(Note: this will be the first part in a series on Christians and divorce. It will be posted at both this blog and my devotional blog)
Once, the evangelical church spoke with a united voice on issues related to divorce. Those who divorced were sinners and were largely marginalized, sometimes shunned. They were certainly not permitted roles of influence in the church. Divorcees were not pastors, elders or deacons. Then, a (not so) funny thing happened. Divorce swept through our nation and churches were filled with people who had been divorced. In addition to that, Christianity in America developed a man-centered, therapeutic attitude. Gradually, divorced people took more and more significant places in the church. And now, we have much bigger issues. Denominations today are fighting over whether to allow unrepentant homosexuals into pulpits. Divorce seems like a much less crucial issue.
American Christians have often been led more by their culture than by the scriptures. When Southern culture approved and defended slavery, so did Southern Christians. As the feminist agenda took hold of our national mindset, women in pulpits became more common. As homosexuality has become more acceptable in culture, it has become more acceptable to Christians.
We are called to be biblical and our first responsibility is to God and His Word. If what the scripture teaches is offensive to culture, we must offend. But as we must let scripture confront what is culturally popular, we must also allow scripture to confront our personal and denominational traditions. We like to assume that our traditions are firmly based on scripture, but many may not be. So our goal is to look at the biblical evidence and live by that, even if we find ourselves in conflict with cultural norms or church traditions.
You will have to continue reading to get my full view on divorce. But this I will say now. I believe that many Christians have wrongly let our cultural norms dictate biblical interpretation. But I also believe that the traditional church teaching on divorce was also based on cultural norms and church traditions more than it was based on the Bible.
So, in this study, we will set forth some preliminary concerns, then we will look at every passage in the Bible that deals with the subject of divorce. We will look for answers to several questions. Is divorce always a sin? Can a divorced person remarry? What positions of service can a divorced person hold in the church?
We will seek biblical answers. I know that some who read this will certainly disagree with my position. I will argue that my position is soundly based in the proper interpretation of scripture and that it is the view that is most faithful to the intent of the Word of God. I will argue that those who disagree are misinterpreting scripture and arguing more from traditional bias than from biblical truth. I believe that the position I am advocating here is the one that bests fits all the scriptural pieces together.
But I do not question the faith, biblical integrity or love for our Lord of those who disagree. I can disagree with someone’s position on this issue without calling their love for Jesus or for the Word into question. I can say I think your position is wrong without saying I think you are wrong. So, I am going to argue forcefully for the position I believe, but do not break faith with those who hold to a different position.
In fact, the church I serve as pastor has an official position opposite mine. I have told them what I believe and why I believe it. Several men thought my position was a signal of compromise and could not accept it. Several stated unequivocally that they would leave the church if my position was adopted. I think the official position of my church is wrong. Yet, I still serve that church with joy. I will continue to try to convince them that my position is biblical and I assume they will continue to advocate for their position. But, as we study this, we can have uninterrupted fellowship and I can abide by a church policy I don’t agree with.
Defining the Sides
There are just about as many positions on divorce as there are teachers on the subject. I am going to try to categorize the views, but it is actually more of a continuum. Each of the major positions has subtle variants. The danger of simplifying is always over-simplifying. I believe that there are three major positions on divorce that modern evangelicals have fallen into.
The “Compassionate” View
Divorce is traumatic – it rips apart homes and families, devastates lives and brings heartache to all. There is really no such thing as an easy divorce. You hear celebrities sometimes talk about a “friendly” divorce. In reality, those are very rare.
The advocates of this position are primarily concerned with ministering to the divorced and helping them. Of course, all of us must do that. Advocates of every position believe in ministering to divorced people and their families.
What is unique about this position is that the church refuses to hold divorced people to any standard at all. One of the most prominent pastors in my denomination, a man with a national television ministry, was divorced by his wife. There have been no allegations of adultery on either side. This man had advocated for years that divorced men should not serve as pastors. When he was divorced, evidently his position changed. He continues to serve as pastor of that megachurch
Churches do not want to seem judgmental or exclusionary. That is a heinous sin in our culture. So, these churches welcome the divorced without judgment. They are permitted to serve in any and every position in the church without distinction. Biblical mandates have taken a back seat to therapeutic concerns. We don’t want to harm people’s self-esteem by confronting them with sin.
The positive side of this view is its compassion for those whom life has damaged. Every viewpoint should include the desire to minister to and make welcome those who have gone through the trauma of divorce. The doors of the church must be wide open to the divorced.
But we who love the Word cannot so easily dismiss its teachings. We cannot just pretend the Bible does not hold up the standard of “till-death-do-us-part” marriage. We cannot ignore the warnings of our Savior that those who divorce and remarry contrary to scripture are adulterers. Those commands have not been abrogated and we have no right to act as if they are not in God’s Word. Our position must be biblical. It must uphold scripture, not compromise it.
The “Prohibitionist” View
“We have to uphold the biblical standard of marriage.” That is what I have heard almost every time I have advocated my position. I agree with that. But the assumption behind this statement is that the Bible advocates a strict prohibition on divorce, on remarriage after divorce and on service in the church.
To the proponents of this position, the clear teaching of scripture is that all divorce is sin. Most make an exception for adultery, but some do not even grant that. Because all divorce is sin, remarriage after divorce is adultery. Since adultery is sin, those living in adulterous relationships are not eligible to serve in positions of responsibility in the church. Pastor, elder, deacon; these and other leadership positions would not available to those who have been divorced. Some make exceptions for those who were divorced before they were saved, figuring that what a person did before salvation should not be held against them afterward. Those who hold this position are often still reluctant to allow the divorced to serve in key church positions.
On the positive side, proponents of this view have a high view of scripture and are willing to stand by scripture even if it offends culture. This is admirable. If their position is biblical then their stand is noble.
My problem, though, is that I do not believe that the Bible teaches the position they are advocating. I think that position is based on church and cultural traditions. So, if the proponents of this position are not upholding the standard of scripture, they are enforcing a legalistic, extra-biblical position on divorced people. They are excluding them contrary to the revealed will of God. If their position is biblical, it is noble. If it is not biblical, it is cruel. So, the question is simple: is the prohibitionist position biblical or not? That is the focus of this study.
The “Redemptive” View
This is the position that I will advocate. I reject the Compassionate view because it does not uphold biblical standards. I reject the Prohibitionist view because I think it enforces a standard that goes beyond that which is taught in scripture. It is legalistic and cruel. In fact, I believe that the Prohibitionist view is a denial of the redemptive power of Christ. I know that such is not the intent of anyone who advocates that view, but I believe that it is the effect.
The redemptive view is based on the transforming power of Jesus Christ and the Cross. This view upholds the biblical standard of lifelong marriage and recognizes that divorce is the result of sin on the part of one or both partners. What this view refuses to do is put divorcees into a special category of sin.
Jesus came to forgive sin and redeem sinners. A murderer can be forgiven and redeemed. An adulterer can have his sin washed white as snow. So can a thief, a drug addict, a prostitute, even a homosexual. In the same way, those who are divorced are forgiven and redeemed by the power of Christ.
Leadership in the church is a matter of character and integrity. Those who lead the church must have spiritual integrity in their walk with Christ and must have demonstrated character to the church and community in their public walk. We are all sinners, though that sin takes different forms. God is working to conform us to the image of Christ. Those who lead the church are those who are farthest in the process of Christlikeness.
What matters is not what I did 20 years ago, but what I am today. Maybe, 20 years ago I was a drug dealer. But today I am walking with Christ and people can see what I am. Maybe, 20 years ago I robbed a bank. I did my time, got right with God and began to grow. If I have demonstrated that I am a new man in Christ, and have reliable character, I can be a leader in God’s church.
Why is divorce any different? If I am in the middle of a divorce, I am probably not ready to be a pastor, elder or deacon in the church, even if I am the “innocent” party in the divorce. But if I was divorced 25 years ago, remarried, and have been a faithful husband to my wife for all these years, should that divorce forever eliminate me from service.
I believe that blanket elimination of a person who has been divorced from service in the church is a denial of the redemptive power of Christ. Jesus came to redeem sinners and to make them like Christ. To continually throw a sin of the past in the face of someone who has repented and has been renewed in Christ is, to me, a heinous thing.
Once again, if the biblical evidence supports the Prohibitionist viewpoint, then my view is weak and compromising. If Paul, when he told Timothy that leaders must be “the husband of one wife” meant “never divorced”, then my view is wrong. That is why we need to inductively study scripture.
Toward a Biblical View
The Biblical position strikes a balance between the opposing sides of prohibitionism and compassion. We must take into account both God’s terrible holiness, and His gracious forgiveness in view of the sinfulness of man. It must stress both the sanctity of marriage in God’s eyes, and the harsh reality of life in a sinful, fallen world. It must stress forgiveness and restoration to divorced people, just as is true for people guilty of other sins. To find the biblical position on divorce and remarriage issues, we must:
1. Approach the scriptures open-mindedly. We all have the tendency to believe what we’ve always been taught, without looking at our views critically, to see if they are consistent with scripture. The person who desires to know God’s mind must always come to the word with a pure heart and an open mind, leaving prejudices and preconceived ideas behind. WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT WE FIND OUT WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT DIVORCE, NOT THAT WE PROVE THAT WHAT WE SAY IS RIGHT.
2. Look at all the scriptural evidence. We cannot just rely on those verses which support our cherished positions. That is how we so often argue scripture. I marshal several texts which support my position, then deny or ignore the texts you have marshaled to support yours. For a view to be biblical, it must fit every scriptural text into the view without denying or doing hermeneutical violence to any position.
3. Look at each scripture in its context. The context of a passage will never change the meaning of a verse, but it will clarify the meaning. Each text must be studies on its own, faithfully understanding it in context. Then, we seek to put all the verses together into a unified and consistent whole. If the Bible is God’s Word, then every verse’s clear meaning will fit together into a totality that is logical and consistent.
Methodology of This Study
In this study, we will look at the biblical evidence on divorce in its entirety. We will look at the Old Testament evidence, then the words of Jesus himself, and then the evidence from the New Testament Epistles. Each section will have summary statements, and at the end, there will be an overall summary. The issue of remarriage will be dealt with in a separate summary at the end of the stud, though it will also be mentioned in dealing with the separate verses.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The Bible and Divorce
(Note: this will be the first part in a series on Christians and divorce. It will be posted at both this blog and my SBC-related blog)
Once, the evangelical church spoke with a united voice on issues related to divorce. Those who divorced were sinners and were largely marginalized, sometimes shunned. They were certainly not permitted roles of influence in the church. Divorcees were not pastors, elders or deacons.
Then, a (not so) funny thing happened. Divorce swept through our nation and churches were filled with people who had been divorced. In addition to that, Christianity in America developed a man-centered, therapeutic attitude. Gradually, divorced people took more and more significant places in the church. And now, we have much bigger issues. Denominations today are fighting over whether to allow unrepentant homosexuals into pulpits. Divorce seems like a much less crucial issue.
American Christians have often been led more by their culture than by the scriptures. When Southern culture approved and defended slavery, so did Southern Christians. As the feminist agenda took hold of our national mindset, women in pulpits became more common. As homosexuality has become more acceptable in culture, it has become more acceptable to Christians.
We are called to be biblical and our first responsibility is to God and His Word. If what the scripture teaches is offensive to culture, we must offend. But as we must let scripture confront what is culturally popular, we must also allow scripture to confront our personal and denominational traditions. We like to assume that our traditions are firmly based on scripture, but many may not be. So our goal is to look at the biblical evidence and live by that, even if we find ourselves in conflict with cultural norms or church traditions.
You will have to continue reading to get my full view on divorce. But this I will say now. I believe that many Christians have wrongly let our cultural norms dictate biblical interpretation. But I also believe that the traditional church teaching on divorce was also based on cultural norms and church traditions more than it was based on the Bible.
So, in this study, we will set forth some preliminary concerns, then we will look at every passage in the Bible that deals with the subject of divorce. We will look for answers to several questions. Is divorce always a sin? Can a divorced person remarry? What positions of service can a divorced person hold in the church?
We will seek biblical answers. I know that some who read this will certainly disagree with my position. I will argue that my position is soundly based in the proper interpretation of scripture and that it is the view that is most faithful to the intent of the Word of God. I will argue that those who disagree are misinterpreting scripture and arguing more from traditional bias than from biblical truth. I believe that the position I am advocating here is the one that bests fits all the scriptural pieces together.
But I do not question the faith, biblical integrity or love for our Lord of those who disagree. I can disagree with someone’s position on this issue without calling their love for Jesus or for the Word into question. I can say I think your position is wrong without saying I think you are wrong. So, I am going to argue forcefully for the position I believe, but do not break faith with those who hold to a different position.
In fact, the church I serve as pastor has an official position opposite mine. I have told them what I believe and why I believe it. Several men thought my position was a signal of compromise and could not accept it. Several stated unequivocally that they would leave the church if my position was adopted. I think the official position of my church is wrong. Yet, I still serve that church with joy. I will continue to try to convince them that my position is biblical and I assume they will continue to advocate for their position. But, as we study this, we can have uninterrupted fellowship and I can abide by a church policy I don’t agree with.
Defining the Sides
There are just about as many positions on divorce as there are teachers on the subject. I am going to try to categorize the views, but it is actually more of a continuum. Each of the major positions has subtle variants. The danger of simplifying is always over-simplifying. I believe that there are three major positions on divorce that modern evangelicals have fallen into.
The “Compassionate” View
Divorce is traumatic – it rips apart homes and families, devastates lives and brings heartache to all. There is really no such thing as an easy divorce. You hear celebrities sometimes talk about a “friendly” divorce. In reality, those are very rare.
The advocates of this position are primarily concerned with ministering to the divorced and helping them. Of course, all of us must do that. Advocates of every position believe in ministering to divorced people and their families.
What is unique about this position is that the church refuses to hold divorced people to any standard at all. One of the most prominent pastors in my denomination, a man with a national television ministry, was divorced by his wife. There have been no allegations of adultery on either side. This man had advocated for years that divorced men should not serve as pastors. When he was divorced, evidently his position changed. He continues to serve as pastor of that megachurch
Churches do not want to seem judgmental or exclusionary. That is a heinous sin in our culture. So, these churches welcome the divorced without judgment. They are permitted to serve in any and every position in the church without distinction. Biblical mandates have taken a back seat to therapeutic concerns. We don’t want to harm people’s self-esteem by confronting them with sin.
The positive side of this view is its compassion for those whom life has damaged. Every viewpoint should include the desire to minister to and make welcome those who have gone through the trauma of divorce. The doors of the church must be wide open to the divorced.
But we who love the Word cannot so easily dismiss its teachings. We cannot just pretend the Bible does not hold up the standard of “till-death-do-us-part” marriage. We cannot ignore the warnings of our Savior that those who divorce and remarry contrary to scripture are adulterers. Those commands have not been abrogated and we have no right to act as if they are not in God’s Word. Our position must be biblical. It must uphold scripture, not compromise it.
The “Prohibitionist” View
“We have to uphold the biblical standard of marriage.” That is what I have heard almost every time I have advocated my position. I agree with that. But the assumption behind this statement is that the Bible advocates a strict prohibition on divorce, on remarriage after divorce and on service in the church.
To the proponents of this position, the clear teaching of scripture is that all divorce is sin. Most make an exception for adultery, but some do not even grant that. Because all divorce is sin, remarriage after divorce is adultery. Since adultery is sin, those living in adulterous relationships are not eligible to serve in positions of responsibility in the church. Pastor, elder, deacon; these and other leadership positions would not available to those who have been divorced.
Some make exceptions for those who were divorced before they were saved, figuring that what a person did before salvation should not be held against them afterward. Those who hold this position are often still reluctant to allow the divorced to serve in key church positions.
On the positive side, proponents of this view have a high view of scripture and are willing to stand by scripture even if it offends culture. This is admirable. If their position is biblical then their stand is noble.
My problem, though, is that I do not believe that the Bible teaches the position they are advocating. I think that position is based on church and cultural traditions. So, if the proponents of this position are not upholding the standard of scripture, they are enforcing a legalistic, extra-biblical position on divorced people. They are excluding them contrary to the revealed will of God. If their position is biblical, it is noble. If it is not biblical, it is cruel.
So, the question is simple: is the prohibitionist position biblical or not? That is the focus of this study.
The “Redemptive” View
This is the position that I will advocate. I reject the Compassionate view because it does not uphold biblical standards. I reject the Prohibitionist view because I think it enforces a standard that goes beyond that which is taught in scripture. It is legalistic and cruel. In fact, I believe that the Prohibitionist view is a denial of the redemptive power of Christ. I know that such is not the intent of anyone who advocates that view, but I believe that it is the effect.
The redemptive view is based on the transforming power of Jesus Christ and the Cross. This view upholds the biblical standard of lifelong marriage and recognizes that divorce is the result of sin on the part of one or both partners. What this view refuses to do is put divorcees into a special category of sin.
Jesus came to forgive sin and redeem sinners. A murderer can be forgiven and redeemed. An adulterer can have his sin washed white as snow. So can a thief, a drug addict, a prostitute, even a homosexual. In the same way, those who are divorced are forgiven and redeemed by the power of Christ.
Leadership in the church is a matter of character and integrity. Those who lead the church must have spiritual integrity in their walk with Christ and must have demonstrated character to the church and community in their public walk. We are all sinners, though that sin takes different forms. God is working to conform us to the image of Christ. Those who lead the church are those who are farthest in the process of Christlikeness.
What matters is not what I did 20 years ago, but what I am today. Maybe, 20 years ago I was a drug dealer. But today I am walking with Christ and people can see what I am. Maybe, 20 years ago I robbed a bank. I did my time, got right with God and began to grow. If I have demonstrated that I am a new man in Christ, and have reliable character, I can be a leader in God’s church.
Why is divorce any different? If I am in the middle of a divorce, I am probably not ready to be a pastor, elder or deacon in the church, even if I am the “innocent” party in the divorce. But if I was divorced 25 years ago, remarried, and have been a faithful husband to my wife for all these years, should that divorce forever eliminate me from service.
I believe that blanket elimination of a person who has been divorced from service in the church is a denial of the redemptive power of Christ. Jesus came to redeem sinners and to make them like Christ. To continually throw a sin of the past in the face of someone who has repented and has been renewed in Christ is, to me, a heinous thing.
Once again, if the biblical evidence supports the Prohibitionist viewpoint, then my view is weak and compromising. If Paul, when he told Timothy that leaders must be “the husband of one wife” meant “never divorced”, then my view is wrong. That is why we need to inductively study scripture.
Toward a Biblical View
The Biblical position strikes a balance between the opposing sides of prohibitionism and compassion. We must take into account both God’s terrible holiness, and His gracious forgiveness in view of the sinfulness of man. It must stress both the sanctity of marriage in God’s eyes, and the harsh reality of life in a sinful, fallen world. It must stress forgiveness and restoration to divorced people, just as is true for people guilty of other sins. To find the biblical position on divorce and remarriage issues, we must:
1. Approach the scriptures open-mindedly. We all have the tendency to believe what we’ve always been taught, without looking at our views critically, to see if they are consistent with scripture. The person who desires to know God’s mind must always come to the word with a pure heart and an open mind, leaving prejudices and preconceived ideas behind. WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT WE FIND OUT WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT DIVORCE, NOT THAT WE PROVE THAT WHAT WE SAY IS RIGHT.
2. Look at all the scriptural evidence. We cannot just rely on those verses which support our cherished positions. That is how we so often argue scripture. I marshal several texts which support my position, then deny or ignore the texts you have marshaled to support yours. For a view to be biblical, it must fit every scriptural text into the view without denying or doing hermeneutical violence to any position.
3. Look at each scripture in its context. The context of a passage will never change the meaning of a verse, but it will clarify the meaning. Each text must be studies on its own, faithfully understanding it in context. Then, we seek to put all the verses together into a unified and consistent whole. If the Bible is God’s Word, then every verse’s clear meaning will fit together into a totality that is logical and consistent.
Methodology of This Study
In this study, we will look at the biblical evidence on divorce in its entirety. We will look at the Old Testament evidence, then the words of Jesus himself, and then the evidence from the New Testament Epistles. Each section will have summary statements, and at the end, there will be an overall summary. The issue of remarriage will be dealt with in a separate summary at the end of the stud, though it will also be mentioned in dealing with the separate verses.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Two Personal Items
Item One: Septic Solution!
Back in the fall, I posted an item about a personal "impossible situation." (http://pastordavesbc.blogspot.com/2007/12/impossible-situation.html) The drain field on our septic system had collapsed, and there seemed to be no legal solutions. I mentioned that we had no idea how it would be solved. Our well is in the back yard, and the drain field has to be over 100 feet from the well. Our yard is 85 feet wide, meaning we could not use our yard. We talked to the Assembly of God next door, and the man who owned the cornfield behind us. Neither was willing to sell land or host our drain field. We were told that we could not put the drain field in the front yard because there was not enough room there either.
One of the men in our church had a pump which we hooked up to a hose and pumped our "liquids" out into a corner of our back yard. Trust me, when the wind was right, our back yard was aromatic - not in a nice way. Of course, the grass grew well this spring!
I stated that the situation looked impossible, but that we believed God would give a solution. He did.
In late April, my wife asked for prayer about this in her Sunday School class. (Pumping our waste into the back yard bothered her for some reason - women are odd that way.) One of the ladies told her that they knew someone who could help. We got in touch with him and he came over. He found a solution. There was just enough room in the front yard, so he put in a lift station and put the drain field in the front yard.
When we got back from the wedding in New York, we had a new drain field. We were disappointed in one thing. I offered Ben to the man instead of payment for the drain field (the solution was legal, successful and very expensive) but he said he already had an 18-year-old and didn't need another.
We are grateful for a solution to this problem! Thank for for all who cared and prayed for us. It is probably the only time many of you ever prayed for a septic system, right?
Item Two: My Hobby
Everyone needs a hobby, right? I have one that I want to share with you. I hope that my hobby will become a national movement. If it does, all our lives will be improved.
Do you, like me, get piles and piles of credit card solicitations? I got more and more annoyed with the appeals, until I had a break-through thought. In each of these solicitations is a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.
So, whenever I get a credit-card solicitation, I just write "please throw away your own trash" on the letter and then send it all back to them - mailing envelope and all. Stuff it all in the self-addressed envelope and stick it in the mailbox.
There is one problem. When you do this, the credit card companies get miffed and stop sending you solicitations. Poor sports. I got two while I was gone to the wedding and they are the first I have had in months. They are packaged and ready for mailing.
There are advantages to this hobby.
1) It costs you nothing. How many peope bankrupt themselves with boats, golf, macrame or whatever. This costs nothing and brings such joy.
2) It cannot be addictive, like some hobbies. If you are faithful to mail back your credit card solicitations, they will stop very quickly. The people at Capitol One are the slowest to get the message, but they eventually get it. Then, you have to find a new hobby.
3) It is good for the environment. Most of these big companies have recycling programs, so they will recycle your mail. Also, they will then stop sending the solicitations to you, and that will help the environment.
I should call this "Save the Environment with Dave's Soliciation Send-back."
4) This hobby gives you a deep sense that you are "sticking it to the man!"
By the way, this works almost as well with those annoying solicitations that fall out of your magazines when you open them. Send them back blank!
One Warning: this will NOT work with credit card BILLS. Only solicitations. If you wad up your credit card bill and resend it, you will be the one who suffers. (I only included this warning because of my fear that Cedar Rapids Bohemies might read this).
Join the movement. Save the environment.
It just feels good to know you are making a difference!
Back in the fall, I posted an item about a personal "impossible situation." (http://pastordavesbc.blogspot.com/2007/12/impossible-situation.html) The drain field on our septic system had collapsed, and there seemed to be no legal solutions. I mentioned that we had no idea how it would be solved. Our well is in the back yard, and the drain field has to be over 100 feet from the well. Our yard is 85 feet wide, meaning we could not use our yard. We talked to the Assembly of God next door, and the man who owned the cornfield behind us. Neither was willing to sell land or host our drain field. We were told that we could not put the drain field in the front yard because there was not enough room there either.
One of the men in our church had a pump which we hooked up to a hose and pumped our "liquids" out into a corner of our back yard. Trust me, when the wind was right, our back yard was aromatic - not in a nice way. Of course, the grass grew well this spring!
I stated that the situation looked impossible, but that we believed God would give a solution. He did.
In late April, my wife asked for prayer about this in her Sunday School class. (Pumping our waste into the back yard bothered her for some reason - women are odd that way.) One of the ladies told her that they knew someone who could help. We got in touch with him and he came over. He found a solution. There was just enough room in the front yard, so he put in a lift station and put the drain field in the front yard.
When we got back from the wedding in New York, we had a new drain field. We were disappointed in one thing. I offered Ben to the man instead of payment for the drain field (the solution was legal, successful and very expensive) but he said he already had an 18-year-old and didn't need another.
We are grateful for a solution to this problem! Thank for for all who cared and prayed for us. It is probably the only time many of you ever prayed for a septic system, right?
Item Two: My Hobby
Everyone needs a hobby, right? I have one that I want to share with you. I hope that my hobby will become a national movement. If it does, all our lives will be improved.
Do you, like me, get piles and piles of credit card solicitations? I got more and more annoyed with the appeals, until I had a break-through thought. In each of these solicitations is a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.
So, whenever I get a credit-card solicitation, I just write "please throw away your own trash" on the letter and then send it all back to them - mailing envelope and all. Stuff it all in the self-addressed envelope and stick it in the mailbox.
There is one problem. When you do this, the credit card companies get miffed and stop sending you solicitations. Poor sports. I got two while I was gone to the wedding and they are the first I have had in months. They are packaged and ready for mailing.
There are advantages to this hobby.
1) It costs you nothing. How many peope bankrupt themselves with boats, golf, macrame or whatever. This costs nothing and brings such joy.
2) It cannot be addictive, like some hobbies. If you are faithful to mail back your credit card solicitations, they will stop very quickly. The people at Capitol One are the slowest to get the message, but they eventually get it. Then, you have to find a new hobby.
3) It is good for the environment. Most of these big companies have recycling programs, so they will recycle your mail. Also, they will then stop sending the solicitations to you, and that will help the environment.
I should call this "Save the Environment with Dave's Soliciation Send-back."
4) This hobby gives you a deep sense that you are "sticking it to the man!"
By the way, this works almost as well with those annoying solicitations that fall out of your magazines when you open them. Send them back blank!
One Warning: this will NOT work with credit card BILLS. Only solicitations. If you wad up your credit card bill and resend it, you will be the one who suffers. (I only included this warning because of my fear that Cedar Rapids Bohemies might read this).
Join the movement. Save the environment.
It just feels good to know you are making a difference!
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Ding, Dong, the Blogs Are Dead
I am feeling betrayed and abandoned. I was introduced into the blog world reading Wade Burleson's screeds against the IMB Bot's. After a long time, I got tired of that mess, and went on a quest to find some other blogs to read.
I stumbled across a small group of bloggers sometimes called the "Baptist Identity" bloggers. I dubbed them the Baptist Bluster Brigade. They march in lock step, always blogging about the same subjects, always agreeing with one another and affirming the brilliance of each other's posts, and ALWAYS attacking anyone who disagreed as a closet liberal or an agent of "Enid." It didn't take me long to decide that wasn't my cup of tea.
So, I went searching again, and I found some intelligent, intriguing blogs. I found Bart Barber, who agrees with the BI folks in some things, but does so with intelligence and insight. He also engages in discussion when someone disagrees. He has written some great junk. Unfortunately, he has not been blogging. He thinks it is okay for him to DO MINISTRY instead of writing stuff for me to read. Imagine that!
I also found Nathan Finn and his blog, "The Fullness of Times." It was, in my opinion, the best I found. He has a unique insight into SBC issues. His series on the questions students ask him was powerful. He has convinced me to steer my son toward Southeastern Seminary. And now he has had the nerve to put his teaching duties ahead of his blogging duties. AAARRGGHH!
It seems like the good bloggers have better things to do. The purveyors of insipidity and drivel seem to have plenty of time to blog, but those who have something to say either have a better place to say it or don't have the time to write.
I can't believe these guys are putting their ministries ahead of my blog-reading. Very selfish. What is a guy to do to waste time?
The Yankees aren't playing that well. I need some blogs!!!
I stumbled across a small group of bloggers sometimes called the "Baptist Identity" bloggers. I dubbed them the Baptist Bluster Brigade. They march in lock step, always blogging about the same subjects, always agreeing with one another and affirming the brilliance of each other's posts, and ALWAYS attacking anyone who disagreed as a closet liberal or an agent of "Enid." It didn't take me long to decide that wasn't my cup of tea.
So, I went searching again, and I found some intelligent, intriguing blogs. I found Bart Barber, who agrees with the BI folks in some things, but does so with intelligence and insight. He also engages in discussion when someone disagrees. He has written some great junk. Unfortunately, he has not been blogging. He thinks it is okay for him to DO MINISTRY instead of writing stuff for me to read. Imagine that!
I also found Nathan Finn and his blog, "The Fullness of Times." It was, in my opinion, the best I found. He has a unique insight into SBC issues. His series on the questions students ask him was powerful. He has convinced me to steer my son toward Southeastern Seminary. And now he has had the nerve to put his teaching duties ahead of his blogging duties. AAARRGGHH!
It seems like the good bloggers have better things to do. The purveyors of insipidity and drivel seem to have plenty of time to blog, but those who have something to say either have a better place to say it or don't have the time to write.
I can't believe these guys are putting their ministries ahead of my blog-reading. Very selfish. What is a guy to do to waste time?
The Yankees aren't playing that well. I need some blogs!!!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Where Southern Baptists Shine!
When you read SBC blogs, you hear relentless stream of negativism about the future of the SBC. Some cynics say we need to develop an "exit strategy." One mega-commenter relentlessly bashes the SBC and questions the intelligence of anyone who does not share her viewpoint. Statistics have shown that we are declining numerically and a cursory examination of blogs shows that we are severely divided.
But in New Orleans and Cedar Rapids, Southern Baptists shine. Our disaster relief efforts are amazing. In my hometown, Cedar Rapids, the flood wreaked devastation. Now, Southern Baptists are there helping to rebuild the city. The church I grew up in, and the other SBC church, the one I pastored for over 14 years, are housing disaster relief teams which are involved in mud-out and will be replaced by rebuilding teams.
Last week, I was in New Orleans working with "Operation Noah" an SBC-led program to rebuild that devastated city. Operation Noah is doing what the government and social agencies could not do - put people back in their homes. It is an amazing ministry.
Yes, we Southern Baptists have our problems. There are some things I don't like. But I am glad to be a part of an organization that is there when people need us.
But in New Orleans and Cedar Rapids, Southern Baptists shine. Our disaster relief efforts are amazing. In my hometown, Cedar Rapids, the flood wreaked devastation. Now, Southern Baptists are there helping to rebuild the city. The church I grew up in, and the other SBC church, the one I pastored for over 14 years, are housing disaster relief teams which are involved in mud-out and will be replaced by rebuilding teams.
Last week, I was in New Orleans working with "Operation Noah" an SBC-led program to rebuild that devastated city. Operation Noah is doing what the government and social agencies could not do - put people back in their homes. It is an amazing ministry.
Yes, we Southern Baptists have our problems. There are some things I don't like. But I am glad to be a part of an organization that is there when people need us.
When the Flood Comes
I spent last week in New Orleans hanging drywall - and am once again thankful that God called me to preach. We had a great time. I actually enjoy hanging drywall, but I have no idea why.
On Thursday, the contractor who is overseeing the project we worked on stopped by for an inspection. I also had a conversation with an electrical contractor. They told me some things that shocked me (actually, I guess they didn't shock me as much as they saddened me).
I remarked to the electrical contractor how shocked I was at the devatation remaining in New Orleans three years after the flood. He said that NO would never recover until people stopped stealing the money given to rebuild. FEMA gave grants to people to rebuild their homes and some spent them on new cars and big-screen TV's. Others were taken to the cleaners by scam artists posing as contractors. Having blown their money, or had it taken from them, they are now looking for volunteers to rebuild their homes. The other contractor told me that whenever an inspector comes by, you fold up a 50-dollar bill in your hand and shake hands with him. No money, no inspection. This is the way things have always been in New Orleans. Corruption. Graft. Hedonism. Wickedness. Its the "Big Easy" way.
Here's my point. I knew about the graft and corruption. It has been chronicled often. But last week, I saw the results of the New Orleans way.
You see, who you are before the flood determines how you respond when the flood comes.
New Orleans lived the "good life." Fun. Party! Let the good times roll. But when the flood came, they did not have the personal resources to respond. Even when they were given generous settlements, they could not rebuild their lives. The corruption ate away their resolve and self-control. When the flood came, their spiritual bankruptcy was exposed.
Those who know Jesus Christ and walk with Him are often surprised when their lives are blown apart, because they find a source of strength they did not know they had. The sustaining grace of Jesus Christ lifts them up and empowers them to go on.
It is one of many reasons to walk with Jesus. Someday, somewhere, somehow, the flood will find you. It happens to all of us at one point or another. If you are walking in the flesh, living for yourself, seeking the things of the world, you may not have the spiritual resources.
Walking with Christ does not necessarily protect you from the flood. But it gives you the sustaining grace you need to go through it.
(NOTE: what I wrote above is a generalization. I believe it is generally true. It is certainly NOT true of every person in New Orleans. There are good, honest, hard-working people in that city.)
On Thursday, the contractor who is overseeing the project we worked on stopped by for an inspection. I also had a conversation with an electrical contractor. They told me some things that shocked me (actually, I guess they didn't shock me as much as they saddened me).
I remarked to the electrical contractor how shocked I was at the devatation remaining in New Orleans three years after the flood. He said that NO would never recover until people stopped stealing the money given to rebuild. FEMA gave grants to people to rebuild their homes and some spent them on new cars and big-screen TV's. Others were taken to the cleaners by scam artists posing as contractors. Having blown their money, or had it taken from them, they are now looking for volunteers to rebuild their homes. The other contractor told me that whenever an inspector comes by, you fold up a 50-dollar bill in your hand and shake hands with him. No money, no inspection. This is the way things have always been in New Orleans. Corruption. Graft. Hedonism. Wickedness. Its the "Big Easy" way.
Here's my point. I knew about the graft and corruption. It has been chronicled often. But last week, I saw the results of the New Orleans way.
You see, who you are before the flood determines how you respond when the flood comes.
New Orleans lived the "good life." Fun. Party! Let the good times roll. But when the flood came, they did not have the personal resources to respond. Even when they were given generous settlements, they could not rebuild their lives. The corruption ate away their resolve and self-control. When the flood came, their spiritual bankruptcy was exposed.
Those who know Jesus Christ and walk with Him are often surprised when their lives are blown apart, because they find a source of strength they did not know they had. The sustaining grace of Jesus Christ lifts them up and empowers them to go on.
It is one of many reasons to walk with Jesus. Someday, somewhere, somehow, the flood will find you. It happens to all of us at one point or another. If you are walking in the flesh, living for yourself, seeking the things of the world, you may not have the spiritual resources.
Walking with Christ does not necessarily protect you from the flood. But it gives you the sustaining grace you need to go through it.
(NOTE: what I wrote above is a generalization. I believe it is generally true. It is certainly NOT true of every person in New Orleans. There are good, honest, hard-working people in that city.)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
New Orleans Bound
Jenni and I are in Licking, Missouri (yes, that is the actual name), a tiny little town in the middle of nowhere. In the early morning, we will pick up our new youth pastor and his wife (she had a family wedding in what I guess must be suburban Licking). We will join the rest of our mission team and go to New Orleans to work on homes destroyed in Katrina.
It seems odd to be going to NO, when there is so much trouble in our own state. Maybe later in the summer we will pack our tools and head to CR.
Pray for me. I am not in a good place physically right now.
It seems odd to be going to NO, when there is so much trouble in our own state. Maybe later in the summer we will pack our tools and head to CR.
Pray for me. I am not in a good place physically right now.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
When Bad Things Happen...in Cedar Rapids
I grew up in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and was a pastor there for nearly 15 years before moving to Sioux City. Last week, my hometown was devastated by a flood. Flood stage is 12 feet. The Great Flood of 1993 crested at 19 feet. This one topped out at nearly 32 feet. That is not much short of double the depth of the "Great Flood." The city is destroyed and no one knows when it will recover.
Some of my oldest friends lost their home of 30 years. Another close friend lost his business. A good friend's church will have to be torn down. The disruption is hard to imagine. I can only guess that as the filthy water settles, disease will spread with it.
Why? Why does God let things like this happen? I pulled this out of the archives of my old email ministry and offer it as an important reflection for friends in need.
In a prayer service at a previous church I served, I asked the people to share a moment when God demonstrated his love for them. One man shared an amazing story from WWII, in which he probably should have been killed, but was not. Others began to tell stories of near death experiences and other situations from which God delivered them.
As someone who once was rescued unconscious from a swimming pool, I am grateful for God’s providential care. He does demonstrate his love by protecting us. But what about the folks who do not receive the positive outcome? What about our dear friends who buried their precious daughter? They prayed for her. Did God not love them? What about our friend Bill Hyde, killed by terrorists? Did God look away for a second? Does an undesired outcome mean that God does not love me as much as those who get what they pray for?
In Acts 12, two of Jesus’ disciples were arrested for preaching the gospel. But the outcomes were very different. We all know the story of Peter’s rescue from jail. The church was praying, and God threw open the doors of Herod’s jail and brought Peter out. He went to the prayer meeting and knocked on the door. When the servant girl told the church that Peter was at the door, they thought she was crazy. When they opened the door and found that the story was real, they rejoiced. God had worked in mighty power to save Peter.
But the chapter begins with a story with a very different outcome. James, the brother of John, also got arrested. But for him their was no miraculous salvation. For him there were no open jail doors, or prayer meeting celebration. For James, there was only the sword.
Why? Why did God rescue Peter and let James die? Was Peter a more vibrant Christian? Did God love him more? Was God mad at James? Did James not have enough faith? There is no evidence that any of these things was true. God loved James and Peter so much he shed the blood of Jesus Christ for both of them.
Why? We will never know. Maybe in Heaven God will let us know. Maybe not. I suspect that even in our glorified state we will have trouble understanding God’s sovereign plan. God works by a playbook that is his alone.
But this much is clear. We cannot read the outcome of our lives and determine the love of God. God always works out his sovereign plan based on his love for us. He is working all things for the good of those who love him. His love is seen in the Cross, in his constant presence in our lives, and in his promise of heavenly glory, not in the outcomes of life’s trials. Sometimes he rescues us in miraculous ways. Sometimes he lets us taste Herod’s sword.
His love is not seen in the outcome of our circumstances, but in his constant presence with us no matter what happens. Our job is to trust him and to walk with him, whether we walk with him through the jail doors to freedom, or to face Herod’s sword.
Some of my oldest friends lost their home of 30 years. Another close friend lost his business. A good friend's church will have to be torn down. The disruption is hard to imagine. I can only guess that as the filthy water settles, disease will spread with it.
Why? Why does God let things like this happen? I pulled this out of the archives of my old email ministry and offer it as an important reflection for friends in need.
In a prayer service at a previous church I served, I asked the people to share a moment when God demonstrated his love for them. One man shared an amazing story from WWII, in which he probably should have been killed, but was not. Others began to tell stories of near death experiences and other situations from which God delivered them.
As someone who once was rescued unconscious from a swimming pool, I am grateful for God’s providential care. He does demonstrate his love by protecting us. But what about the folks who do not receive the positive outcome? What about our dear friends who buried their precious daughter? They prayed for her. Did God not love them? What about our friend Bill Hyde, killed by terrorists? Did God look away for a second? Does an undesired outcome mean that God does not love me as much as those who get what they pray for?
In Acts 12, two of Jesus’ disciples were arrested for preaching the gospel. But the outcomes were very different. We all know the story of Peter’s rescue from jail. The church was praying, and God threw open the doors of Herod’s jail and brought Peter out. He went to the prayer meeting and knocked on the door. When the servant girl told the church that Peter was at the door, they thought she was crazy. When they opened the door and found that the story was real, they rejoiced. God had worked in mighty power to save Peter.
But the chapter begins with a story with a very different outcome. James, the brother of John, also got arrested. But for him their was no miraculous salvation. For him there were no open jail doors, or prayer meeting celebration. For James, there was only the sword.
Why? Why did God rescue Peter and let James die? Was Peter a more vibrant Christian? Did God love him more? Was God mad at James? Did James not have enough faith? There is no evidence that any of these things was true. God loved James and Peter so much he shed the blood of Jesus Christ for both of them.
Why? We will never know. Maybe in Heaven God will let us know. Maybe not. I suspect that even in our glorified state we will have trouble understanding God’s sovereign plan. God works by a playbook that is his alone.
But this much is clear. We cannot read the outcome of our lives and determine the love of God. God always works out his sovereign plan based on his love for us. He is working all things for the good of those who love him. His love is seen in the Cross, in his constant presence in our lives, and in his promise of heavenly glory, not in the outcomes of life’s trials. Sometimes he rescues us in miraculous ways. Sometimes he lets us taste Herod’s sword.
His love is not seen in the outcome of our circumstances, but in his constant presence with us no matter what happens. Our job is to trust him and to walk with him, whether we walk with him through the jail doors to freedom, or to face Herod’s sword.
What in God's Name are We Doing to Our Children?
(If you read this and comment, please don't think I am ignoring you. I am headed to New Orleans for a week of disaster relief. I don't know how much internet access I will have.)
(I was reading Bart Barber's current post on biblical literacy, and it put me in mind of this, my very first blog ever. So, I pulled it out of the mothballs and edited it.)
Everyone is concerned about the effect that our culture is having on children. Violence, immorality and perversion fill the airwaves. The family is breaking down, our schools are a mess; the moral foundations of our nation are crumbling. What is going to happen to our children and grandchildren as they grow up in this moral cesspool?
But I have a more serious concern today. I am bothered by the effects of a pagan society on the next generation, but I am more concerned about what the church of Jesus Christ is doing to our children. A prominent church developed a children’s ministry center. The designer had worked for Disney and built a visual wonderland to amaze and attract. In the hopes that many children would come to Christ, the church put in a baptistery; one especially designed for children. It was shaped like a fire truck and equipped with a confetti canon that would fire every time a child was baptized. I need to clarify something here.
The preceding paragraph is NOT fiction. I have talked to people who have been there. The facts are verified and undenied. What that church did may be extreme, but it is indicative of what is going on in children’s ministries across America. Children’s ministries are competing with fast-paced children’s television programs and exciting video games. So, we compete. If Disney can entertain our children, we will do it better. We will out-Hollywood Hollywood and out-rock-and-roll the music industry.
This is all done with the most noble of motives. The bright lights of our culture attract children, so we use the bright lights to attract them to Christ. If the kids watch TV, let’s give them VeggieTales. If they are going to play games, they might as well have a Christian theme. Their music might as well have vaguely Christian words. Whatever we have to do to get them into the church and keep them there, we will do.
But there may be a problem with all this. I am afraid that in our noble desire to make the church more palatable and entertaining, we are in danger of raising a generation which has no concept of what Christianity really is. My generation is narcissistic and self-indulgent. What will this generation of entertainment-jaded youth be when it is all grown up?
Jesus described the very nature of Christianity. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” Paul told the Philippians, “It has been granted to you on behalf of Jesus not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.” Jesus promised his disciples that in this world, they would have tribulation.
We work very hard to make the church experience fun, exciting and entertaining. We cater to children. But following Jesus is self-denial, not entertainment. We are called to serve him; not just to enjoy him. How are kids going to learn this lesson if children spend their lives being catered to and entertained? When is the last time an American child was asked to sacrifice for cause of Christ?
For several years I led a ministry at my former church called Bible Drill. It is hard work. Every week I had a dozen or so wonderful Christian fourth through sixth graders in my office whining about Bible Drill. “This isn’t fun. Can we go outside?” Every week I gave them the same response. “Nothing of real value in life is fun. The things that really matter require hard work, sacrifice and faithfulness.” The message never seemed to get through. These kids were not juvenile delinquents. These were good kids – church kids. In fact, one of them went home with me at the end of the evening. But they had an idea ingrained into their pre-adolescent minds. Church is supposed to be fun. If it isn’t fun, they shouldn’t have to do it. Where would they have gotten such an idea?
I am raising an issue for which I do not have an answer. I do not want to make church dull. Howard Hendricks said that it is a sin to bore people with the Word of God. I agree. I see no real problem with using technology to create interest. But I do think that we have to be careful not to let kids grow up in the church enjoying the show without being challenged to sacrifice for the cause. Jesus did not say, “If anyone – except the children – would come after me...” We cannot give children a watered down gospel or ignore the call of Christ to sacrificial living.
In our effort to keep kids coming to church, have we compromised the reason why they should come? Is the goal to get them into the church or to see them passionately devoted to the Savior?
Anyone remember Pinocchio? Wasn’t it the carnival that led him into bondage?
(I was reading Bart Barber's current post on biblical literacy, and it put me in mind of this, my very first blog ever. So, I pulled it out of the mothballs and edited it.)
Everyone is concerned about the effect that our culture is having on children. Violence, immorality and perversion fill the airwaves. The family is breaking down, our schools are a mess; the moral foundations of our nation are crumbling. What is going to happen to our children and grandchildren as they grow up in this moral cesspool?
But I have a more serious concern today. I am bothered by the effects of a pagan society on the next generation, but I am more concerned about what the church of Jesus Christ is doing to our children. A prominent church developed a children’s ministry center. The designer had worked for Disney and built a visual wonderland to amaze and attract. In the hopes that many children would come to Christ, the church put in a baptistery; one especially designed for children. It was shaped like a fire truck and equipped with a confetti canon that would fire every time a child was baptized. I need to clarify something here.
The preceding paragraph is NOT fiction. I have talked to people who have been there. The facts are verified and undenied. What that church did may be extreme, but it is indicative of what is going on in children’s ministries across America. Children’s ministries are competing with fast-paced children’s television programs and exciting video games. So, we compete. If Disney can entertain our children, we will do it better. We will out-Hollywood Hollywood and out-rock-and-roll the music industry.
This is all done with the most noble of motives. The bright lights of our culture attract children, so we use the bright lights to attract them to Christ. If the kids watch TV, let’s give them VeggieTales. If they are going to play games, they might as well have a Christian theme. Their music might as well have vaguely Christian words. Whatever we have to do to get them into the church and keep them there, we will do.
But there may be a problem with all this. I am afraid that in our noble desire to make the church more palatable and entertaining, we are in danger of raising a generation which has no concept of what Christianity really is. My generation is narcissistic and self-indulgent. What will this generation of entertainment-jaded youth be when it is all grown up?
Jesus described the very nature of Christianity. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” Paul told the Philippians, “It has been granted to you on behalf of Jesus not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.” Jesus promised his disciples that in this world, they would have tribulation.
We work very hard to make the church experience fun, exciting and entertaining. We cater to children. But following Jesus is self-denial, not entertainment. We are called to serve him; not just to enjoy him. How are kids going to learn this lesson if children spend their lives being catered to and entertained? When is the last time an American child was asked to sacrifice for cause of Christ?
For several years I led a ministry at my former church called Bible Drill. It is hard work. Every week I had a dozen or so wonderful Christian fourth through sixth graders in my office whining about Bible Drill. “This isn’t fun. Can we go outside?” Every week I gave them the same response. “Nothing of real value in life is fun. The things that really matter require hard work, sacrifice and faithfulness.” The message never seemed to get through. These kids were not juvenile delinquents. These were good kids – church kids. In fact, one of them went home with me at the end of the evening. But they had an idea ingrained into their pre-adolescent minds. Church is supposed to be fun. If it isn’t fun, they shouldn’t have to do it. Where would they have gotten such an idea?
I am raising an issue for which I do not have an answer. I do not want to make church dull. Howard Hendricks said that it is a sin to bore people with the Word of God. I agree. I see no real problem with using technology to create interest. But I do think that we have to be careful not to let kids grow up in the church enjoying the show without being challenged to sacrifice for the cause. Jesus did not say, “If anyone – except the children – would come after me...” We cannot give children a watered down gospel or ignore the call of Christ to sacrificial living.
In our effort to keep kids coming to church, have we compromised the reason why they should come? Is the goal to get them into the church or to see them passionately devoted to the Savior?
Anyone remember Pinocchio? Wasn’t it the carnival that led him into bondage?
Friday, June 06, 2008
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.
(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.
Monday, June 02, 2008
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?
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?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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)
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)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
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?
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?
Saturday, May 03, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
