into a TV show. Everyone watched as the producer controlled his life. One day, Truman began to realize that something was up. He realized what was going on and began to struggle to break free of his chains.

Fighting him every step of the way was Christophe, the producer. Finally, we cheer as Truman finds the end of the set and escapes to a life of freedom.

Cool movie. But was there a point? I believe there was. Notice the name of the producer who usurped control over Truman's life. CHRISTophe. Coincidence? I believe that there is a moral behind the movie. God (or at least religion) tries to usurp control over our lives. We need to break free of contraints of the church and of the concept of god so we can all be free.

When you try to evangelize today, people will respond as if you are unfairly asking for control over their lives. "Who are you to tell me how to live?" "How do you know your way is the right way?" "Why can't you just live by your truth and let me live by mine?"

Here's the question: do we have the right to share the gospel? Do we have the right to tell people that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth and the Life?" Do we have the right to tell them that Jesus is the "only name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved?" Or are we like Christophe, trying to control the lives of others unfairly.

The Bible makes it clear. God created us. Because we are his creation, he has the rights of the Creator to govern creation. God redeemed us, sending Jesus to the Cross to die for our sins and to rise again. God exalted him to the highest place and declared him Lord over all. Because he created us and redeemed us, he has the right to control us. He has the right to demand that he be Lord of all.

The Great Commission begins with these words, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go..."

When someone commits a crime, the government issues a warrant for his arrest. The authorities take this document, which gives them the right to detain, arrest and incarcerate, and serve it to the offender.

That is what evangelism is. "The government will be upon his shoulders." He is the rightful Lord and ruler of all. Written on the parchment of his Lordship in the blood shed on the cross, he has issued warrants.

We are the divine process servers. Our job as Christians is simply to deliver the warrants. We have every right, regardless of what people think, to issue warrants to every man or woman on earth. Jesus is their rightful Lord, whether they believe it or not.

Our authority to evangelize rests in Christ's authority over all the world. Go out and arrest someone for Christ today. (Don't detain them - that's the Spirit's job!)

An OId (Dumb) Joke - That Makes a Point

St. Peter was showing a newcomer around heaven. They came to a big building with closed doors. Peter held his finger to his mouth and whispered, "Shhhh..."

When they had passed the building, Peter looked over at him. "Sorry, that's the Baptists in there. They think they are the only ones here, and we try to humor them."

Reading recent comments on Baptism makes me believe the spirit of that dumb joke is still alive in the SBC.

The SBC is in Decline

Predicting the future is always a difficult thing. But there seems to be ample evidence that the SBC is in decline. We have been essentially plateaued now for more than a decade. This last yearly report actually showed a decline in overall membership in the SBC.

A couple of observations:

1) Numbers cannot show the whole picture. This could be a one year thing, and there could be many reasons for the decline. If we are faithful to the gospel and people want to gather around themselves teachers who tell them what their "itching ears" want to hear, maybe we could point to the decrease as a sign of faithfulness. I suspect the reason is not so noble.

2) Everyone will blame the "other side" in the current fracas. The belligerent conservatives will blame Wade, Ben et al. They will probably blame those who don't support women in ministry. I am sure Ben will put the blame on Dr. Patterson. The CBF-types will blame the conservative resurgence. We will all be quick to pin the blame on someone else.

What we need to do is take a hard look at ourselves. True, numbers are easy to interpret any way you want, but this one is serious. We need to ask ourselves what is wrong.

There is a biblical principle that can be pretty easily demonstrated both in the OT (with Israel) and in the NT (with the church). When a people walk in obedience, they are blessed. When they are blessed, there is growth. The people of God under the blessing of God grow. Numerically. Read Acts. 3000. 5000. "The Lord added daily to their numbers those who were being saved."

Factor this in. We have been constant for about 10 to 15 years. Compare that to population growth and we have been in decline for 2 decades.

Why? I have a few observations - which may make a few of my friends angry. But, they are my observations.

1) One obvious reason for some part of this decline is, in fact, the conservative resurgence, which I supported. Quite a few churches left our denomination. That's a percentage of the numbers. Frankly, I'm okay with that. If we lose people and churches who want our denomination not to believe in and enforce inerrancy, I think that's a good thing. If we go the other way, I will be a former Southern Baptist myself.

It is also possible that the conservative resurgence, which I believe was a good thing, is not producing fruit because it has lost its way and gone in the wrong direction.

2) There is a cultural aspect to this. In the cities I have lived in the last 17 years, the "big" churches have been of two kinds. First, there are the charismatic churches. Second, there are the seeker churches. They build big churches, but I do not want to follow their model. They grow big churches, not great Christians (in my humble but correct opinion.)

Unfortunately, Southern Baptists have followed these trends and many of our churches are just like those churches (usually without the tongues). that is a mistake.

But there are other, less noble reasons.

3) An emphasis on Baptist traditions over scripture. My son, now a student at Liberty and a dynamic, growing Christian, went through a time of deep doubt. One of the reasons is that he began to study his Bible and realized that a lot of the rules he had grown up with were not based on the scriptures but on Baptist tradition and legalism. He began to wonder if all of it was the same.

Young people today want something more than legalistic rules and Baptist tradition. If they are going to be won, it will be by genuine Christianity in action. Biblical Christianity, not Baptist Tradition, will win people to Christ.

4) Virulent Calvinism. Caveat: I am calvinistic and I think it is important to have a correct theology that honors the sovereignty of God. I believe in God's sovereignty in salvation and that belief informs my practices and preaching. I reject much of the "reformed" system (eschatology, some of their sanctification teachings, etc) But I believe that salvation starts in the heart of God not the will of man. But the promises of the more passionate Calvinists have largely fallen flat in reality - at least in my experience. There is a virulent form of Calvinism that has been often in evidence in my state. Dr. Mohler once said that he knew of men who would "walk across the state to discuss one of the 5 points of Calvinism, but will not walk across the street to tell someone about Jesus." There are calvinists in Iowa doing a good job, but some have had what I think is a wrong emphasis.

I have seen a number of men come to Iowa whose goal seems to be more to proclaim Calvinist doctrine and reformed practice than it is to proclaim the gospel or obey the Great Commission.

I have also seen their churches dwindle and die - every time (so far). I know of no "virulent Calvinist" who has built a church in Iowa (I know, I know - through whom the Sovereign Lord has built a church.) I have seen them often use the doctrines of calvinism as a screen to hide behind when their churches fail. I suspect though that the failure has been the servant, not the sovereign Lord.

When the Calvinist movement started in the SBC, I was excited. I listened to the promises of the Calvinists that restoring sound doctrine would bring the blessing of God. They told me how much better things would be as Calvinism surged back to prominence. My experience has been the opposite. I have yet to see a church here that focused on Calvinism grow. Some have died completely. Others have dwindled. Others have struggled.

I don't think the problem is the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation, but the way it is preached, the unbalanced presentation, and the over-emphasis on the doctrines.

Track the nationwide spread of virulent Calvinism, and it coincides pretty neatly with the plateauing of growth.

5) Dr. Stetzer, in his article sharing this research, theorized that one of the reasons for the problem was the bickering and conflict in the SBC, especially among bloggers.

Read the SBC blogs. You will see an almost generic inability to discuss a disagreement with someone in a decent, collegial manner. There are exceptions to the rule, and we all get cranky and say something over the top sometimes. But many bloggers seem to rejoice in calling names and declaring the other side as wrong.

As you can read in my previous posts, and some of my comments on other blogs, I despair of the future of the SBC if the current crop of bloggers represent us. There is a deep disdain for Baptist distinctives among some and an enthusiasm for condemnation among others.

A lost world reading the SBC blogosphere would wonder, why on earth would I want to be a part of that mess?

Time will tell about the future of the SBC. But, my solution is simple. Let's accept our orders and lay all the other stuff aside. Let's proclaim the gospel and teach everyone to obey everything God commanded them. The Great Commission - what an innovative concept.

A Crude, Lifesaving Station

My Adaptation of “A Crude Lifesaving Station”by Theodore Wedel

Along a dangerous seacoast, shipwrecks often occurred. Grieved by the tragedies, a small group of people gathered together to establish a lifesaving station. They built a little hut, bought one small boat, and set out to save lives. They kept a constant watch over their coastline, and went out selflessly, day and night, to rescue those in need. This little lifesaving station became famous because they saved so many lives. Those whose lives were saved joined in the work, and folks came from all around the area to be a part of this noble project. They donated their money joyfully, gave of their time and effort willingly, and grew dramatically. They were able to purchase new boats and train new crews, so more people were saved than ever before.

Over time, though, some of the members of the lifesaving station became concerned that the hut was so crude and the equipment was so basic. They believed that a larger, better-equipped station would help them to accomplish their work more effectively. They built a large new station, replaced the emergency cots with comfortable beds, and filled their new station with functional furniture. In fact, the lifesaving station was now so nice and so comfortable that it became a popular gathering place for the members. They decorated and furnished the station exquisitely. They met and discussed the importance of lifesaving; they developed programs to teach their children about lifesaving. And they grieved together at how many ships were running aground.

But the members found that the maintenance and upkeep of the lifesaving station left them too busy and tired to go out on the boats. So, they hired crews to man the boats. Because the members still cared deeply about lifesaving, they held classes on lifesaving, sang songs about life saving, and gave demonstrations. All of the decorations in the station supported the lifesaving theme. They even had a large lifeboat at the front of the station as a constant reminder. Comfortable in their modern lifesaving station, and encouraged by the results of the professional lifesaving teams, the people felt good about themselves and more people continued to become a part of their lifesaving club. Every now and again a dispute would arise about which brand of boats was better for lifesaving, or about certain techniques and methods for the crews, but the lifesaving club continued to promote the concept of lifesaving.

Then, one day, a crisis came. A large ship foundered off the coast, and the hired crews made an heroic rescue. They brought boatloads of cold, wet, dirty, half-drowned folks into the lifesaving station. As you can imagine, the beautiful new lifesaving station was thrown into chaos. The rescued people made an absolute mess of the place. They dripped mud and water everywhere, soiled the sheets of the beds, and left the place smelling like dead fish. There were children who did not behave well and a few young people who did not show proper respect for the beautiful lifesaving club. Most of those rescued were foreigners, not of the same social standing as those in the lifesaving club. A few members were offended and vowed never to return.

So, the life-saving club did the only thing it could. They set up a shower-house outside the station. They mandated that rescued people must wash up and put on clean, proper clothes before they were allowed to enter the clubhouse. At the next club meeting, a sharp division occurred. Some members felt as if the lifesaving should be stopped, as it was so unsavory, disruptive to the club, and destructive to the station. Some of the original members and a few that had been rescued in the early days argued that they could not abandon their lifesaving purpose. Eventually, the majority won out and the lifesaving operations were suspended for the good of the club.

A few folks still believed in lifesaving, so they went down the beach and established a new lifesaving station. They did not have the money for a fancy clubhouse, so they erected a tiny, crude lifesaving station with one old boat. But many lives were saved. Soon, people began to join with them, excited about saving lives. They trained volunteer crews to save lives off the coast. The task quickly grew beyond their ability, and they hired the crews from the old lifesaving station and put them back to work. Some of the members began to wonder why the old lifesaving club had such nice accommodations, while theirs were so sparse. So, they erected a new lifesaving station. Eventually, like the first, they suspended lifesaving operations for the good of the club. A small group split from them and started a new lifesaving station, small and humble, farther down the beach.

Over and over again, the process repeated itself. Today, if you go to that place, you will find the coastline populated with large, ornate, beautiful lifesaving stations but the shore is littered with the bodies of those who have drowned.

Dissent, the Holy Spirit, and the SBC

The flash point for the current debate in the SBC was Wade Burleson's refusal to support the actions of the IMB Board of Trustees as they imposed guidelines about private prayer language and baptism on the selection process.

First, let me make it clear - I have no firsthand knowledge of what happened. Wade maintains that he always behaved respectfully and openly, while dissenting from, disagreeing with and opposing the actions of the BoT. Certain members of the BoT are just as clear that he was undermining the work of the IMB with his incessant criticisms. Since I wasn't there, any opinion I give about what happened would be an uneducated opinion, probably informed more by my disagreement with the BoT than any knowledge of the facts.

But in response to Wade's criticisms, the Board enacted a strong anti-dissent policy. If you don't tow the party line and support the decisions of the Board, they will punish you.

I don't know exactly how far dissent should be carried in a Christian organization. It is not the purpose of this blog to explore that issue.

My point is this: the stifling of dissent and disagreement is an unfortunate tendency born out of fear and a failure to understand the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the church. Christian leaders who use their power to stifle dissent have an inadequate faith in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Those who stifle dissent are more concerned with enacting their own will than the will of God. If they were seeking God's will, dissent would be permitted, even encouraged.

When my church is trying to make a decision, I go to great lengths to give every member the chance to express their convictions and their sense of God's will. I encourage people to disagree. It is amazing how often in scripture that the one is right and the many are wrong.

As we discuss, study, pray and seek the mind of Christ, God will usually lead us to a place of consensus about His will and the direction we should go. It sometimes is in line with my will, sometimes not. We do it by listening to each believer and allowing them to express their point of view.

If I believe that the church should do something, I put it out there for discussion and prayer, either in the leadership group or the body as a whole. There are two possibilities. First, what I am thinking might not be God's will (or the timing might be wrong). In that case, do I really want to get my will done if it is not the Father's?

There is another possibility. Maybe I am really acting in accord with the will of God. That is where the Holy Spirit comes in. If I am right, then the Holy Spirit will convince the Body of Christ. I don't have to pressure, or cajol, or strong-arm people. Nor do I have to limit dissent. I just have to seek the will of God and let the Spirit do the convincing.

It works. In my last church, I brought something up that was weighing strongly on my heart. It got shot down in a chorus of negativity. I could have probably pushed it through by demanding that people submit to my leadership as pastor, but I had learned this principle. So, I waited. About 5 or 6 months later, I brought it up again. The church supported it unanimously and enthusiastically. What changed in 6 months? The Spirit had done his work.

Those who stifle debate do not understand the Holy Spirit. If what we are doing is right, God is our ally and will convince, convict and motivate. If I have to pressure people, stifle dissent and enforce pastoral authority to get something done, am I really doing God's will?

When I came to my current church, it was recovering from a horrible split that happened because strong-willed people (on both sides) tried to conform others to their will - a power struggle. In my first year, we faced a terribly difficult decision on which the church was divided and passions were strong (should we continue AWANA or change to another children's ministry.)

I had my opinions, but I never tried to enfore them. I just tried to help the people figure out how to find God's will without fighting. We had a forceful discussion. We prayed, sought God, taught the Word about resolving disputes and finally, took a vote.

Two amazing things happened. First, the church decided to do what I thought was right and best. But I did not have to fight or force people to conform to my opinions. God did it. Second, after we made the decision, with all the passion and emotion attached, people stood around and fellowshiped - people who had just forcefully argued and disagreed. Everyone had their say and when the church voted, they consented to the decision even if they did not agree.

In all of that, we did not lose a family and no relationships in the church were broken. The key was this: we sought to practice the Lordship of Christ and leading of the Spirit over decisions of the church. It worked! The people who lost the vote at least knew that the church had listened to them and considered their view. They were not made to feel like they were wicked because they did not agree with the direction of the majority. I saw more true Christian behavior after that decision than I have ever seen in church business. Win or lose, they behaved like Christians.

The Bible makes it clear. Jesus is the head of the church - not the pastor, the deacons, the elders or even the people. Jesus is the Boss. The church that seeks to practice the Lordship of Christ will prosper, even through disagreement.

And when that process takes place, there is no need to stifle dissent.

The Art of Misdirection

Several bloggers recently have taken to attacking the so-called reform movement by using misdirection, even dishonesty. One, a blogger used the "duck" argument. If it quacks like a duck it must be a duck. Anyone who did not see the world through his dark (and distorted) lens must be a liberal.

Another man made this statement at the beginning of a series about the SBC. He began it by saying, "I will begin posting a series on how the SBC can move forward now that the reform movement has proven that it is nothing more than an new approach to old liberal ideas."

Rather than dealing with the issues involved in the reform movement, he takes the easy way out. He cries "liberal." It is a dishonest statement. He knows it is not true, yet he says it anyway. Many of us who want reform have interacted with him. Yet he stills says our opinions are "nothing more" than an attempt to reintroduce liberal ideas into the SBC.

The reform movment in the SBC is really not even a movement. It is a number of people like myself who think that a few leaders in the SBC have too much personal power and think some of the restrictive policies being implemented by the IMB were a mistake. There are some in the movement who have grown angry and bitter (often because of the attacks of men like those two I mentioned above who have relentlessly called them liberal and other untrue names). Ben Cole has leveled a despicable series of personal character attacks on Dr. Patterson that I believe please our enemy more than our Lord. Several moderate, CBF-types have blogged on Outpost and Wade Burleson's site. And those sites have been pretty one-sided in their attacks on the SBC and its leaders.

I get the impression that Wade, Ben, et al are probably willing to open the doors of fellowship a little farther than I want to open them. Wade certainly has taken on a crusade for women in ministry. But to call them liberal is ridiculous and inaccurate.

But there is a large group of people who have made it very clear that we support the SBC, the conservative resurgance in the SBC and are solid, inerrantist, evangelist, flag-waving, hymn-singing, CP-giving, hand-over-our-hearts conservative Southern Baptists. We just think that Tom Hatley was wrong and that Paige Patterson has made some mistakes. We don't want to undo the CR. We just think it needs some tweaking.

But to this blogger, we are all secret servants of liberalism - wolves in sheeps clothing. He writes a series trying to spur discussion on the future of the SBC. Yet he begins the series with dishonest slander.

If you love the SBC, you need to engage in discussion, not caricature and derogation.

Forgiveness

Little Connie sat in my office, wanting to “ask Jesus into her heart.” I explained the entire story to her: God’s holiness, our sin, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and her need to trust Jesus as Savior and Lord. Then, I questioned her to see if she understood. “Connie, have you ever sinned?” “No.” I was a little shocked. I tried to explain sin to her again, thinking she must not be understanding me clearly. She stuck to her story. Little Connie wanted a Savior, but did not want to admit she needed one. She was blinded to her own sin.

Connie and I faced the amazing paradox of Christianity. Joy comes in the morning. We can only see the morning joys of salvation after the dark night of repentance. To be forgiven of sin, one must come face to face with the dark depravity of the soul.

And no one wants that. We like to rationalize our sinful attitudes and actions, justify them in the light of the actions of others or our circumstances, and enlist others to support us in our ungodliness. The last thing we ever want to do is turn on the light and see the filth.

That is a work of the Spirit in our hearts. He shines the light and makes us see ourselves for what we are. When Isaiah saw himself he cried, “Woe is me, I am undone.” It is never pleasant to see our human hearts as they really are. Not much fun.

In Psalm 130, the Psalmist says, “If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand?” He cried to God “out of the depths” of sin. He did not boast before God, he cried out for mercy. Each of us must come to that point of spiritual bankruptcy before we can experience the riches of God’s grace.

But here is the paradox: when I see my sin for all it is, when I am dismayed at my own wickedness, without excuse or justification, I receive the most amazing gift any human can receive – complete, wonderful, full, amazing forgiveness.

The Psalmist admitted that no one could stand before God’s record of sins, but then he realizes, “with you there is forgiveness.” In verse 7 he states that with God there is “unfailing love” and “full redemption.” When I took my sin to the Cross of Christ and laid it before him, I received grace. GRACE. God does not treat me on the basis of my sin. He relates to me “in Christ.”

It is hard to accept that. Human relationships are conditional, often temporary. It is hard to understand the awesome forgiveness of God. I still sin. I still fail my Savior, and I do it every day. But, GRACE! Amazing Grace! God’s forgiveness is more powerful than my own sin. He convicts me, restores me, renews me, and establishes me in his righteousness. Like the Psalmist, I have not only been redeemed, I have experienced “full redemption.”

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see.

Don’t be afraid to face yourself and your sin. In Christ, there is forgiveness and full redemption. That is why they call it Amazing Grace. .

Klouda Conclusion

The judge in the Klouda case has ruled, granting Dr. Patterson's (and that of SWBTS) summary judgment and tossing the case. A few observations:

1) This is probably an outcome all Christians should rejoice at - on constitutional grounds. The courts decided that they should not interfere in the internal workings of a religious institution. When they start interfering, we are all going to be in trouble. So, on a theoretical basis, this was a good outcome for religious freedom and ecclesiastical independence.

2) The judge's decision does not justify the actions of Dr. Patterson. Just because he had the RIGHT to terminate her professorship, that does not mean it was the right thing to do. That is a decision that I believe the convention will have to make. My point all along has been that things should not be run on the basis of one man's opinions, but on the basis of our shared statement of doctrine and practice.

The convention should decide issues like this, not individuals.

3) Dr. Klouda was an innocent victim in all this. Some say that she should not have filed a lawsuit, based on Paul's instructions to the Corinthians, and I am somewhat in agreement. However, she was a woman in full agreement with and practicing the BF&M 2000. She taught Hebrew (very well, as I understand it) and was not preaching in pulpits or anything like that. She was no feminist firebrand trying to change the seminary's point-of-view.

She got fired because there was a new president. One conservative president hired her and another terminated her teaching position. She did nothing wrong to deserve what happened to her.

4) The big point of debate in recent days has been the "fired/resigned" controversy. Each side called the other side liars (or pinheads) because of their viewpoints. Did Dr. Klouda resign from her position or was she terminated. After reading the judge's decision, I can answer that. Yes!

*She was "terminated" as a tenure-track professor of Hebrew. She was told that she would no longer be allowed to teach in the School of Theology. So, from that perspective, she was terminated. She was told in 2004 that she should find employment elsewhere, and would be given a reasonable time to do so. that can reasonably be called a termination.

*However, the judge was convinced that some sort of offer was made to her to continue at the seminary without a reduction in pay or benefits, but with a new job in the library, directing something called the "Writing Center." The judgment did not elaborate on what that meant. So, she was given an indefinite offer to continue employment at the seminary, but not in a teaching position.

*In 2006, she received a job at Taylor University (remember, she was told to seek employment elsewhere) and she took it. She resigned, but it could hardly be called a voluntary resignation. She was told to get another job and she did.

Did she resign? Yes. Was she terminated? Yes. I don't think this was an either/or.

5) The seminary and Dr. Patterson have been given the right to seek attorney's fees from Dr. Klouda. I hope they will choose not to do that.

6) There is a lot of anger and bitterness over this, among those who supported Dr. Klouda. There have been a few supporters of Dr. Patterson who have been unkind in their gloating. But there is much disappointment, distress, even anger among those who supported her. the anger and tension level now reminds me of the days of the conservative resurgence in the 80's.

7) So, I believe this may be a seminal moment in SBC history. In 1960, a professor at Midwestern wrote a commentary on Genesis, that once and for all proved that liberalism did, in fact, exist at our seminaries. Even though it took nearly 20 years, that was one of the seminal moments in the Conservative movement.

This may be a seminal moment in another split in the SBC, over women's issues. Is ministry restricted to men? Are men in leadership positions in their homes? Is teaching theology in a seminary something women are allowed to do according to scripture?

In the next 10 years, the SBC is going to have to refine its position, and if we stick with the complementarian, male headship viewpoint (which I believe is biblical) there will be a major (How major? I don't know) exodus of churches from the denomination.

8) This is a time for prayer for Dr. Klouda and graciousness toward those with whom we have disagreed.

The Crimson River

There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Immanuel’s vein.
And sinners plunged beneath that flood, lose all their guilty stain.

There is a Crimson River that flows from the heart of God to men and women all around the world. It flows by every person on earth, but only flows through those who repent of their sin and trust Jesus as Savior and Lord.

The Crimson River began as a single drop of blood that flowed down Jesus back as a Roman soldier brought down his cruel whip. With each lash another drop mixed with the first. These drops formed a trickle as the crown of thorns was driven deep into Jesus’ brow, as cruel fists struck his face, and his beard was pulled out. The trickle grew stronger as Jesus dragged the cross down the Via Dolorosa toward Golgotha. Then, as the soldiers drove nails through Jesus’ hands and feet, as they raised the cross high, as they dropped it into its hole, the trickle became a stream.

For six long hours, as Jesus hung between heaven and earth, between God and man, the Lamb of God dying for the sins of the world, the stream ran red and strong. Jesus suffered horrible pain and the stream flowed. He was ridiculed by passers-by, and the stream flowed. The sun grew dark as Jesus bore our sins, and therefore the full weight of God’s wrath against that sin – and still the stream flowed.

Then came the decisive moment. Having borne our sins and paid their full price, he rose up and uttered those fateful words. “It is finished.” At that moment, the stream became a river – a river of mercy and grace, a river of forgiveness, a life-giving, sin-forgiving, power-delivering, forever-living river of love flowing from the heart of God to all who would repent and believe.

The river flowed first to the throne of God, where Jesus sprinkled that blood of the heavenly mercy-seat, presenting his blood as the payment for our sins. Looking at the broken body of His Son and at the Crimson River flowing from the cross, the Father said, “It is enough. The debt is paid.” The blood of Christ purchased our eternal salvation and washed away our sins.

Then, the Crimson River began to flow across the earth. Deep if flowed, and wide. It flowed to a notorious criminal, hanging next to Christ. He was a wicked man, deserving of death and hell. But sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stain. He was caught up in the Crimson River and carried off, that day, to be with Jesus in Paradise.

The Crimson River flowed by a Roman soldier, a centurion, who gazed at the crucified Christ and exclaimed, “Surely this was the Son of God.”

The Crimson River flowed to 11 cowards, who had abandoned Jesus in his hour of need. It restored them to fellowship and joy. On the day of Pentecost it swept away 3000 people in its flood. It took them away from dead religion into a living relationship with Jesus Christ.

Some time later the River caught up an angry young man on his way to Damascus. He was determined to stop the River, to dam its flow, but the River swelled up and carried him away and through him has flowed to untold millions throughout history.

The River flowed to Timothy, Titus, Silas and Aristarchus. It caught up Clement and Iranaeus and Polycarp. It flowed to Eusebius and Athanasius and Augustine.

For many years it seemed that the River’s flow was dwindling away to nothing, but nothing can stop the flow of God’s grace. It flowed to a young man in Germany trying to figure out what had gone wrong with the church. It flowed from Luther to Calvin to Zwingli. Unstoppable, the flood ran through Wesley, Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards. It flowed through Charles Spurgeon and Hudson Taylor and Lottie Moon; through Jeremiah Lamphier and Evan Roberts and Duncan Campbell. It flowed to Billy Sunday and Billy Graham, and Chuck Swindoll and Chuck Smith.

It has flowed to millions of anonymous men and women in every country on earth. It flows to male and female, to rich and poor, to red and yellow, black and white. It flows in Africa and Asia and Europe and the Americas.

For 2000 years, the mighty torrent of God’s mercy and grace has flowed, immeasurable and unstoppable. Sometimes, it rages like a mighty flood, sometimes it slows to a trickle – but still it flows. When the flow is slowed, its critics crow that the River is gone for good, but nothing can stop the Crimson River.

Dictators have outlawed the Crimson River, but they cannot stop it. False religion has tried to pollute the stream with legalism and ritualism, but still the River flows. Communism tried, Humanism and the New Age still try to dam the River or divert its flow, but the Crimson River is a mighty flood. No matter the foe, it continues to flow from Immanuel’s vein, and sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stain.

In February of 1964, it flowed by Elder Lane NW in Cedar Rapids, and I was caught in it. It continues to flow all over the world today. In Korea and Kenya, Taiwan and Indonesia, the river flows. In Tanzania and the Philippines and England and Japan, men and women are being caught up in its flood. At the risk of their very lives, people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Morocco and Libya are jumping into the river to find the forgiveness of sins.

And, my friend, wherever you are today, that River flows. If you will turn from your sin and trust your life to Christ, you can be swept away in the flood tide of God’s grace. All over the world, the River flows. Has it flowed to you?

Have you been to Jesus for the Cleansing power?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in his grace this hour?
Are you washed in the blood of the lamb?
Are you washed, in the blood, in the soul-cleansing blood of the lamb?
Are your garments spotless?
Are they white as snow?
Are you washed in the blood of the lamb?

Satan's on Vacation

The Hebrew word "Satan" means adversary, or accuser. The role of Satan is to accuse the sons of God and bring condemnation on them in spite of the grace of God.

The Greek word "devil" comes from "diabolos" - "to throw through, to slander." It has the idea of skewering someone verbally.

I just got word that Satan decided to go on vacation. He said many of the Baptist bloggers are doing his job so well, he decided it was safe for him to go visit his summer home (Fenway Park).

We are doing such a good job accusing and slandering one another, Satan must have a lot of time on his hands.

(I know, I know - a theological fiction - but I think the point stands! And I am sure the part about Fenway is true.)

A Proposal for Conservative Bloggers

I have browsed a lot of the sites that deal with SBC Issues. Most of them are either personal, like this one, or represent a viewpoint (SBC Today or Outpost).

What I think we need is a site that would be a place for discussion of the issues. I know, that is what everyone says, just before the cream pies start flying through the air. But I would like to propose a site for CONSERVATIVE Southern Baptists to discuss the future of our denomination in a Christlike manner.

Here is what I propose.

1) A site for those who support the conservative direction of the SBC to discuss if there need to be changes made in some of the policies and practices of the SBC.

*This would not be a site for those who want to return to the days of the moderate SBC or for those who want to forge a "brave, new world" SBC that would abandon the theological underpinnings that have made us what we are.

*This would not be a site for mud-slingers on either side. We would invite anyone who wants to comment and any idea that needs to be broached. But we would be brutally intolerant of character assassination and mud-slinging. I could criticize Dr. Patterson's actions on that site, but the kind of virulent hatred of him that dominates certain bloggers would not be allowed. Someone might criticize what Wade Burleson says or does, but Wade-bashing would be verboten.

*Our goal would be to be the kind of site Frank Page thought SBC Outpost was going to be, before he withdrew his endorsement - a place for calm, Christlike, but direct discussion of the issues of the SBC.

2) The editors of the site would be chosen based on their blogging history. On the (for lack of a better term) "Baptist Identity" side, I would love to see men like Bart Barber or Robin Foster or SelahV (if she gave up the Red Sox). Those who seek reform within the context or the conservative movement could be represented by David Rogers, or a couple others I have seen who write about ideas and concerns, not about "Defendant Patterson."

3) We would adopt a very specific format. One of the editors would write a position piece, then submit it to the other editors. Someone else, who might disagree in some way, would write a "counterpoint" piece. Any one of the editors could throw a penalty flag if he thought there was anything that hinted at harsh rhetoric or personal attack. When the blog is ready, it would be posted.

We could even ask for guest editorials from SBC luminaries. Maybe, if we behaved ourselves, they would come and write for us.

4) A general discussion would ensue. The editors would delete any comments they felt that were in the nature of personal attacks or inflated rhetoric, regardless of whose side the rhetoric was on.

It is interesting, I have been a fan of reform for several years (way back to the days of Jim Henry's presidency). But I have never felt great kinship with some of the current reform leaders. I find I sometimes disagree with the writings of Tim Rogers or Bart Barber, but have found myself feeling more at home with the conservatives I disagree with than the reformers I agree with.

I guess I realized I am a Southern Baptist Conservative. I don't want to change that. But I do want to change a few things about Southern Baptist Conservatives and the way we relate. I would like to broaden our tent A LITTLE. I would really like to discuss those issues without all the New Baptist Covenant or Antioch Network distractions. Just one conservative Southern Baptist talking to another conservative Southern Baptist about the direction that conservative Southern Baptists need to go.

Does that seem like a good idea to anyone else?

(NOTE: I have discussed this with no one. None of the people I have mentioned above have signed on or even heard this idea. I am just floating an idea out here. )

Is It Possible?

I am wondering if what I desire for the future of the SBC is becoming impossible. My vision is for a convention that is firmly conservative: inerrantist and baptistic, but is also open within those limits. I want to be part of a convention that has the courage to take stands on those issues that matter, and the wisdom to realize that some issues aren't so important.

For years, I was growing dissatisfied with the leaders of the convention - feeling an aching sense that we were turning into an elder-ruled denomination, run by a powerful elite of former conservative leaders.

Then, the whole Wade Burleson thing broke. I was very hopeful that it would lead to good things, to the opening up of fellowship within the conservative parameters of the convention.

However, I am coming to believe that the reform movement in the SBC is moving in a direction I don't want to go. I have asked a question on Wade's site several times, and never received any answer at all. It is the fundamental question I have wanted to know since this thing broke.

"Is the reform movement attempting to reform conservatives, or to reinvolve moderates?" I had hoped and believed that the answer would be, "We are wanting to reform conservatives." However, the tone and tenor of the comment stream on Wade's site, and the blog direction of Outpost and other sites has led me to conclude that the more likely outcome is the attempt to undo the work of the conservative resurgence.

Look at those blogs. There is never a kind or encouraging word about anyone in leadership in the SBC (except Dr. Rankin - my hero), especially Dr. Patterson (not my favorite guy). But there is seldom anything but a kind and affirming word toward those who led the NBCC, regardless of the suspect theology and offensive statements many of them made. Moderates and liberals get praised. Conservatives are seen as the enemy. What is one to think?

Now, Wade is forming something called the Antioch Network. I don't know if it is a new denomination or a lobbying effort, or what. But while they have a reasonable doctrinal statement, they do not even require immersion baptism (and a SBTS prof who asked about that was given a pretty curt reply). So, whatever they are going to be, it appears it is not going to be a Baptist thing.

That is their right, if they so desire. But it is not what I want. I want to see change in the SBC, not another breakoff group like the CBF.

So, I remain where I was. I am unable to support the continued narrowing of fellowship being done by some of our leaders. But, I am increasingly disappointed with the reform movement. It seems to be in the process of becoming not a widening of the tent, but a demolition of the wall of orthodoxy. I hope I am wrong, but that is the impression I am getting.

So, I can't join the unabashed SBC cheering section that supports everything our current leaders do (and treats reformers with venom). But I no longer feel comfortable with the direction of the reform movement.

In 1979, I was at Houston to cast my vote for Dr. Adrian Rogers as President of the SBC. It was my first real act as an active Southern Baptist (I was a seminary student at the time). It was historic, and a moment I cherish.

Where is there an Adrian Rogers today, who will stand and speak out, who will say, "Let us never compromise anything that shouldn't be compromised, and let us never separate over anything silly?"

My hope and prayer is that God will raise him up!

The Problem with One-Hour Worship

From time to time through my years in Cedar Rapids, there was one man who would drop hints that he thought perhaps my sermons were a bit long and that if we would keep our services a bit shorter, we might attract more people into our fellowship. I catch a lot of grief about the length of my sermons (about 10-15 minutes shorter than my dad's, but still in the 40-45 minute range). Most of it is in the category of good-natured ribbing. This man was serious.

When he said that, I always gave him sermon 108b. It usually stopped him from saying anything for a year or two after that. I know, I am mean.

Here, in summary, is sermon 108b. One huge problem in American churches is the length of our worship services. There is simply not enough time in the typical American worship service to perform half of the true worship we are supposed to perform. The one-hour worship service may grow churches, but it destroys Christianity.

I am convinced that a biblical worship service would take somewhere in the neighborhood of at least 2 to 2 1/2 hours. Minimum. Look at biblical worship. It was many things. It was never brief. It was a day, or a half-day. At least, it was hours.

There is, I believe, a pattern to biblical worship. Psalm 100 tells us to "enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise." A worship service needs to begin with a time of praise. I am not talking about a short praise chorus, but a SEASON of praise. There was little I liked about the church we attended in Dallas, but we had a music team that would lead us in 15 or 20 minutes of uninterrupted singing to God. But I think this time should be interrrupted. People should interrupt reading scriptures of praise and voicing their praise and thanksgiving to God.

When you stare into the light of God, the first thing that you become aware of is the dirt of sin. The next part of the service should be a time of confession. This would generally be a quiet time of confession of sin, but also a time when those who come under conviction could voice their own need for forgiveness. Confession might offend man but it pleases God and the confession of sin would be part of true, biblical worship.

When you have entered into a spirit of praise and spent time confessing sin, then the heart is prepared to worship. Worship begins at this point. This is when you begin to introduce the theme of the day. Evidently, the public reading of scripture was very much a part of early Christian worship. Then, perhaps, the pastor would bring the message, taking time to exposit a passage of scripture and apply it to the lives of those who hear. With hearts properly prepared, the hearers would be cut deep by the Word and the Spirit could do his work in their hearts.

After the sermon there would be a time of response. No, not just an invitation hymn. A time of response. We would sit in silence, or perhaps singing appropriate songs to reinforce the purpose of the sermon, we would respond to the Spirit as He applies the word to our hearts. We would give him time!

There is one more aspect of this that I haven't even mentioned. In the early church, evidently everyone participated in the worship. It wasn't just the pastor and the musicians performing and everyone else being spectators, it was everyone having a part. This would necessitate smaller churches or at least dividing up into smaller groups.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26, Pauls says, "When you come togther, each on has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation." Yes, some of these things are a little strange to us today, but the fact remains - people came to church expecting to take part, not to be spectators.

When you add this all up, it is hard to see how you can do it all in an hour, or an hour and 15 minutes.

So, we can keep shortening worship services, but we cannot expect to experience the full glory of God in discounted services.