Guardian Ministries

Was Isaiah a Southern Baptist?

2009-05-27T20:37:00.000-05:00

Was Isaiah a Southern Baptist? The obvious answer is no. But a better question is: would he be welcomed as a Southern Baptist leader? Or would he be marginalized as old school; out of touch; and the reason our churches aren’t growing? I get the impression from some pastors, bloggers and church growth authors that many would feel uneasy about Isaiah as a leader in the SBC. His messages were two negative, his lifestyle was counter-cultural, he didn’t speak about love enough, and he wasn’t a “statesman.”

While some eschew the prophetic voice, I would assert that it is the loss of the prophetic voice that is the problem. When I was a YOUNG Southern Baptist, it was the prophetic voice, which inspired me to repent of my sins and follow hard after God. What was it that energized the convention when Bailey Smith, Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, and W.A. Criswell spoke? The prophetic voice!

If I had a dollar for every time I heard “We don’t need to be known for what we stand against, we need to be known for what we stand for” than I would give a small fortune to Lottie this Christmas. Yes, we are to be known for what we stand for but we are ALSO to be known for what we stand against!!!

We are known for being one of the first emergency responders during natural disasters (at times more numerous than the American Red Cross). We are known for financing the greatest missionary force ever. We are known as “people of the book.” But we are also known for standing against the ills of society. We are known for standing against homosexuality, we are known for opposing the consumption of ethanol, barbiturates or other mind-altering drugs for the purpose of neurological pleasure, we are known for our stance against abortion. And I ask: Is this a problem?

It seems to me some would have us look and sound more like Oprah Winfrey than the Apostle Paul: that the ideal pastor is one who cusses or imbibes of alcohol; that he models his dress after the world and dances around sin. Yes, we are to love those who are in sin, however, refusing to boldly call sin sin is not love.

When we quote John 3:16 let us not forget John 3:19. We would be wise to remember that Romans 1 lays the foundation for Romans 6:23. May we never forget that the following verses are quick and powerful and INSPIRED: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” Now lest anyone think I am on some sort of crusade against homosexuality, I am not. In fact, gossip has split far more churches than homosexuality ever will.

What I am saying is: when we give a lost person the book of Romans let’s not apologize for chapter 1. Let’s not even insinuate to the world that we are somehow embarrassed by any part of the Word of God. Let’s proclaim it in all of its glory and power and life. Let the prophetic voice ring loud and clear in the pulpits of our churches again!!! A person in sin should feel uncomfortable in our church services…there should be a conviction of sin when one is in the presence of God.

The early church grew not because she looked like her culture but precisely because she didn’t; and she was persecuted for it. Perhaps our problem in the SBC (and evangelicalism as a whole) is not the prophetic voice but rather the loss of it.

Living Flower

2009-05-26T22:12:00.001-05:00

I am one who believes in giving flowers while someone is living. I have officiated many funerals and too often have shared things about individuals at funerals that I should have shared while they were living.

My wife is truly an incredible woman and I want the world to know of her virtue while she lives - she is an example to all and a testimony to her Lord. Thus, I share with the world the incredible woman who is my wife. There is not enough time nor words to express all she is, so I will try and be concise.

Perhaps there is no greater pain in the life of a mother than the loss of a child. And when we lost Jace Matthew in her womb she was the supreme example of faith and trust. While I struggled and still have dark times, she, through her tears and pain, taught me faith. She held on to Jesus and His Word with a tenacity that pit-bulls would admire. She not only had faith for herself but she gave faith to her husband.

I love my wife very much: I love both who she is and what she does.

I love what she does
As mother and as wife
I love how she offers
To others of her life
I love the gifts given
And the sacrifices made
I love her devotion
That never seems to fade

I love who she is
her heart and her soul
I love every part
That makes up the whole

I love her but I also admire her. Take the word of a man who lives with her, if ever there was a woman who is an example of Christian character, my wife is she.

Well, hopefully everyone who reads this will have another HERO in this Shadowland. And another example of Christian virtue, a testimony not shared at her funeral but told so others may see a living flower now.

The Hulk or Batman?

2009-05-24T15:20:00.004-05:00

The Hulk or Batman? Which superhero describes you when it comes to the environment? The Hulk is Big and Green. Batman has all sorts of gas-guzzling vehicles, which makes his responsibilities easier to accomplish. In the past 6 months Fox News has carried quite a few articles on global warming. Two that I found interesting are here and here. Both imply that global warming is not taking place to the degree some claim. Further, this article here implies even if it is, it is not the result of man’s actions.

Now before I am stoned with GREEN tomatoes let me be clear. I believe man has a God-given responsibility to care for our Creator’s creation. However, I do not believe the solution is to be found in the philosophy of Big and Green. In other words, I do not believe the government implementing policy on the environment is going to do much, other than expand government (BIG) in the name of GREEN. I am not much on expanding government.

EPA regulations seem to cost more than they are worth, and honestly I have been taxed enough. This past week our President mandated more governmental regulations on automobiles. Now our vehicles will cost more as government grows. The Hulk is getting bigger. And the sad part: the HULK usually left a mess in the name of Green.

I guess you could say I am more of a Batman when it comes to the environment. While Batman never littered he also didn’t let “global-warming hysteria” limit him in fulfilling his responsibilities.

Which superhero are you?

Storms

2009-05-20T06:21:00.001-05:00

I have always been amazed by the sheer force of storms. The destruction that is left from the path of a tornado or the devastation from the force of a Hurricane. Storms have a way of destroying and devastating everything in their paths. Storms of life are no different.

Have you ever been abused or raped? Have you ever lost a loved one? A child? A parent? A sibling? A Spouse? Oh, the destructive pain of storms: the way they peel away the layers of protection around our souls; leaving our hearts vulnerable, broken and bleeding.

What hope do we cling to when we go through a storm? What do you say to someone going through one. We usually have no clue what God is doing in our lives through the storm. In fact, most storms I have been through have produced more questions than answers. So what are we to say when “bad things happen to good people.”

Honestly, I don’t know, sure I understand theological answers to the question of evil: 1) God has in view a larger picture than my world; 2) God will use physical suffering to bring about spiritual healing; 3) What seems bad may actually be for my benefit (a Tetanus shot seems bad but is beneficial); 4) We live in a sin infected world; etc. But honestly, I can’t say specifically WHY God allowed a certain trial, but two truths I know. And they both come from the storms Jesus went through.

The first we see in Matt 8 where a storm had brewed upon the Sea of Galilee. The disciples and Jesus were in a boat and Jesus was asleep. The storm was so intense that these seasoned fishermen were scared for their lives. They woke Jesus who proceeded to speak the words: “PEACE BE STILL” and the storm stopped. Miraculously, JESUS stopped the STORM. Truth 1 – Jesus can stop it.

And yet, in Matt 14 the disciples were out at sea again, this time without Jesus and a storm was brewing (vs. 24). And they saw what they thought to be a Ghost, but it was Jesus walking on water. Peter, spoke these words “Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you.” And so it was and Peter began walking on the water to Jesus. Then he took his eyes off Jesus and looked at the storm and began to sink. What happens next is most interesting. Notice what Jesus didn’t do. Jesus didn’t stop the storm, instead he reached out and pulled Peter up and walked with him through the storm. Truth 2 – Jesus will walk with us through the storm.

The obvious question arises: Why does God stop storms some days but not others? Why do some Christians live in luxury and others in poverty? Why are some healed and others are not? Why? I don’t know, other than to say – He is a good GOD!!! By Faith we Trust that!!!

Like everyone I have faced Storms and my Jesus has never let me down. NEVER. He can be trusted. Jesus cannot lie…He cannot do wrong…He cannot be evil. He is good and whether he miraculously stops our trial or walks with us through it – He will NEVER EVER LEAVE US. Hold on to Jesus – there will be times He is all you have and He will Always be all you need.

The True Prosperity Gospel

2009-05-15T17:59:00.003-05:00

“Health, Wealth, Fame and Pleasure.” “Name it, Claim it.” “If you have enough faith God will heal you.”

We have heard the slogans and they call out to our hungering souls. Yet when we drink of this pseudo prosperity Gospel our thirst is starved. Nearly as dangerous as this pseudo gospel is the philosophy that God desires his children to live in misery. As Christians, we are tempted to polarize either toward ascetic masochism or the philosophy of physical merriment. Paradoxically, the true Gospel is one of prosperity: it fulfills our deepest desires, it fuels the flames of life, and satisfies the soul.

I have come to realize that sharing the gospel is as life giving as hearing the gospel. Living a gospel-centered life (God’s Perfect Will) is a life which FREES – a life which is LIFE – a life which is more than we can imagine. In dying we live. In emptying ourselves we are filled. In giving all we are, we receive more than we could desire.

Oh, the beauty of the paradox of the gospel-centered life.

At the bottom of a Philippian prison cell sat Paul and Silas. With mangled bodies and emotional torment they began to pray. Soon their spirits were raptured into the presence of the Ancient of Days. The joy of their spirits conquered the agony of their bodies and weariness of their souls. Before long they broke into a symphony of praise.

In the darkness of their trial Paul and Silas praised God. And their gospel-centered lives experienced LIFE. Their bonds were loosed – doors were opened - and morning was soon to dawn on a very dark night. As we live the gospel-centered life we are prosperous. And in our darkest hours, we can praise God for the coming morn.

While the pseudo prosperity gospel has nothing to offer those in trials, the true gospel ushers in the morning simply by praising God (James 1).

Morning has broken, like the first morning
Blackbird has spoken, like the first bird
Praise for the singing, praise for the morning
Praise for them springing, fresh from His Word
(Words by Eleanor Farjeon, made popular by Cat Stevens)

YOU LEGALIST: Name-Calling for Jesus

2009-05-13T19:52:00.003-05:00

When I was in college I was told that viewing R-rated movies was wrong: "true Christians wouldn’t do such." I had some gentle:) discussions and sadly used the denigratory term “legalists” to describe those with whom I disagreed. I was wrong to use ad hominem tactics: doing such dishonored God and hurt the kingdom. Regrettably, such ploys are utilized in our SB disagreements today. Some choose to use the terms “legalist” and “fundamentalist” in an errant and pejorative manner when referring to sincere brothers who view Scripture differently.

I believe cussing is sin (even from the pulpit), I believe using ethanol or barbiturates for pleasure is sin, and I believe sodomy, even within the marriage bed, is sin. I don’t believe these truths because I am Southern Baptist or a Fundamentalist or one who thinks salvation is found in following the law (Legalist). Rather, I believe the Bible teaches such.

However, when I proclaim that I believe the Bible teaches these things, there may be some who feel "free in Christ” to castigate me as a legalist and/or fundamentalist responsible for the current problems in the SBC. Such name-calling tactics do nothing to bring glory to God. Further, I contend it is not the disagreements we have in the SBC that turns off the younger generation, rather it is the unwholesome way some choose to disagree.

If I were to assume that it is impossible for me to be wrong concerning ethanol I would display both an ignorance of human depravity and the arrogance such ignorance seeds. And yet, at this point in my diligent study I feel the Bible teaches abstinence; thus I teach it, hopefully with both a pastoral gentleness and a faithfulness to Scripture. For those who disagree, and believe drinking ethanol for pleasure is permitted by Scripture, I would stipulate the same: to assume that it is impossible to be wrong on this issue displays both an ignorance and arrogance. And yet, even if one were to display such, I would hope it would be done while refraining from name-calling.

NOTE: For those interested in the issue of alcohol let me recommend Peter Lumpkins “Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence” to be released by Hannibal Books on June 1. I have read it and WOW. Or you may review the numerous posts on this site during July 2006 – some of which are here, here, and here. Concerning it being a tertiary issue please read my previous post "My Thoughts on the SBC."

While we may disagree on this or other hot topics, let us do so in Christian love and intellectual integrity.

Kudos to the GCR framers

2009-05-12T07:12:00.003-05:00

This morning the GCR has added a FAQ section (http://www.greatcommissionresurgence.com/faq/). Kudos to the the framers of the GCR. This is Helpful.

My Thoughts on the SBC

2009-05-09T11:56:00.026-05:00

I was asked by Tim Rogers to share my thoughts on the SBC. I am sincerely humbled by his request. My thoughts are inexhaustive, limited, and most likely erroneous because of my human frailty and subjective perspective. Nevertheless, I share.

Currently, I believe there are two competing views of who Southern Baptists (SB) are or should be. The first is ecumenical. It apparently desires to see SB as some Baptist-Charismatic-Presbyterian-culturally accepted hybrid. Those who hold this view would have few issues with SBC employees teaching a private prayer language to new converts or teaching 3 offices in the church (rather than the two specified in the BFM 2000) or teaching that the consumption of alcoholic beverages for recreational purposes is not inappropriate behavior for a follower of Christ.

The second view is distinctively SB. We who fall into this camp would struggle with giving up our distinctives in order to increase our numbers. We find it arduous, based upon the Great Commission (GC), to release even the tertiary teachings of Christ. We would assert that the GC doesn't end with leading others to Christ (something both camps affirm) but continues with "teaching them to observe ALL things I have commanded you” (not just the primary and secondary but also the tertiary). To distinguish between the primary, secondary and tertiary teachings of Christ and then to refuse to teach the tertiary seems difficult for many of us to swallow in lieu of the GC.

I acknowledge I seem to have conflated primary, secondary and tertiary "theological concepts" with primary, secondary and tertiary "teachings of Christ." However, I would contend that our theological concepts are teachings from Scripture and thus the teachings of Christ. I think we can agree that not all "theological concepts" are clear in Scripture (i.e. tribulation views). Yet, through certain resolutions and doctrinal confessions SB have consistently voiced what they believe to be teachings of Scripture, however tertiary they may be.

I further suspect many SB find themselves not so easily classified into either of these camps, nevertheless, I do believe these are the two diverging views. I am persuaded both camps share a genuine desire to reach the younger generation of SB who have been turned off both by the politics and the bureaucracy of the convention. I am even more confident all SB desire to see the lost reached for Christ.

I have encumbered myself to now explain how to reach a post post-modern generation of SB. I am of the opinion that they will not be brought in via another fight over what is and is not tertiary. I do believe, however they will be attracted to sincere (not pseudo) care for one another and a true passion for lost souls, as well as an opportunity to participate.

Thus, before restructuring our convention perhaps we might consider restructuring the convention schedule. I imagine a vast majority would receive having 2 hour slots for business, enthusiastically. Give us time to debate, discuss, amend and vote. Railroading turns off this generation. They seem to disdain the concept of the major decisions of the convention being decided by a select few before the convention begins. Let them have a voice on the convention floor. Further, I believe 2 to 3 hours of open-mic testimonies and prayer requests would be loudly applauded by this younger generation. They are into the REAL. A spontaneous heart-cry is heard much more acutely than a rehearsed performance. Give them opportunities to share of those whom they saw come to Christ this year, give them time to brag on Jesus, give them a chance to ask for prayer. Then listen as they break into spontaneous worship and praise of our God. Watch as they wrap each other in love. And join them as they glorify our God with the passion of youthfulness.

Finally, I assert that seeking unity amongst SB is more important than “change” but less important than doctrinal purity. Thus, I would love to see a movement, which focused on the unity that those of us who affirm the BFM2000 share. While “Toward a Great Commission Resurgence” is a well-written and well-received document, one need not read far on the signature page to realize there are Resurgent and SB leadership names missing. Hopefully, through phone calls and meetings this can be resolved; however, without some defining (at least privately) I fear many may struggle to sign it (see bpnews); and yet, if the defining is public, some may remove their names.

In light of this, I assert what is common knowledge: the Great Commission was not given to the SBC but to the local church. Thus, I believe a GC Resurgence will not begin in the halls of the convention center but in the hearts of local congregations. Therefore, I humbly submit some thoughts that might help unify our convention while solidifying a passion for the fulfillment of the Great Commission through our churches:

1. For both pastors and laity to purpose to pray daily for the salvation of lost souls, not just locally but globally (perhaps using a tool like www.operationworld.org).

2. For pastors and laity to pray for their neighbors and family members who may not know Christ. Asking God to open the door of opportunity to share the gospel of Christ.

3. For pastors and laity alike to become more purposeful in sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4. For pastors to continue to call out the Called.

5. For pastors and laity to give sacrificially to missions.

6. For ALL convention messengers to begin praying as to how our convention could be better structured to help the local churches fulfill the Great Commission. Asking questions like: How could the IMB/NAMB be better structured to help local churches organize mission trips? How could state conventions be encouraged to distribute even more funds to our missionaries and church plants? How could our seminaries and the IMB/NAMB help local churches train and send out missionaries where the missionaries are led by God to go, rather than where we tell them God is leading them to go? How could the IMB/NAMB better assist local churches in planting churches both locally and globally? Perhaps a committee could be appointed to explore such and bring recommendations for discussion (appointing a committee seems very Southern-Baptistic).

At some point we will need an open dialogue as to the future of SB. Does it entail a blurring of our distinctions? And if so, how blurred are we to become? If, in the future, the convention leaves me, so be it. But, for now, I would prefer unifying like-minded SB (those who affirm the BFM2000) before discussing a convergent hybridization with non-Baptists. In other words, I would opt to get our house in order before we invite others to dine with us.

May our Lord bless us as we seek His Glory.

***This article was written last week and published here Sunday night. Since that time the GCR has added a FAQ section which I am hopeful will unify us more. Kudos to the framers of the GCR.

I'm Back

2009-05-06T14:54:00.003-05:00

I will be back within the next week on some thoughts on the upcoming convention and other things which pertain to ministry and the kingdom of God.

Looking forward to blogging again:):):)

I have sorely missed you guys and gals:)

My Sincere Apologies

2007-07-25T20:15:00.000-05:00

I apologize to my fellow bloggers. I should have written much earlier to explain all that is happening at the Reynolds’ home. My life changed drastically in January, as my wife and I were blessed with the birth of Kelton on Dec. 29th. I am much busier, now that I have added the “father” hat to my closet. As far as obeying the great commandments of loving God and our neighbor, I believe my “neighbor” begins with my immediate family and thus my time for blogging was significantly diminished with the birth of Kelton.

Furthermore, on March 1 I accepted the pastorate of a church closer to the seminary. This church is a little larger than the one I pastored in Virginia and has added responsibilities.

I share this in order to say I do not have the time to blog as I used to and yet I ask your forgiveness for not sharing earlier with you (that was extremely insensitive on my part). I will begin blogging again on a part time basis (perhaps one post a week) but beg your patience as I may not be able to respond as quickly as possible to comments. I have missed the friendships and fellowship we share and look forward to building the Kingdom together.

With that in mind, I am changing gears a little on my blog. God was good to our convention this summer, and I fear that I fear when I ought not, moreover my desire since last fall was to begin moving this blog to a blog wherein we address issues, which student ministers can discuss. While we may address ministry issues in general, I would love for this to be a place for student ministry enhancement via mutual edification. Along those lines, I will begin a series on integrity in ministry soon. Integrity is especially vital to student ministers, for if we have learned anything from our youth, we have learned that they can spot a fake much quicker than many adults. Finally, let me take an opportunity to share about the new MDiv with student ministries that SEBTS is offering. Personally, I think this new degree will set the standard for student ministry training (but then again, perhaps I’m partial:)

BR

When Ministry is Difficult

2007-01-27T11:12:00.001-05:00

The following is a scenario for student pastors but it is applicable to all in ministry. Perhaps we can share how we would handle it and gain insight from each other as ministers. Perhaps you have had a similar incident and can share your wisdom with us. May iron sharpen iron.

Johny Redding, a junior in HS, arrives in your office on Wednesday afternoon. He has been saved for 5 months. He shares the following with you.

“Pastor ______, I recall you sharing in our student meetings on Sunday nights that God is in control of all things and that He sees all things and hears all things and knows all things; and that He is good.

As you know, my close friend Julie Bloom was raped and murdered two weeks ago. She was special to me; we were both baptized on the same Sunday. I am confident she was praying to God while she was being tortured and killed…so I know God heard and saw and yet did nothing!!!

Had I heard and seen, I would have stopped such evil. But He chose to do nothing while watching one of his daughters suffer and die. I am sorry but I can no longer serve a God like that, and I just wanted you to know, I will not be coming back.”

What do you say?
BR

A Quick Fulfillment to my Prediction

2007-01-26T09:41:00.000-05:00

It has been a busy week and I have not had the time to work on another post. However, I did reread my December 6th post, and was amazed at how quickly and accurately others have fulfilled my predictions. I have posted it again below. Enjoy

What to look for in a SB Blog Post

Last year a stir was created in the SBC over apparent Theological Issues. This summer this controversy was extended from Baptism/Tongues to Alcohol and even women pastors. At GuardianMinistries we are systematically addressing these issues and explaining why Southern Baptists have always stood where we stand today. Nevertheless, as more conversation takes place as to the validity of the historical position of SB on these issues, I imagine the ones who initiated this controversy will switch tactics.

I feel quite confident that when those generating the controversy realize they can’t win the theological debate they will begin a more subtle political maneuver of playing on individual’s emotions. However, this ploy will also fail, for Southern Baptists are smarter than that.

Nevertheless, the following is what I expect to see in the future:
1. Accusations or insinuations of a Pope or puppet-master in the SBC. These accusations or insinuations will have no merit other than the imaginations of conspiracy-theorists in our convention. However, the lack of merit will not stop some from making such attacks.
2. Emotional pleas for individuals who have been “apparently” mistreated or “left out”…and yet in reality the individuals will usually have brought their isolation on themselves (***the latter is not so much the case in some of the current discussions, hence the word I used was "usually"***).
3. Claims of “narrowing parameters” will be consistently made as a scare tactic to Calvinists and young pastors.
4. Emotional pleas to make the tent wider will be made.

With this in mind here are my suggestions for reading blogs:
1. If there are insinuations in a blog post that there is a pope or power-master in the SBC, ask yourself, “Did the blogger site any evidence WHATSOEVER or does he/she just expect us to trust their conspiracy theory?”
2. Did the blog post deal with any theological issue or was there some “tug” on people’s heart-strings for a certain political movement or personality in the SBC?
3. If there is a claim that SB are “narrowing parameters,” ask yourself, “if any evidence is given, or if this is a scare tactic born out of conspiracy-theorists?”
4. If you read a plea to make the tent wider, ask yourself, “at what cost to truth do we want peace?” Ecumenicalism is not evil and Christians should cooperate with other denominations, but there is a reason I am a Southern Baptists and I have no desire to lose our identity in order to pay Charismatics or Moderates to be our missionaries.

My hope is that all SB blogs will deal with the issues rather than personalities or conspiracy-theories. With that in mind we will soon begin our look into the issue of Baptism.

BR

Should our Seminaries be like the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond?

2007-01-22T20:59:00.000-05:00

Once again we shall tackle the issues that face the SBC. And once again we shall pursue truth, wherever it leads. It appears that the latest ploy in broadening our SBC tent is to cause our seminaries to be more like the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. Allow me to explain.

None of our seminaries have women teaching Biblical Studies, Theological Studies or Pastoral Ministry (the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond has women doing so). It appears that our seminaries have a rationale for such. The BFM2000 states: “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Apparently, our seminaries believe that if the office of the pastor is limited to men, then those who teach men how to pastor should be men. Further, there appears to be an assumption that Biblical and Theological Studies are a vital part of pastoral training.

Since the CBF has no statement of gender qualification concerning the office of the pastor it is very reasonable that women would teach Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministries; which is what we find at BTSR.

I say, “let the CBF teach as they so desire, but please don’t ask our SBC to buy into CBF policies.” It appears that is exactly what some bloggers would have us do. I stated, long ago, the uproar in the SBC has more to do with broadening the tent, than some imagined narrowing that is supposedly taking place. Surely, the latest blog frenzy has demonstrated the validity of my statement.

I am grateful for the leadership of all six of our seminary Presidents in this area.

Why one President was singled out, when his actions are in step with the other five, is a question only those who singled him out can answer. But to a bystander, it certainly appears far more political than theological.

Some have valiantly argued that Dr. Patterson’s view, that a woman should not teach a man the Scriptures in the local church, was the genesis for not recommending tenure to a very qualified Hebrew Scholar. However, their efforts in maligning him in such a way flies directly in the face of the clear statement which Dr. Klouda herself claims Dr. Patterson shared with her: “He essentially said that his perspective and understanding in this regard was that in the teaching role in the school of theology, where we’re training pastors, those teachers should also be qualified to be pastors. Therefore, those teachers should be men,”

In other words, he felt men should teach men about pastoring and Biblical Studies is a large part of pastoral training.

Godly Southern Baptists certainly disagree on numerous issues, and women teaching men the Scriptures in the local church is one of those issues. However, for me, this issue is not essential to who we are as SB (BFM). Perhaps that is why the BFM2000 committee did not choose to make a statement either way (for or against women teaching men in the local church) and yet they did make a statement excluding women pastors. (By the way, it goes without saying that women sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with lost persons is not the same as women teaching men the Scriptures in the local church).

Our seminaries (all 6 of them) apparently take the statement excluding women pastors and apply it to those who teach pastors how to pastor. This appears to be the root of the action at SWBTS, not an individual’s belief concerning women teaching men in the local church.

This also explains why our seminaries are different than BTSR in this area, for the seminary in Richmond has no problem with women pastors. Perhaps, some of my blogging brothers believe women can teach men how to be pastors without compromising the integrity of the BFM2000…however, when they continually find themselves on the same side of issues as the CBF, one wonders how broad they want our tent to be.

While I feel women teaching men in the church is not an essential doctrinal issue, I will gladly share my perspective. I confess I find myself in concert with John Calvin and John Gill on this issue (two of my favorite commentators). I further confess that I do not believe that functional submission lessens one’s essence, for Christ submitted Himself to the Father and yet maintained His essential equality.

Let me share, up front, that there are numerous things I wish God had not stated (a confession of both the limitation of the human mind as well as the rebellion of the human will). And yet, when God gave His Word He did not ask my opinion or approval. His Word stands no matter what I think.

Personally, I think women usually study and teach better than men. But that has no bearing on what Scripture says. Further, I think women are stronger than men in many, if not most, ways. I also believe men and women were created equal in essence (Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28). Further, I think the main problem in most churches is not that women desire to teach men, but rather that there are few Godly men to be found. In fact, I have found that most problems in marriages and in churches have more to do with men not fulfilling their roles of loving their wives and leading their families than women usurping anything.

Nevertheless, I believe Scripture teaches women are to submit themselves to their husbands in their functional role within marriage (Ephesians 5:22-35) and I further believe Paul extends women’s functional submission, established at creation, to exclude them from teaching men in the local church. This is the clear reading of 1 Timothy 2:12.

In fact, I think one will be hard-pressed to find a conservative Scholar BEFORE the modern era of women’s rights who interprets 1 Timothy 2:12 in any other way. Surely, modern preachers and 20th century scholars who desire to be more in sync with political correctness than Scriptural fidelity will gladly submit Scripture to societal norms. Further, many well-meaning preachers may have unknowingly submitted to their own enculturation. But, it is telling that conservative Biblical scholars before the 20th century seem to be in agreement that 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids women from teaching men in the local church. Allow me to quote from both John Calvin and John Gill (John Calvin’s genius is well known and I don’t think I can improve on Wade Burleson’s commendation of John Gill’s Scriptural genius).

“Ver. 11. Let the woman learn in silence,.... The apostle goes on to give some other instructions to women, how they should behave themselves in public worship, in the church of God; he would have them be learners and not teachers, sit and hear, and learn more of Christ, and of the truth of the Gospel, and to maintain good works; and he would have them learn in silence, and not offer to rise and speak, under a pretence of having a word from the Lord, or of being under an impulse of the Spirit of the Lord, as some frantic women have done; and if they should meet with anything, under the ministry of the word, they did not understand, or they had an objection to, they were not to speak in public, but ask their own husbands at home; see 1Co 14:34. And thus, they were to behave….
Ver. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach….They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pr 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church…” (John Gill)

11. Let a woman learn in quietness….After having spoken of dress, he now adds with what modesty women ought to conduct themselves in the holy assembly. And he first bids them learn quietly…this he immediately explains more clearly, by forbidding them to teach.” (John Calvin)

What happens when I die?

2007-01-02T19:26:00.000-05:00

The Bible teaches that everyone has sinned. That truth is evident. The Bible also teaches that when we sin, we break God’s universal law and offend our Creator. In so doing we have defied His authority and declared ourselves lord of our world. We have, in essence, become God’s enemy.

Since God is perfect, He cannot be in the presence of sin; He cannot be tainted with it. He is, in a very real sense, allergic to sin.

He has created a place for sinners, where His presence is not. The Bible calls this place hell. It is an eternal lake of fire, a bottomless pit, and outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Bible further teaches that the soul of man is everlasting. Therefore, without intervention on God’s part our soul, at death, enters an eternal hell.

And yet, the Bible has been called “God’s love letter to man.” Although God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin, He does love the sinner and desires to have a relationship with him/her. Therefore, in order to provide a way for such a relationship, while maintaining His essence (His Holiness), the triune God devised a plan in eternity past. In this plan the second person of the Godhead, the Son - Jesus Christ, at the appointed time would leave His heavenly dwelling and come to earth to be born of a virgin, to live a perfect life (as a man), and to pay man’s penalty for sin. Jesus did so. Born of the virgin Mary, Jesus lived 33 years without sinning. Then in six hours on the cross He paid the eternally penalty for all men. Only an infinite God could do so, only man could die for man’s sin. Thus, the God man Jesus Christ.

A story from history helps to illuminate Christ taking our place.

At the turn of the 19th Century in a small one-street town in Arizona there lived a Blacksmith: a loner, who was avoided. One holiday, the entire citizenship, except for one man, had a celebration. The Blacksmith stayed in his shop, at the opposite end of town. During the festivities a child strayed near the shop. A lady looked toward the child and shrilled in terror. A coyote was eyeing the young lad. Everyone knew that a coyote this close to town, at mid-day, meant rabies. The coyote sprang for the child yet was snatched in mid-air by the Blacksmith who immediately broke its neck; yet the damage had been done as the unsung hero drew back his bloodstained arm. The blacksmith died a slow, painful death.

He had taken the lad’s place. Jesus took ours.

One might ask, “If Jesus died for every man does every man go to heaven?” No. If you were dying of thirst and I purchased water and offered it to you, you would still have to accept my gift.

The Bible teaches that in order to accept the free gift of salvation one must trust his life totally into God’s hand. It is not enough just to believe that Jesus dies on the cross for one’s sins and arose from the dead. One must believe that truth to the extent that he/she trust his/her live into His hand.

So, “what happens when I die?”

It depends. The Bible teaches, the moment we breathe our last breath our spirit will immediately go to one of two places. Either an eternal hell or an eternal heaven.

If it is your desire to go to heaven, then trust your life into God’s hands. It is as simple as accepting His gift and trusting Him. It can be done, by honestly praying: “God I confess that I am a sinner, I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, I believe that He appeased your anger, removed my sin and took my place, I believe He arose from the dead. Jesus come into my life and be my Lord and Savior. In Jesus name, Amen.”

The prayer does not save you, but rather the trusting of your life to God. If you did trust God with your life, please, leave a comment. I will get in touch with you and share what to expect with the wonderful changes God has begun in your life as well as some material to help you in your new relationship with Christ.
BR

Theology and Youth

2006-12-23T14:49:00.000-05:00

The days of Disney entertainment youth ministries and glorified daycare youth ministries appear numbered in the phenomenon known as American student ministry. And I say, AMEN.

With men like Jay Strack, Alvin Reid and Doug Fields Raising the Bar, there appears to be a fresh wind of doctrinal teaching blowing across the landscape of student ministry. This wind seems to have its roots in the void that was left by the game-centered youth ministries of the 80’s.

The importance of this change cannot be minimized. More and more student ministers are coming to realize the importance of teaching theology and expositing Scriptures. More are realizing: if you get youth to church on a hamburger they will leave for a hot-dog. The realization that we cannot and should not compete with Hollywood or Disney for the attention of youth is revolutionizing student ministry. The concept of getting them in on the Word of God is a welcome and reviving change.

Doctrine is essential to solid student ministries and I will give 2 reasons why Student ministers should teach their youth systematic theology. The first is the essential reason; the second is the practical reason.

1. By in large there is a void in theological aptitude in the Churches in America.

Of the churches I have been a part of, there has been a theological naiveté in many members when it comes to soteriology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, eschatology, hamartiology, and more. I do not fault the members, as much as I fault the pastors and youth pastors. This naiveté is seen in theological pop writing, blogs and psychology of the day, as well as cultish beliefs. Theology is essential to the life of a church. Just ask Baptists who have lost members to the JW’s.

2. Youth are very receptive to studying theology.

Anyone who has dealt with youth knows that teens make up a sub-culture that is very teachable and open to spiritual ideas. George Barna’s Real Teens testifies to this. This generation is perhaps the most spiritually open generation we have seen. Further, as evidenced on blogs, many of those participating in theological discussions are young men and women. This is especially true of those who approach theology with an open mind and a desire to learn. Oh, that we would all be teachable in theology.

The issues that we have covered on this blog: holiness, baptism, tongues, etc are theological issues. I am of the firm opinion that student pastors should be just as well-trained in theology as pastors and like senior pastors, they should teach theology (they may find the students are more open and receptive than the older generation).

I encourage all student pastors to take their students through a systematic theology curriculum. I say this as one who has done so. (Relying heavily on Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology I developed a curriculum which I used, to teach both youth and adults systematic theology. The youth had many more questions and were far more engaged.)

Further, since youth are very involved in blogs, a blog would be an excellent place for a student pastor to allow his youth to discuss theological issues they may have covered in their meetings.
BR

PS – I have received some e-mails asking me to respond to Wade’s post about me and my thoughts on Baptism. I purposed to not allow this blog to be about personalities but about subjects. Therefore, I have no desire to get into any type of posting battle involving personalities, which would only have negative affects on my already too sinful pride.

However, to be fair to his concerns and questions I have posted a response in my comments under the previous post. The response is dated 12/23/2006 2:43 PM. I think we should gladly seek truth in this realm. I feel however, the truth seeking should be solely about subjects, not individuals.

Further, if you want to discuss this, please post your comments under the previous post as this one deals with teaching students theology. Thank you in advance and may all have a Merry Christmas. I will be posting some thoughts on Christmas soon.
BR

Baptism, BFM2K, M's and Youth

2006-12-19T21:44:00.000-05:00

In concluding our topic of baptism I submit my thoughts. These thoughts, as well as the other theological topics we have discussed, have prompted me to express how important I think it is to teach youth theology. This will be the topic of my next post. I think any pastor / youth pastor / youth worker / parent will find our next post interesting, especially in light of the theological discussions we are currently having.

BAPTISM
The wisdom of Dr. Adrian Rogers and the BFM2K committee is evident in our current discussion on baptism. The committee rightly understood that baptism is an ordinance given to the local church as a prerequisite to church membership (article VII). Almost prophetically they protected the SBC from the consequences of holding otherwise. What lies at the root of their reasoning has to be the meaning of ekklesia.

Ekklesia is the Greek word for “church.” Ekklesia is a compound word from ek and Kaleo. Ek means “out of” and Kaleo means “to call.” Thus, a literal rendering of the two words placed together would be: “to call out of.” And yet, any Greek lexicon will inform its readers that the word during NT times meant an assembly, or to assemble, or a gathering. In fact, Louw and Nida state, “Though some persons have tried to see in the term ekklesia more or less literal meaning of ‘called-out ones,’ this type of etymologizing is not warranted either by the meaning of ekklesia in NT times or even by its earlier usage. The term ekklesia was in common usage for several hundred years before the Christian era and was used to refer to an assembly of persons constituted by well-defined membership.”

It’s origin came from the Greek city-states that would have a town crier who would “call out” a group of people to assemble for town business. This assembly was known as an ekklesia. A local assembly is much more in line with a local visible church than some universal invisible church (which is as intangible as it is invisible).

With a misunderstanding of ekklesia some argue that the “Great Commission” was given to the invisible universal church. However, the text (Matt 28:18-20) clearly states Jesus gave it to the disciples, who remained in Jerusalem and apparently gave it to the local church, which formed on the day of Pentecost. This deduction is arrived by understanding both the meaning of ekklesia and the authority of the local church in Acts.

There seems to be universal agreement among Baptists that baptism is a church ordinance. The question is which church: the local visible one or the universal invisible one? In the NT, of the 114 times ekklesia is used, AT LEAST 109 times it is used of the local visible church, which accords with its meaning as an assembly.

Further, in the book of Acts we have no indication that disciples went out preaching and baptizing without the authority of the local church. The assumption that Phillip preached to and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch without the authority of the church in Jerusalem is an assumption which appears to be at odds with the rest of Acts. Even the apostle (missionary) to the gentiles (PAUL) went forth under the authority of the local church (Acts 11:22; 11:30; 13:2-4).

Thus, the BFM2K committee rightly arrived at the conclusion that the ordinances were given to the local church. This is a way for the church to proclaim the work of Christ and to keep her members accountable (Lord’s Supper/Church Discipline). If one removes these ordinances from the local church, negative consequences follow; not the least of which is the fact that one has removed 1) one of the ways the church proclaims who Christ is and who she is, and 2) THE WAY she keeps her members accountable (Lord’s Supper/Church Discipline).

This is instrumental in understanding the proclamation of one’s baptism. For when one is baptized he is proclaiming, to the world, the local CHURCH’S understanding of what took place when he was saved. If the church understands that when one gets saved he is saved by the work of Christ and will “endure to the end” (BFM2K Article V), and that the old man dies and is buried and the new man is raised in Christ Jesus then this understanding of salvation is what is expressed to the watching world through the doctrine of the local church and baptism by immersion (a symbol of the old dying and the new being raised in Christ).

If one were to watch a baby sprinkled in a Lutheran church one would walk away understanding the baby was “baptized” according to the church’s understanding of baptism, not the baby’s.

Further, if baptism symbolizes what each individual believes took place in his salvation rather than what the church believes, then baptism has lost all meaning, for no one knows what is being symbolized, except the individual himself.

Therefore, if the church understands salvation to be a type of works salvation (i.e. one can lose his salvation by evil works) then that is what is proclaimed at baptism. Those who are watching the baptism understand it to symbolize what the church believes, for they do not know what the individual believes. Baptism is a symbol of salvation and if there is a heretical understanding of salvation by the church then that is what is symbolized.

That is why we do not accept those who are baptized into the LDS church, for, no matter how well they understood salvation when they were baptized, what was proclaimed was the LDS understanding of salvation.

I have no doubt there are individuals who had a correct understanding of salvation when they were saved and baptized, but were baptized in a church that had an incorrect view of salvation (i.e. some will lose their salvation). Further, I am confident many of them are now Southern Baptists and desire to serve our convention and our Lord through international missions. I believe some may even feel singled out and left out because of our IMB policy.

But let us be clear that the policy is based upon the BFM2K, which is based on Scripture. It is based on the understanding that as Southern Baptists we believe those who are saved will endure to the end, and we believe baptism is an ordinance given to the local church. As such we do not want to pay with CP funds those who believe otherwise, or who have testified otherwise by their baptisms. For me the solution seems simple…if one is baptized by a church with an incorrect view of salvation, be rebaptized!

This is what took place in Acts 19:5, when some believers thought salvation was just a salvation of repentance. They had proclaimed such at their baptisms, but when they came to understand it was a salvation into Jesus Christ they desired to proclaim that and so were rebaptized.

If I were in this position I hope I would want to communicate the true meaning of what took place when I was saved.

Finally, there is no doubt that the CP is the envy of other mission organizations. Were I a member of another denomination and felt led to international missions I would certainly entertain the thought of becoming a Southern Baptist. In fact, that would be much more attractive, than coming back every year and trying to raise funds. Our missionaries are well taken care of, because they are our heroes. But our care has not gone unnoticed by members of other denominations.

What if a member of another denomination were to join one of our churches and still maintain his belief that he could lose his salvation? What if such a one applied to be one of our missionaries? Or worse, what if we widened the tent to include all Assembly of God churches as Southern Baptist Churches?

One of the ways our IMB Trustees have protected us from such was by implementing this policy. I appreciate their protection of the Southern Baptist’ belief that one who is saved will endure to the end. I appreciate their fidelity in protecting CP funds from going to any who would not hold to the BFM. I appreciate all Christian missionaries, even those who are not Southern Baptists, but I desire to pay with CP funds only those who are Southern Baptist in belief.
BR

A Theologian on Baptism

2006-12-12T09:25:00.000-05:00

The following is a message delivered by Dr. Russell D. Moore at the Ninth and O Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. The audio version is available at http://www.henryinstitute.org/forums_view.php?cid=12.

Please pay attention to the NT rebaptisms he notes, as well as how important the local church's proclamation of baptism is. The theological issue is not an individual's understadning of his baptism but what he is saying through the local church's proclamation of what Baptism means. This is the reason our IMB Trustees showed themselves theologically astute when they passed policies which protect SB from funding non-SB missionaries. I will share more on this later...for now may we learn from Dr. Moore in his message, "Will the Last Baptist Please Turn Off the Water Heater on the Way Out? Baptism, the Church, and the Glory of Christ."

Romans 6:1-11
“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. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” (ESV)

A Loss of Baptist Memory

Families sometimes have little peculiarities about them that we all know about but none of us really talk about, and as a church family, we have some of those kinds of things too. We have a strange name, Ninth and O Baptist Church. As a matter of fact, many of us have to explain all the time what we mean when we say that we go to Ninth and O Baptist Church. As one new resident of Louisville said to me, “I’m so confused. I bank at Fifth Third Bank and I go to Ninth and O Baptist Church, and I don’t know what any of it means.” So you have to stand back and explain, “Well, the name Ninth and O Baptist Church originated when there was a Ninth Street and an O Street, and we were located there. We are not there anymore, but that is where we used to be, at Ninth Street and O Street.” And it is appropriate that we keep the name. We want to make sure that we know we are still the same people who gathered together in 1906, we are still the same people who continued to pass the faith down through all of these years, and it is worth having to explain why we are named this every once in awhile.

One of the remarkable things is that all across the country sometimes people treat the idea of a Baptist church in the same way we treat the name Ninth and O. It is where we used to be. However, the name “Baptist” reflects our heritage. There were a group of people who believed that baptism was worth fighting for, baptism was worth drowning for, baptism was worth being executed for, baptism was worth being separated from the community for, and those are the kind of people from whence we have come. But we no longer really understand what that means.

This is one of the reasons why, when you look out across the country, you can see churches in which baptism has really become our Baptist version of a Bar Mitzvah. If you have not been baptized by the time you reach a certain age, something is wrong with you, something is wrong with your family, and there is great pressure to be baptized, whether or not you have ever come to know Christ. As a result, we have churches that will baptize unrepentant four-year-olds simply because the four-year-old understands, “I love Jesus, and I want to go to heaven.”

We have churches that will baptize people who continue to persist in unrepentant sin, who do not understand conviction of sin, simply because they agree to a certain number of facts. You can see this kind of downgrade when you have churches now that are discussing whether to make believer’s baptism by immersion optional so that there are some members of the congregation who have followed Christ in believer’s baptism, some members of the congregation who have been sprinkled as infants, and some members of the congregation who have had water poured over their heads as adults. In their view, baptism is simply a matter of the conscience of the individual.

There are some people, when they hear claims that Baptists have always made from the Scriptures throughout the centuries, claims that baptism is the immersion of a believer in water, who will act as though that is bigoted. When they hear Baptists saying what Baptists have always said, that it is not just the testimony of the individual that makes baptism, but that it is the testimony of the church, they will act as though that is arrogant and strange. Likewise, if you have a church that does not proclaim baptism as immersion, baptism as profession of faith, even if that church immerses an individual, and you tell them that it is not baptism, some people will act as though that is insane. They will act as though this is something novel. They will act as though this is something new. This is because for so long we have neglected who we are when it comes to this issue of baptism. We consider it to be something that is in our past, and that if we don’t talk about it, and if we don’t speak of it, then it is going to go away. As a matter of fact, we are living in a time where often I feel like asking, “Will the last Baptist left please turn off the water heater on the way out?”

The Apostle Paul’s Concern For Church Baptism

We need to understand, when we come to Romans and 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians and Ephesians and all of the places in the New Testament where the apostles are establishing the churches, how often they come back to the issue of baptism and how often they speak of baptism not as simply a past event in the life of a believer. They are continually reminding the congregations of baptism. Notice for instance what the apostle Paul is doing here in Romans. He speaks and presses the Roman church to engage with him in this Great Commission task not, after all, just to teach the nations but to baptize the nations. He points them to the issue of baptism. This is the way in which the church clarifies not just what we do in our baptisteries with water but who we actually are and what we actually do with our lives.

Notice first of all that when Paul turns to the Roman congregation he has already spoken to them of sin. He has spoken to them of human sin, and how universal sin is among both Jew and Gentile, “For all of us are sinners.” He has spoken about the cross of Jesus and Jesus bearing death and bearing wrath in our place. He has spoken of this gospel. Now he turns to the Roman congregation, and he speaks to them very pointedly of sin. And he speaks to them especially in terms of baptism.

What Paul is doing is saying that baptism proclaims union with Christ in His church. Notice what Paul does. He says, “All of us.” He is speaking to the congregation, to an entire group of people who would be gathered together reading this letter, and notice what he says. He asks them this specific question, “What are you going to say? Are you going to say we are going to continue to live in sin?” And that is a reasonable question that someone might ask.

Someone sitting in the congregation is saying, “Let’s see if I have got this right. This is what Paul is saying. Paul says that when God punishes sin in Jesus that brings great glory to God because He is demonstrating His wrath in Jesus. Jesus bears wrath. Jesus is the savior from sin. This glorifies the name of Jesus and that means when I stand up and say ‘I was a liar, Jesus died for my life.’ Then that brings glory to Jesus. Well, let’s bring more glory to Jesus.”

Of course, some take this to the wrong conclusion: antinomianism. Some say, “I can lie some more. If Jesus taking sin for my adultery brings glory to Jesus, well, I have got yet more adultery to do. We can have more glory for Jesus.” Paul turns around and says, “Have you lost your minds?” He says, “Are you crazy?” He says, “Don’t you know: how can we who died to sin still live in it?”

Then Paul turns them to baptism and says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized…” He speaks to the congregation as those who have been baptized. That is always the way the New Testament speaks to the church. It assumes that the church is made up of those who are baptized, so that Paul can say, for instance, “We have one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). You have Paul writing to the church at Colossae and he says to them in Colossians 2:12, “You were buried with Him in baptism.” He says, “Why are you arguing about circumcision? Why are you arguing about these things when you have the circumcision of Christ? You are hidden in Christ. You are buried with Christ. All of us were baptized into Christ Jesus.” In the New Testament, this is not simply an individual matter. However, that is often the way we speak of baptism. That is often the way people see baptism done or the way many of us even are counseled before we get into the baptistery.

For example, it is often described as you making a statement outwardly about an inward reality that you have experienced, kind of like a wedding ring. You wear a wedding ring in order to demonstrate and show that you are married. Well, there is a sense in which that is true but not exactly. Baptism is not like a wedding ring; baptism is like a wedding ceremony. It is the people of God gathered together and all of us are proclaiming something. All of us are saying something. And what we are saying is that we believe that this individual is in Christ. All the people of God gathered together are pronouncing and announcing, “This person is in Christ.” That is why we don’t do baptisms privately. We do baptisms gathered together with the people of God united together pronouncing this about this person. That is the way baptism always is in the New Testament.
John the Baptist, when he comes and begins his baptism of repentance down by the riverside proclaiming the gospel, proclaiming repentance, he is coming as a prophet, speaking to the people, “Repent and be baptized.” He is not speaking just as some rag tag individual. He is coming with the authority of God Himself, filled with the Spirit, announcing, “Be baptized.”

Jesus, when He is raised from the dead and He gives the authority to baptize, He gathers His apostles together and says, “All authority has been given to me. I give that authority to you.” He gives authority to the apostles, who Paul says form the foundation of a church, so that Jesus is able to say when you come together as a church, when you make decisions under the lordship of Jesus Christ, you are doing so with the authority of Christ himself. After all, Jesus says, when He talks about the discipline and the order of His church, “Where two or three are gathered in My name there I am with you,” Jesus is not saying, “I am going to tell you this so you won’t be discouraged if you have a small Sunday School class.” He is speaking specifically in terms of the discipline of the congregation. When you come together as a congregation and when you act in the name of Jesus, it is just as though Jesus Himself is acting.

That is why Paul, when he writes in 1 Corinthians 5 about the man in the congregation who is in unrepentant sin, says to the congregation, “When you are gathered together, assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus, you act to excommunicate, to discipline this man, to put him out from the church.” What are you doing? You are delivering him over to Satan for the discipline of God. You are doing so with authority. Now, does that mean that anything the church does, it does with the authority of Jesus? No, only when the church is gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus.

If I decide to get up and say, “You know what, I saw our pastor walking past my house last night and he was wearing shorts. His legs are too skinny to be wearing shorts. It disturbs the children. I think what we need to do is discipline our pastor for doing that. Let’s come together and let’s tell him you will either stop wearing shorts in the neighborhood or we are going to excommunicate you from the fellowship of Ninth and O Baptist Church.” Even if I am able to persuade all of you to do that, and I show your picture up on the screen, it ought not to be that way. And if we vote to discipline him, we have done absolutely nothing. We have no biblical ground to discipline our pastor for that action. It is not a violation of Scripture. We have said nothing except that we are a church who refused to be ruled by Jesus.

If, on the other hand, our pastor comes up next Sunday morning and stands in the pulpit and says, “Guess what everybody. I have decided to leave my wife. I have found me a new wife, a pit boss out in Las Vegas, and she is going to be a great first lady of this congregation. If you think you love my wife, you will really love Sally Sue, and I am going to bring her in here next week.” When the congregation gathers together and after we have gone to our pastor, and say, “Pastor, you need to repent of this. You need to stop this.” If he persists and says, “No, I am not going to stop,” and the congregation then says, “Well, we are going to remove you from the membership of the congregation,” what have we done? Paul says, “If you are gathered together under the authority of the Word of God, you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus.” What are you doing? You are making a pronouncement to our pastor that he needs to hear as though it is coming from Jesus himself.

This does not just work on the back end of church discipline; this works on the front end of church discipline as well. The congregation acting together as it is operating under the lordship of Jesus, is pronouncing that this brother, who is coming professing belief in Jesus Christ, will be raised with Jesus from the dead. This sister who is repenting of her sin will not be held guilty of the sin. Why? Because this brother and this sister are in Christ. If we immerse someone in that baptistery who does not know Jesus, we are saying nothing. But, if we gather together and baptize in that baptistery someone who is confessing Jesus, we are saying with the authority of the Word of God, “We recognize you as a believer and we are announcing that to you. It is not just that you are announcing something to us, we are also announcing something to you and we are announcing something to the world that we understand this to be what a brother in Christ, what a sister in Christ really is.” That is why in the book of Acts, whenever you have a marking out of the people of God it is “as many as believed were baptized.” The early Christian community is marking out. It is showing these are the boundaries of the church.

It matters, then, what the church is saying when it immerses someone in water. And it always has mattered. This is why the apostles, when they encounter some people who claim they were baptized, the apostles say, “Well, what kind of baptism?” And the people respond, “The baptism of John.” The apostles would then ask, “That is the baptism of repentance. Did you receive the Holy Spirit?”

To someone who comes into this church and says, “I was baptized by immersion on profession of faith in an LDS temple,” we are going to have to say, “The Latter Day Saints do not believe the gospel. They are not saying the correct thing about baptism. This was no baptism at all.”

If, in a much less extreme measure, someone comes in and says, “I was immersed in water. I was immersed in water by a congregation that believes the water itself creates the new birth, the water itself regenerates me;” then we have to say, “That is not baptism. Baptism marks out someone who is in Christ. Baptism does not put you in Christ. That is not baptism.”

If someone comes in and says, “I was baptized in a church that sprinkles babies and would also do any number of things, so I decided I wanted to be baptized by immersion;” then we need to say, “You may be saying something in that act, but the congregation was not saying something in that act. The congregation was not acting as the authority of Christ marking out the boundaries of the people of God.”

Paul writes and says all of us who were baptized were baptized where? You were baptized into Christ Jesus. Now, one of the things that we often want to do as contemporary people is to assume that this is some type of an abstract, generic reality. For the apostle Paul, this is not abstract at all. If you are baptized into Christ, if you participate with the Head, you participate with the body. As you are being baptized, you are being baptized into Christ, which includes what? You are also being baptized into His church, into His body. We are all announcing this together.

Baptism is not just into Christ. Notice what Paul says: baptism proclaims that you are united with Christ and His church. We are marking out that boundary. These are the people we recognize. This is why we don’t baptize babies. This is why we don’t baptize people who come in and say, “I am not ready to believe yet, but I want to be a part of this fellowship.” We don’t baptize them yet. They are welcome to be here, and we want our babies here. We don’t baptize them because they are not yet in Christ. And we mark that out with the boundary.

Baptism Proclaims Death with Christ

But, Paul says that baptism also proclaims union with Christ in His death and in His resurrection. The church is saying something in baptism, but what is it saying? He says, “Don’t you know that all of you who were baptized were baptized into His death?” Notice what he is saying here. He is saying when we are baptizing someone, we are speaking about judgment.

Water always represents in the Bible this coming judgment of God so that Peter is able to stand and say, “Just as the flood came and judged the old creation, judged the old world and a few people were brought safely through the flood, and all the way through to a new creation, ‘You have been saved through baptism’” (1 Pet 3:18-22). What is he saying? He specifically says it is not the baptism that saves you, it is an appeal to God for a good conscience. What are we doing in baptism? We are saying just as that flood poured over the old creation, wiped out the old creation, at the end of it humanity started all over again.

Just as Paul said to the Corinthians, the Israelites were baptized when they went through the Red Sea, all the way through and to the other end when they come to the Promised Land, just in that way you have been baptized (1 Cor 10). How? Because Jesus speaks of His crucifixion as a baptism. He consistently says, “I have a baptism that I am to undergo.” Jesus undergoes the waters of God’s wrath, the waters of the curse of death. He is judged. And when we are baptizing a sinner, what we are saying is, “We believe that this sinner has been judged in Christ,” which means that every baptism is all about repentance. “I’m coming into the baptismal waters agreeing that God has every right to wipe me away. I am agreeing that I am worthy of death. And not only am I agreeing with that, but the entire congregation is proclaiming that.”

However, not only that, as John the Baptist says, “I am going to baptize you with water. One is coming later who will baptize you with fire” (Matt 3:11). We understand that this one has already been judged. Just as when the flood came, God remembered Noah. He brought him through to the other end. We, in the act of baptism, are saying, “We believe this person through faith is united with Jesus in His judgment, in His death, in His burial. This person will not be abandoned by God. This person has already been abandoned by God. This person will not be put away to the grave ultimately. This person has already been put away to the grave. This person will not experience hell. This person already experienced hell at Golgotha hill 2000 years ago.” We proclaim this as a congregation when we are putting that person under the water.

This is specifically why Jesus, when He gives us the marking of baptism, gives us immersion. We go down into the water, and as some of you who are hydrophobic remember from the day in which you were baptized, that can be a traumatic experience. You are completely at the whim of the person putting you under the water. You have to trust that person as he is doing something we don’t naturally do. We don’t ask our friends, “Why don’t you come on over later and have a few diet cokes, and maybe you can hold my head under the water for a little while?” We don’t normally do this. We are put under the water, and we are trusting that pastor to lift us up out of the water.

What are we announcing individually and corporately? We are announcing that Jesus underwent the abandonment of God. He underwent the wrath of God. He was buried. He was placed in a hole in the ground, but God remembered Jesus. He was brought back from the dead. This person has already experienced that. This person may be put into a grave one day. God will in Christ remember this person, and just as I am trusting you to lay me underneath this water where I can’t breath, I am completely helpless and I am trusting that you will pull me back up. By faith I am trusting that when they lay me in the ground that you will pull me up through word of Christ. We are all announcing that together. Paul says, “Don’t you realize if you have been baptized you have been baptized into death.”

We had a lady at a church I served at one time who was not a member of the church. I was shocked because she was there all the time. She and her husband were active in everything. She was there every time that the doors of the church were open, but she wasn’t a member of the church. And I said, “What’s the deal with her?” Somebody said, “Well, she is a Methodist. She doesn’t believe in anything that Methodists believe. She believes just like we do, but she won’t be baptized.” I said, “Well, why not?” They said, “It is kind of embarrassing because she has gotten to the point where she has been here so long and she goes to the beauty parlor. And she knows that she has a very sizeable bouffant hairdo, and she knows that when she comes up out of the water that is going to be a humiliating experience. Her hair is going to be all messed up. She is going to have to come out of the water looking like that.” I said, “It is a humiliating experience. It is more humiliating than she knows. She is coming up out of that water as an executed criminal, not just as a lady with a messed up bouffant hairdo. She is coming up out of that water as somebody who has been judged in Christ, as somebody who has gone through the waters of death.”

We are fishing a dead person out of that baptistery. That is what is happening in baptism. Paul writes and he says, “All of you who have been baptized have been baptized into His death. You have already experienced judgment, so why then would you continue in sin?” Why then would you continue to harp at one another, to bite at one another, and to refuse to forgive one another? If you are standing in your house and a pit bull is attacking your child, you are perfectly within your reason to take up a gun and to shoot it in the head. “Boom!” And it may be that you want to make sure that thing is dead, and you hear, “Boom! Boom!” But, if the neighborhood hears, “Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!” somebody is going to come along and say, “I think the thing is dead.” This is overkill.

When we are all baptized what we are saying is, “You know, in case we have any illusions, we understand we already announced that we are all sinners in here. And we have already announced that we all deserve the judgment of God. As a matter of fact, we already announced that everybody who is a member of this church deserves to be in hell. That is already clarified. We clarified it back in that baptistery. You deserve to be in hell and so do I. You have already been judged, so I don’t need to do it. You have already been condemned, so I don’t need to do it. And God has already in Christ announced whose side He is on, and that is that of Jesus Christ’s. You are in Him. You are forgiven. You are found. You are received.”

What Paul says is that baptism brings freedom. Notice what he says, “If you are dead, if your old man has been crucified with Him, it has been brought to nothing, you have already been set free. You have already been raised from the dead, then why would you live to sin? Why would you continue to live in sin?” What Paul is saying here is almost exactly the same thing that almost 2000 years later would be said by George Jones. “He stopped loving her today.” Why? “Because he is dead. They put a wreath on his door. They carried him away. He has no feeling for her because he is a dead man.” Paul says, “You walked with sin but now you are dead.” If you are dead that arrangement is already over with. You have been drowned in Christ.

There may come a day when I drop dead. My wife, Maria, may decide she is going to find somebody else. He may come into my house and throw away all my books and take down my Mississippi flag, and he may play golf or some such thing and fill the house with that. She may bring him into this church. You come up to her and you can say all kinds of things, but you cannot call her an adulteress. She will say, “The cricket chirps no more. He is gone. That little man is dead and in the grave, and I am perfectly free now to marry someone else.” You know, she is right. It might be tacky for her to do that, but it is perfectly legal to do that and she has every freedom to do that.

Baptism Proclaims the New Life in Christ

Paul says, “That is the same situation with you. You are not in that old arrangement anymore because that old man is now dead, so why do you act like you continue to still walk in it? You are now freed from that.” But, Paul doesn’t just say that to individuals. Paul says that to the church. It is your responsibility as the church to see baptism as something. It is not just that I reckon myself as an individual. We reckon ourselves dead to sin. We reckon ourselves crucified with Christ. We reckon ourselves raised into newness with life, which is precisely why in the New Testament baptism is not just some little thing that we do. Baptism defines who we are. We are the “submerging church.” This is who we are, what we do, what we mean when we say a Christian is someone who has walked with Jesus through the grave and into newness of life.

That baptistery tells you what Ninth and O Baptist Church believes about the gospel of Jesus Christ. That baptistery tells you what Ninth and O Baptist Church believes about the identity of the church. But, that baptistery is also an invitation. That baptistery says to any one of you in this room outside of Christ, “Come to believe in Jesus. You can be united with Him in His death, in His burial, and in His resurrection. There is no sin that cannot be forgiven. There is no death that can hold you. Jesus, having died once and for all, is never going to die again. If you will be found in Him you will have freedom.”

An Invitation

We will be glad to announce that, and announce that not just to this community, and not just to this church, but to all of the principalities and powers in the waters of baptism. There are some of you in this room who have never been baptized. There are some of you who attend this church but you have never followed Christ in baptism. Let me tell you, this is a matter of obedience to Christ. There are some of you who may have even found yourself in the membership of this church, but you realized the baptism that you received was no baptism at all. You were not a believer when you were baptized. You came to belief at a later time. What happened to you was a dunking in water. Some of you may say, “Yes, I was baptized in a church that did any number of things with water and I chose one of them.” You were not baptized. You did not have announced by the congregation your crucifixion and resurrection with Christ. And there are many of us who will often say, “You know, I have kind of been here so long, it is a matter of pride.” This is not an optional issue. Jesus says, “Follow Me.” That means, “Follow Me through the water, too.”

But, it is not just an invitation to unbelievers. It is an invitation to all of us as believers to remember something, that in our baptisms we have already announced our hiddenness in Christ. We have already announced that all of us in this room found in Christ are really found in Him. So, why do I continue to persist in unrepentance? Why do I continue to persist in unrepentance as though I was still that man? Why do you continue to judge one another in this congregation as though you didn’t already make it clear you are a crucified man, you are an executed woman, you are a drowned criminal? Let’s remember after a hundred years, when we say we are Ninth and O, we are saying something about people we ought to be proud of, about people who gave a great deal, people who established a church, and people who stood by the faithfulness of Scripture and a heritage that we want to continue. And when we say that we are Baptists, let’s remember we are not just talking about where we came from. We are talking about where we are going: to the glory of Christ.

Baptism: what is it?

2006-12-08T09:15:00.000-05:00

We begin our study into baptism with the following article by Dr. Thomas White. Again, for the sake of space, the footnotes are not included but you can read them with the article at http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/WhatMakesBaptismValid_002.pdf

On another note the Joshua Convergence webpage has a new article up:) You can view it at http://www.joshuaconvergence.com/blog.php

Enjoy:)

“What Makes Baptism Valid?”

by: Dr. Thomas White

Practically every church in the world requires their members to be baptized. Thus, a large portion of the world’s population believes they have experienced proper baptism; however, Baptist churches do not accept all of these baptisms. In fact, much confusion exists over what constitutes valid baptism. Some believe in the validity of infant baptism while others accept only believers’ baptism. Some practice baptism by sprinkling or pouring while others only immerse. Some divide over the doctrine of baptism while others consider it a minor doctrine of little importance.

Perhaps some categories may help us embark upon an investigation of this issue. A Christian baptism could be validated by continuing in the historical tradition of the “Christian church.” If valid baptism is based on the foundation of Christian tradition, then Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other Protestant groups which make up the “Christian tradition” possess valid baptism. The Baptists are part of the Christian tradition yet do not accept as valid the baptism of these other groups. Baptists generally refer back to Scripture in an effort to determine what is baptism according to Scripture alone. Based on their understanding of Scripture, Baptists have denied the validity of infant and non-immersion baptisms. Thus, a second category could be scriptural baptism. This essay will focus primarily on what Scripture has to say about baptism but will secondarily discuss the view of the Baptist tradition on baptism as the author deems it relevant.

In order to discuss completely the ordinance of baptism, this paper will address six overlapping categories. Some of these categories have been more emphasized by Baptists than others and some of them have been the central problem in controversies. Nevertheless, one must examine and determine the importance of these six aspects in order to understand baptism. This author will now list these categories with a brief sentence of how they relate. The remainder of the article will explain in more detail the importance of each category, attempting to focus more attention on the more problematic elements and providing historical illumination where beneficial. As always, the Bible is the final source of authority.

Six Categories of Baptism

I. Subject: The subject of baptism must be a believer. Any other subject cannot make a profession of faith or identify with Christ or His church.

II. Mode: Immersion is the proper mode of baptism. No other mode is supported by Scripture.

III. Meaning: Baptism is not essential for salvation and does not grant an elevated status of sinlessness. Baptism is the profession of the believer placing his/her allegiance with Christ, and the initiatory ordinance into the local church. Baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

IV. Church: Proper baptism must be performed in connection with a true church. Baptism is a church ordinance and not a Christian ordinance. As this is perhaps the least understood view, a necessary discussion of the definition of a true church must also occur.

V. Administrator: The administrator should be someone selected by the local church. Overemphasis on this can lead to problems, as it did with the Donatists.

VI. Formula: The traditional formula is baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost in older times). Valid baptism must at the very least be in Jesus’ name.

I. The Subject of Baptism

Baptists have historically understood baptism in its most basic definition to have a believer as the subject and immersion as the mode. Many New Testament examples could be discussed to lay the foundation for believers as the proper subjects of baptism; however, only a few will be mentioned. For a complete discussion, this author has written another article dedicated to this topic which should be consulted. First, the Great Commission of Christ states that we are to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them….” People must first be made disciples or become believers before baptism. Peter states in Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized.” Repentance leads one to become a believer before baptism. Philip preached the Gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch and the eunuch then requested baptism. While many Pedobaptists appeal to the household baptisms in Acts as precedent for infant baptism, careful study demonstrates no foundation anywhere in the Scriptures for infant baptism. The Scriptures know of only believers as the subjects of baptism. Infant baptism did not begin until a few hundred years after Christ, based upon a misconception of original sin. The Council of Carthage in A.D. 258 discussed how infants should be baptized, thus demonstrating the newness of infant baptism and an improper theological view of the practice.

II. The Mode of Baptism

Baptists have universally held that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism, and without immersion there is no true baptism. The New Testament continually uses the word baptizo. This Greek word has been brought directly into the English language as the word, “baptize.” Properly translated, instead of transliterated, this word means “immerse.” One may consult any number of Greek lexicons and even Pedobaptist scholars to support this definition. Perhaps the writing of John Calvin himself should be read. In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote, “But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water—these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.” For additional evidence from history, one need only visit the ruins of ancient churches, noticing the variety of immersion baptistries in those churches. The question may arise, How did sprinkling become a common practice? William Wall, a Pedobaptist, explains in his History of Infant Baptism:

Now, Calvin had not only given his Dictate, in his Institutions, that the difference is of no moment, whether thrice or once; or whether he be only wetted with the water poured on him: But he had also drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva (and afterward published to the world) a form of administering the sacraments, where, when he comes to the order of baptizing, he words it thus: Then the minister of baptism pours water on the infant; saying, I baptize thee, etc. There had been, as I said, some Synods in the Dioceses of France that had spoken of affusion without mentioning immersion at all; that being the common practice; but for an Office or Liturgy of any church; this is, I believe the first in the world that prescribes affusion absolutely.

It quickly becomes obvious that church history and not Scripture forms the basis for any other mode than immersion. Lastly, the symbolic representation of the ordinance, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, can only be fulfilled by immersion. Immersion is so central to baptism that without it the ordinance is nullified.

III. The Meaning of Baptism

The vast majority of Baptists have always believed that baptism is a symbolic ordinance which identifies the believer with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To a lesser degree than in the past, Baptists have identified the ordinance of baptism as the following: 1) the believer’s public profession of faith, 2) the believer’s identification with Christ, and 3) the initiatory ordinance into the local church. All of these meanings of baptism have scriptural foundation. The identification of baptism as symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the Christian comes from Rom 6:3–4, “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”

Baptism as the believer’s public profession of faith comes from Acts 2:38, where Peter states, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sin.” This close association with salvation also indicates the importance of baptism. Philip, when presenting the Gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch, did so in such a way that the eunuch responded not with a prayer or by signing a card, but by asking to be baptized.

Baptism also served as the initiatory ordinance into the local church. Matthew 28:19–20 states, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” The Commission is to make disciples. The acceptance of Christ is an inward decision of faith and repentance. This decision is made public by baptizing the believer in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, in order to teach them all things, they must then associate or gather for further instruction. The place for this teaching is the New Testament church. In Acts, baptisms resulted in the recipients gathering daily for additional instruction. The ecclesia or local church of the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Commission of Christ. The New Testament knows nothing of baptized believers not associated with a local church.

Perhaps this author should also identify what baptism is not. The Churches of Christ, formed initially by Alexander Campbell in the nineteenth century, among other denominations, believed that baptism was essential for salvation. While many such groups no longer believe what their founders taught, Oneness Pentecostals continue to teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Although many passages could be used, this author has chosen two passages as evidence to dismiss such claims. First, the thief on the cross did not experience baptism and yet that very day he was in the presence of the Lord. Luke 23:42–43 states, “And he was saying, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!’ And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.’” Second, Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:17 states, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” If baptism were required for salvation, Paul would never have made this claim. Thus, baptism is not essential for salvation.

The more dangerous option for Baptists today is minimizing the ordinance to the point of irrelevance. By tacking baptism onto the end of services focused on other subjects, by neglecting to allow the recipient an opportunity to make a profession of faith, and by not investigating a new member’s baptism before extending the right hand of fellowship, some Baptist churches have practically, if not intellectually, minimized the importance of this ordinance. Many pieces of evidence could be cited to note the importance of the ordinance; however, the “Great Commission” of Christ should suffice. Christ included many things by saying, “teach them to observe all things,” but he specifically pointed out “making disciples” and “baptizing.” The mention of this ordinance by name and immediately following the command to make disciples should adequately place emphasis on the ordinance.

Without the proper meaning, baptism is nothing more than the dunking of the individual in water. The proper meaning is essential to proper baptism. Does the recipient have to understand everything in theology? No. However, the subject must understand that baptism is not salvific, grants no additional grace, and does not insure sinlessness. Because the subject must understand, the subject cannot be an infant. The subject should also accept that baptism is the public profession of faith, identification with Christ, and the door to the local church.

IV. The Place for Baptism—the Local Church

An essential part of this discussion is the definition of a true church. Thus, later in this section, the definition of a true church will be discussed. However, for now it is enough to note that the ordinances (for this discussion, baptism) separate para-church groups, seminary classrooms, and private Bible studies from being churches. The ordinances logically are administered by the local church and more specifically true churches. Most Christian churches reject Mormon, Hindu, Scientology, or Muslim baptisms, should they perform them, because they are not true churches and the meaning of the ordinances is irrevocably harmed. This is not baptism into Christ but a false religion. Valid Christian baptism is into Christ alone. For proof of this one need only look at Acts 19:1-5 where Paul required rebaptism of a group of followers who had been baptized with John’s baptism but not Christ’s. If a baptism as closely related to Christ’s baptism as John’s would not do, then nothing other than baptism into Christ will do.

How does one receive baptism into Christ? Can a six-year-old boy in his backyard lead a friend to Christ and baptize him? Will the local church accept that baptism as valid? Typically this strikes us as unwise. Why? Because the ordinance should be practiced by the church and not by an individual, a seminary or a denomination. The gathered believers should see the person’s baptism and accept him or her into fellowship. It is a church ordinance. Thus, baptism must be associated with a local church. Moreover, it is wisest to have the candidate actually make a confession before we baptize them “upon the profession of faith.” Such an important profession should occur in front of as many members of the church as possible and be taken as a seriously responsibility of the local church. Proper baptism helps create the community desired by Christ for His churches.

One immediate question arises with regard to missionary baptisms. The missionary is sent by the local church for the purpose of establishing more churches. Nothing could have a closer church connection than missionary baptisms. By having baptism linked to the authority given by Christ to the local church, one may safeguard baptism and regenerate church membership by ruling out all false churches. Accurate wording here clarifies all the various movements which alter the Gospel message while also avoiding the problems of historical high-churchism. The problem arises when one’s definition of a “true church” is incorrect. If, as the Landmark movement did, one adds the incorrect requirements to the “being” of a church, then local church authority can be distorted and result in problems. Thus, this discussion will now address the proper definition of a “true church.”

The Definition of a True Church

Category 1: Being (esse)
A. Gospel
B. Ordinances
C. Believers intentionally gathered

Category 2: Well-Being (bene esse)
A. Offices (pastor and deacon)
B. Church Discipline
C. Baptism by immersion of believers
D. Memorial view of the Lord’s Supper
E. Regenerate congregation
F. Missionary focus
G. Expositional preaching, etc.

The above chart contains two classifications. These two classifications allow one to discuss the various marks of the true church without de-churching large majorities of the evangelical world. The first category contains what is essential for the “being” or existence of a true church. At the very minimum, you must have a few believers who have intentionally gathered for the purpose of being a church with the Gospel presented and the ordinances administered.

At a Minimum

Let us look at what happens should one of these be removed. If you remove the Gospel, you do not have anything Christian. This could be any number of cults, and it is not logical to conclude that such a gathering could constitute a Christian church. Thus, the Gospel must be present. If you remove the ordinances administered, then any Bible study group, seminary class, or para-church ministry could be a church. As this is certainly not the case, the ordinances must exist for the “being” of a church. The purpose of the believers gathered together demonstrates the intent to be a church. A true church is intentional and does not occur on accident. Furthermore, a true church at a minimum must contain some believers who intentionally gathered for the purpose of being a church.

Adding to the Minimum

Okay, so you want to move something from the “well-being” category to the “being” category? For argument’s sake and for clarity, let us explore the options. If the offices (pastor and deacon) are moved into the “being” of a church, then when the pastor leaves one church for another or retires, that church ceases being a true church for a time. In addition, a church plant with no elected deacons would not be a true church until such time as they had men qualified and elected. These two offices are essential to the wellbeing of a church. While a church may continue without one or both offices temporarily, a continuance of this state will result in negative consequences.

If church discipline is moved into the “being” of a church, then half of the Southern Baptist Convention, and most denominations which do not practice church discipline, have immediately been un-churched. Also, this means that one overlooked occurrence or improperly handled case results in the loss of being a true church. This was the contention of J.R. Graves against the First Baptist Church of Nashville and R.B.C. Howell in the middle of the 1800s. Church discipline protects the regenerate church membership, seeks restoration, and adds meaning to membership, but it does not belong in the marks of a true church. It adds greatly, however, to the “well-being” of a church.

If the ordinances “rightly administered,” as Calvin put it, are moved into the category of the “being” of a church, you have Landmarkism. In essence, you have just un-churched all Pedobaptist gatherings. While baptism is properly executed by immersion of believers, and while the Lord’s Supper is a memorial ordinance looking back at Christ’s death, around in fellowship, and forward in anticipation, the proper practice of these ordinances cannot be added to the “being” of a church without repeating historical mistakes.

While Baptists and dissenting groups through history may desire to move the believer’s church into a mark for the “being of the church,” Augustine’s arguments are well heeded. He argued against the Donatists that a truly regenerate church was not possible. While the Donatists and Baptists were and are right to seek after truly regenerate congregational membership, the requirement of such would result in constant evaluation of which churches are true and which are faulty. The effort and desire to have a regenerate church membership and the attainment of regenerate church membership adds greatly to the well-being of a church. Refusing to strive for a regenerate church is where Augustine erred. Giving up on seeking regenerate church membership harms the well-being of the church. Church discipline should help maintain this mark of the “wellbeing” of a church once it has been achieved. If one were to move regenerate church membership to the “being” of a church, then most churches of any tradition would be unchurched.

The marks of well-being could go on indefinitely. While a missionary focus and expositional preaching add to the “well-being” of a church, neither should be required for the “being” of a church. Other marks such as the Bible as the only standard for faith and practice, a desire to fulfill the Great Commission, and a ministry to widows and orphans should be beneficial. Any number of focused ministries could be added to the “wellbeing,” but the point is made. While many things add to the “well-being” of a church, the definition of the “being” of a true church should only include believers gathered together, presenting the Gospel, and administering the ordinances.

V. The Administrator of Baptism

Baptists have typically not focused upon the administrator of baptism as being essential. However, clarification of this area alleviates many problems. The largest problem arose with a group called the Donatists. This group sought to invalidate baptisms performed by ministers who had handed over the Scriptures during times of persecution. By holding that such traitorous ministers were not valid ministers, they placed too much authority for baptism in the administrator rather than in the ordinance and its meaning. Augustine argued against this movement, noting that if a minister were to have a moral failure late in his ministry, then that would invalidate all his previous baptisms. This places too much responsibility on the recipient to choose wisely who performs the baptism and creates some unscriptural power in the administrator. The spirituality of the administrator does not give credence to baptism.

Although the administrator does not determine validity, wisdom should be used in who performs the ordinance. The ordinance which must be connected to the local church needs for that church to appoint the administrator. While no biblical mandate exists for ordination of the administrator, the local church typically “sets apart” certain men for service to the church. Each church may appoint or set apart whomever it wishes to perform the ordinance, but within the bounds of Scripture. Typically, the pastor or a staff member will perform the ordinance. In their absence, a deacon could also administer the ordinance. This author sees practical problems with opening up too widely who can perform the ordinance. The administrator should be an example to the congregation and not just any member in good standing, which could include a recently divorced single parent, a part-time attending father, or an eight-year-old school boy. In the end, however, the validity of baptism is not derived from the administrator.

VI. The Formula for Baptism

A complete discussion of the formula throughout history would take more space than this brief article will allow. In brief, Scripture presents three possibilities concerning the formula for baptism. The most common formula can be found in Acts 2:38 where Peter states, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 19:5, Paul mentions baptism in name of the Lord Jesus. This is also mentioned in Acts 8:16, and10:48. A second but related formula appears in Galatians 3:27, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ.” The third and most popular formula can only be found in Matt 28:19, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

This author believes that the different wording poses neither a problem nor represents mutually exclusive formulas. The reason for this belief comes from the early evidence of the use of the triune formula found only once in Scripture. The Didache states, “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Justin Martyr wrote, “For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.” Other early fathers could be quoted to demonstrate the use of the Trinitarian formula but for the purposes of this essay, the previously mentioned quotes should suffice.

What is essential is that baptism occurs in the name of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. It is identification with Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, that is essential. Because some in this generation use the name Jesus but do not hold to the triune presentation of God found in the New Testament, the use of the triune formula given in Matt 28:19 is the best choice. The formula clarifies what the baptismal candidate is doing. The candidate is identifying himself with and pledging allegiance to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There are some who insist upon baptism in “Jesus’ name” for salvation. This article has already dealt with the fact that baptism is not salvific and has given reasons why. It is enough to dismiss any argument vying for baptism in Jesus’ name alone to say that Jesus himself recommended the triune formula. The authority for baptism does not rest merely in the formula; otherwise they could be and often have been construed as magical words conveying some mystical infusion.

A Special Situation—Alien Immersion

Throughout history there has been an ongoing discussion of what is called “alien immersion.” This does not mean that one is immersed by an extraterrestrial being, but that a group not normally known to immerse has performed an immersion and a decision concerning the validity of that baptism must be adjudicated. Historically, many Baptists have rejected alien immersion based upon their definition of the church and the authority placed in proper ordination. This author, however, has chosen to travel a different road. Each case must be decided on an individual basis. The determining factor is not the church since the above prescribed definition of a true church allows for Pedobaptist churches to be true churches.

The determining factor is not the administrator or proper ordination. The determining factor is the ordinance itself. Was the ordinance performed with the proper subject, in the proper mode, and with the proper meaning by a true church? If so, then it is valid. While in this age of post-denominationalism, it may be possible to find such a case, that case would be rare.

For example, any Pedobaptist church performing immersions of believers would do so based upon the failure of that person to be baptized as a child and not upon conviction based on Scripture. Thus, the rare exception must be of a scripturallyinformed person requesting baptism by immersion as a believer from a Pedobaptist church that understands the true meaning of baptism. Logic contends that no such case would ever occur because such an informed person would not wish to unite and join with a church that held an opposing view. Thus, in the majority of instances, alien immersions have harmed the meaning of baptism enough to render their practice of the ordinance null and void. However, a rare valid exception may exist.

Conclusion

All of the six categories that have been discussed are inter-related to some degree. Offering a definition of what makes baptism valid always runs the risk of being misunderstood. This author offers the following definition to encourage further thought, discussion and research, understanding that it may yet be incomplete or inaccurate: Valid
baptism, the door to the local church, is performed by an appropriately selected administrator of a true church who immerses a believer in water for the purpose of profession of faith with and in the name of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, symbolizing the subject’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. A shorter definition of valid baptism would be: the immersion of a believer with the proper meaning by a true church.

What to look for in a SB Blog Post

2006-12-06T22:13:00.000-05:00

Last year a stir was created in the SBC over apparent Theological Issues. This summer this controversy was extended from Baptism/Tongues to Alcohol and even women pastors. At GuardianMinistries we are systematically addressing these issues and explaining why Southern Baptists have always stood where we stand today. Nevertheless, as more conversation takes place as to the validity of the historical position of SB on these issues, I imagine the ones who initiated this controversy will switch tactics.

I feel quite confident that when those generating the controversy realize they can’t win the theological debate they will begin a more subtle political maneuver of playing on individual’s emotions. However, this ploy will also fail, for Southern Baptists are smarter than that.

Nevertheless, the following is what I expect to see in the future:
1. Accusations or insinuations of a Pope or puppet-master in the SBC. These accusations or insinuations will have no merit other than the imaginations of conspiracy-theorists in our convention. However, the lack of merit will not stop some from making such attacks.
2. Emotional pleas for individuals who have been “apparently” mistreated or “left out”…and yet in reality the individuals will usually have brought their isolation on themselves.
3. Claims of “narrowing parameters” will be consistently made as a scare tactic to Calvinists and young pastors.
4. Emotional pleas to make the tent wider will be made.

With this in mind here are my suggestions for reading blogs:
1. If there are insinuations in a blog post that there is a pope or power-master in the SBC, ask yourself, “Did the blogger site any evidence WHATSOEVER or does he/she just expect us to trust their conspiracy theory?”
2. Did the blog post deal with any theological issue or was there some “tug” on people’s heart-strings for a certain political movement or personality in the SBC?
3. If there is a claim that SB are “narrowing parameters,” ask yourself, “if any evidence is given, or if this is a scare tactic born out of conspiracy-theorists?”
4. If you read a plea to make the tent wider, ask yourself, “at what cost to truth do we want peace?” Ecumenicalism is not evil and Christians should cooperate with other denominations, but there is a reason I am a Southern Baptists and I have no desire to lose our identity in order to pay Charismatics or Moderates to be our missionaries.

My hope is that all SB blogs will deal with the issues rather than personalities or conspiracy-theories. With that in mind we will soon begin our look into the issue of Baptism.

BR

A Sin is a Sin. Or is It?

2006-11-27T17:33:00.000-05:00

Lying, Cheating, Adultery, Murder. Are they all equal? Is one sin worse than another? or are all sins equally offensive to God?

This post is for all you theologues, especially the non-conflicting and graded absolutists.

Have fun:)
BR

Holiness Convergence:)

2006-11-20T09:52:00.000-05:00

Not long ago I spoke at the Joshua Convergence on Holiness. While some got carried away with the symptoms I spoke of rather than the substance, the following is the rationale behind my comments (both the symptoms and the substance).

HOLINESS

There appears to be a growing void both in the understanding and the praxis of holiness.

I have been appalled with the freedom that many Christians are assuming in Christ. While it is true that we have been set free from sin and the law, it is also true that we have been set free to serve Christ. We are not our own…we have been bought with a price.

The misunderstanding and thus the absence of holiness is exemplified in the way Christians dress. I am shocked by what I see “Christians” wearing (or rather not wearing). I am even more shocked that others are not shocked. Dress “morals” have been so lowered that they seem almost non-existent. As Mrs. Mary Mohler states, “Christians are wise to remember that modesty is biblically mandated” (“Modeling Modesty,” in Southern Seminary Magazine, Winter 2003, 17). A standard of modesty is desperately needed in our age of “openness.”

The “holiness void” was also on display this summer at the SBC when pastors apparently felt the need to lecture those of us who believe the Bible teaches abstinence from alcoholic drink, about our “extra-biblical” position.

In a comment section on a SBC blog, a pastor went so far as to say, “One of my deacon candidates makes a mean margarita. And it's not an issue. By the way, since we lifted that clause from our constitution and bylaws, our church visitation ministry has taken off, and people in our church are more excited than ever about reaching the lost.” Such statements can only be categorized as sad…truly sad.

While the loosening of morals in the areas of dress and drinking are very disconcerting, they are symptoms of a larger problem.

Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, 1985, p968) states that biblical holiness refers to:
1. A state of being separated or set apart to the Lord
2. Moral Goodness

In other words holiness has to do with our position in Christ, which finds its outward expression in the way we live. Being Holy entails being set apart FROM this world and being set apart TO Christ. This setting apart is demonstrable to the world by the high moral values Christians have. In Matthew 5:16 Jesus said, “May they see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”

However, as noted above, many Christians find it difficult to be set apart FROM this world (i.e. – abstaining from the vices of this world), and excuses to remain “like” the world in order to “be all things to all men” run rampant. Such excuses miss the point of being in the world but not OF the world.

This misunderstanding provides the impetus for Christians to ask the unbiblical question: How close to sin can I get? Hence, we are plagued with debates over: 1) How far is too far? 2) Is it wrong to listen to certain types of music? 3) Is it wrong for Christians to watch R-rated movies? Etc.

Such questions overlook the emphasis of the NT. The Bible never concerns itself with how close to sin one can get without sinning. Rather, the question posed by Scripture is: How close to Christ can I get?

Inevitably, one will accuse me of a works salvation. Yet, I am not advocating a works salvation but a salvation that works. Unlike the cults, we do not advocate high morals in order to be right with God we advocate them because we are right with God. When I walk with Christ I long to honor Him through “good works.”

While some Christians struggle with being set apart FROM the world, I struggle more with being separated TO Christ. The command to love the Lord my God with ALL my heart, soul and mind, is convicting. When was the last time I cried out with David, “My soul thirsts for you, my flesh longs for you in a dry and weary land.” Is Christ my last thought at night and my first thought in the morning? Is He my passion and reason for living? Is He truly my Bread of Life?

When it comes to holiness, none of us are where we need to be.

Therefore, we conclude that holy separation is not just from something, it is to someone. When I took my vows to my wife I not only vowed to abstain from others, but I vowed to separate myself TO her: to spend time with her and show my affection to her. When I do this, my love for her grows and I long to please her.

How much more so with Christ. As I spend time with Him, my passion and love grows, and before I know it, I am longing to be separated from this world and TO Him.

Thus, holiness extends beyond dress and drinking, it goes further than lewdness and language, it reaches deeper than music and movies. These are mere symptoms.

Holiness is an inner separation from this world to Christ, which is lived out in an all-encompassing moral purity. God commands, “Be ye Holy for I am Holy.” For those of us who take this command seriously, we must hold on to God’s unchanging hand.

May our moral compass be stayed on the Star of Bethlehem. May our ethical foundation be anchored in the Chief Cornerstone. May our holy virtues flow from the Fountain of Living Waters. That when others see us, we are a mirror to the Father, which causes them to glimpse heaven and thereby proclaim Holy, Holy, Holy.

On another note, Dr. Vines series on Baptist Battles is now available at www.jerryvines.com. Anyone who is mildly interested in the current issues facing the SBC would be wise to purchase these. This is the only series of its kind, that I know of, and even if you disagree, we can all learn from these messages.

BR

Southern Baptists are Viewed Favorably

2006-11-15T22:18:00.000-05:00

Contrary to what some would have us believe (about ourselves) Southern Baptists are viewed favorably by 57% of adults according to recent research done by NAMB. Even more impressive, only 17% of respondents had an unfavorable view of Southern Baptists. Perhaps the most interesting insight from this study, is the fact that Southern Baptists had more favorable results among people who were very familiar with them. Within the “Bible-belt” (the area where Southern Baptists are numerous and known) 67% of respondents had a favorable view of Southern Baptists.

While we have always been (and probably always will be) plagued with doomsday prophets and pessimistic nay-sayers (who claim people don't like us for our stands), lately there seems to be an increase in the volume of their vociferous speech via the venue of blogs. However, it is good to know the truth.

The positive way in which SB are viewed has caused me to ponder some things. Is it possible that people admire us not just for what we stand for, but also for what we stand against? Is it possible that we are respected by many “good” people because we stand against abortion and homosexuality, while standing for inerrancy?

While some may jump at opportunities to point out all they believe to be wrong with Southern Baptists, I am proud to be a Southern Baptist. And I am excited to share this good news with all of you (I am confident that other blogs will have posts sharing their optimism about who we are as SB).

May we be more grateful for what God has given us. Perhaps we would be wise to learn a lesson from the Israelites who complained constantly and ended up wondering around for forty years. Perhaps, we would benefit more from encouragement than complaints. Just a thought.

I am well aware that Southern Baptists are not perfect and we have our problems, but so has every church I have been a part of, and yet I have nothing but positive comments to make of all the churches with whom I have been associated. God is good and He has blessed Southern Baptists and I am grateful. Are you?

For more information on NAMB’s study please visit: http://www.namb.net/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=9qKILUOzEpH&b=227361&ct=3201255

BR

I Agree with John Calvin on Tongues:)

2006-11-08T01:25:00.000-05:00

As I share my personal understanding of what scripture teaches on tongues allow me to give a preamble (adapted from Kreeft's and Tacelli's "Handbook on Christian Apologetics").
1. I am totally convinced that Christianity is true and the Scriptures are inerrant.
2. I am a little less convinced, but still certain that the SBC has accurately expressed the great doctrines of the faith in the BFM.
3. I am even less convinced, but still confident, that the Trustees of the IMB have accurately understood the Scriptural position of a PPL as evidenced by their actions.
With the above in mind I share my understanding of a PPL with confidence but reverence.

I will not be addressing the practice of tongues from the book of Acts: nearly all-credible scholars agree - tongues in Acts were known languages. I believe the gift of tongues as practiced in Acts is still dispensed by God today according to His good pleasure. I believe God can and does give individuals, on the mission field, the gift of speaking in a language, they do not know, in order for others to be saved. However, I will be dealing with tongues as ecstatic utterances. But before I deal with 1 Corinthians 14, I want to make some observations.

1. We have no Scriptural evidence that ecstatic utterances (commonly called tongues today) were ever uttered in any NT church outside of Corinth. In fact, we have no Scriptural evidence that any believer other than Corinthian believers experienced ecstatic utterances.

The early church did not have the NT: they had the letters Paul and the other apostles sent them, and the OT. We can conclude that the Christians outside of Corinth received no Scripture concerning the practice of tongues – NONE (we have no evidence that the letters to Corinth were circular letters passed to other churches).

It is interesting that Paul did not speak to the Christians in Galatia, Ephesus, Rome, Philippi, Thessalonica, Colosse, or Crete about tongues…he never even mentions it.

I shall logically deduce it is because they were not practicing tongues like the Corinthians, which begs the question as to why the church at Corinth evidently was the only church in the entire world where Christians were practicing ecstatic utterances (especially in light of the Corinthian abuses).

Perhaps more than any other evidence, the silence of Scripture on Tongues (outside of the Corinthian abuses) speaks volumes.

2. Corinth was an area where pagan religious belief included ecstatic utterances, and the Corinthian believers were guilty of bringing such cultish beliefs into the church. Thus, Dr. Yarnell notes, “Examples of ecstatic, untranslatable speech may be found in the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi as well as the cults of Dionysius and Cybele. The pre-Christian background of the Corinthians indicates that ecstatic religious experiences involving unintelligible speech conferred special status upon those who practiced such. Unfortunately, the Corinthian believers brought their pagan religious practices, its attendant elitism, and the resulting social divisions into the Christian church (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-11; 3:1-4, 18; 11:17- 22).”

It is not unusual for new Christians, without proper discipleship, to syncretize Christian beliefs with the dominant religion of their locale. Perhaps, the Corinthians were guilty here (as Dr. Yarnell implies). This would explain why the Corinthians were the only Christians, we know of, who were practicing ecstatic utterances.

3. Paul was an encourager who always saw the glass half-full. Instead of criticizing the errant and foolish beliefs of the philosophers at Rome he commended their religious zeal. Amazingly, he even took one of their idols and rather than condemn idol worship, he exclaimed that the God which, that idol represented (unknown God) was the God of the Bible. In other words Paul gently pointed out their abuses of religion by pointing to the True God without diluting their zeal in seeking God.

I believe Paul did this (gentle rebuke without diluting religious zeal) on numerous occasions, including the Corinthian abuse of tongues. Rather, than pour water on their zeal and dilute their fire for Christ…he set up guidelines or POLICY:) which would have the effect of diminishing the practice of ecstatic utterances without diminishing the zeal of those who practiced such.

Here was a church divided, and Paul, as a gentle pastoral father, corrected the abuses of tongues in such a way that tongues (ecstatic utterances) themselves were subjugated to an unnecessary and irrelevant gift. And yet those who practiced such were not forbidden from doing so and thus their zeal was not affected: they were able to save face, so to speak.

However, with the new policy Paul effectually stopped the practice of tongues within the church. In fact, if we were to relegate tongues to the minor gift which Paul relegated it to and if churches would follow the policy of Paul, tongues (ecstatic utterances) would effectually cease today. Paul's policy and revelation about tongues included: 1) 5 words of understanding spoke in church is better than 10,000 words in a tongue; 2) Tongues are a sign to unbelievers, so don’t confuse unbelievers, who may be attending your church service, by practicing ecstatic utterances; 3) let no more than 3 speak at a time and have an interpreter; 4) Remember, God is not the author of confusion (thus, if tongues confuses members of the church, then they are not from God); 5) Women are forbidden from speaking in tongues in the church; 6) Let all things be done decently and in order.

4. During the apostolic age the Canon was not yet complete. Paul, Peter, James and other apostles were still receiving Divine Revelation from God (SCRIPTURE). The church did not have the complete Revelation (Bible) yet. Thus, there was still a need for “words” (revelation) from God.

It appears to me that the purpose of most manifestations of tongues (ecstatic utterances) today is to share a word or revelation from God. However, we now have the entire Bible: the completion of the Canon invalidates that purpose. We have no need for further Revelation from God. His Word is SUFFICIENT for every area of life and every trial we face. Any “further” revelation immediately raises RED FLAGS (the Mormon cult originated from “further” words from God). I am amazed that many who are claiming the sufficiency of Scripture are also supporting the practice of tongues, which is facially duplicitous.

5. It is very possible that Paul uses a dual meaning of tongues in his letter to the Corinthians: on the one hand he is speaking of the validity of Scriptural tongues not being forbidden and used for salvation purposes; on the other hand he is creating guidelines but refusing to condemn ecstatic utterances because he does not desire to quench the flames of some of his converts or to create more division in the already divided church at Corinth. And yet his new policy would have the effect of causing ecstatic utterances to cease.

With these observations in mind I conclude that the only Biblically valid practice of tongues was the practice in Acts, where tongues were languages whereby the gospel was shared. I further conclude the Corinthian abuses of tongues through ecstatic utterances did not validate ecstatic utterances then, nor does it today.

I shall now proceed to PPL. Again, let us begin with some observations:

1. Scripture does not mention a PPL anywhere. Such a concept is derived from 1 Cor 14.

2. There is no mention of a PPL in any Commentary or Theological work, of which I am familiar, before the Azusa Street Revival (Modern charismatic Movement). In fact, the linguistic and critical commentaries do not mention it still (they do mention tongues used in prayer but not a PPL). Which implies a belief in PPL is due more to the practice and traditions of men than to God's Word.

3. The individuals that I have had experiences with, who had a PPL, used it to gain NEW REVELATION from God. Such revelation inevitably led to unbiblical comprehensions of Scripture. One lady (a very spiritual woman who loves Jesus very much) spent hours in prayer daily. She was an avid reader of books on prayer, including David Jeremiah’s. She knew Scripture very well and had a PPL. To make a long story short, I will just address the most outrageous revelation she received: she claimed God told her, in her PPL, that she and I were the two witnesses in the book of Revelation!!!

Is it possible that many others are deceived about a PPL as she was?

With these observations in mind, we proceed to 1 Corinthians 14:14. I shall quote from commentaries, which reveal my understanding of this passage. John Calvin gives perhaps the clearest indictment against a PPL: therefore, I will end this post with his comments.

The ICC states: “Paul will not pray in ecstatic utterances that he cannot understand but he will pray with understanding as well as in the spirit.” In other words, Paul’s practice of tongues (1 Cor 14) was not a PPL, for he prayed in a language he could understand, thus his practice was the gift of foreign languages and he sets his practice as the example the Corinthians should follow.

The Translators Guide to the First Letter to the Corinthians concludes similarly: “Paul will use clear intelligible words besides the unintelligible sounds.”

John MacArthur makes a convincing argument that Paul was speaking sarcastically of false tongues (ecstatic utterances) but affirming the practice of the tongues of Acts. He further confirms what others have stated: namely, Paul will pray with the mind and the spirit (intelligible words).

John Calvin felt that the Corinthians were actually practicing the Biblical form of tongues (foreign languages) but doing so in prayer. He says, “for it is likely that the Corinthians also went wrong in this respect that, just as they were in the habit of speaking in foreign languages, so they were also using them in prayer.” He further reveals that, “the gift of tongues was bestowed for the purpose of communication.”

Calvin concludes: “if the gift of speaking in a tongue is kept distinct from the understanding, so that the speaker is a foreigner to himself, as well as to others, what good will he do by stammering along like that...the meaning is now plain. If I devise prayers in a language that is unknown to me and the spirit provides me with a rich flow of words, it is clear that the spirit itself, which controls my tongue, will indeed be praying, but my understanding will be wandering elsewhere, or at any rate will not be involved in the prayer. We should note that Paul thinks it a GREAT FAULT (caps mine) if the understanding takes no part in prayer. No wonder. For what else do we do in praying but pour out our thoughts and desires before God…in view of the fact that spiritual prayer is a means of worshipping, what is more out of keeping with its very nature than its coming only from the lips and not from the innermost recesses of the soul” (our thoughts).

BR

When Elves and Dwarfs Work Together

2006-10-30T11:56:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite scenes in the Fellowship of the Ring (Lord of the Rings) is when the fellowship is formed. I especially enjoy when Gimli and Legolas lay aside their lifelong distrust of each other, in order to accomplish the goal of defeating the greater evil that threatens both lands. That is not to say, that both the dwarfs and the elves had legitimate concerns about each other…but it is to say, they laid those concerns aside, for a time, in order to concentrate on more pressing matters. We could learn from that strategy.

I will gladly cooperate with Mormons in order to elect morally conservative representatives. I will cooperate with Catholics in order to legislate pro-life statutes. In fact, I will even cooperate with moral atheists in order to make state constitutional changes, which would protect from the legalization of same-sex marriages.

Perchance those of us who disagree about how big the tent in the SBC should be, can concentrate on more important issues this week: Namely…THE ELECTIONS.

I feel VERY STRONGLY about not widening the SBC to become an ecumenical group that sacrifices doctrinal purity for ecumenical unity (a place we have been before). Nevertheless, I am even more concerned about the greater evils of Sodom and Gomorrah becoming legal in our country. Perhaps, we (bloggers) can take the time we would normally devote to SBC issues (on which we disagree), and, for the next week, give it to prayer for our elections.

I will gladly respond to comments this week…but I feel compelled to not post until after the elections (giving the time I would normally use for posting, to prayer).

After the election we will return to the issue of PPL. I will post my personal thoughts and also some evidence from a BP article, which contrary to what some say, reveals this really is a no spin zone. (As I have said on numerous occasions, “I will gladly retract ANYTHING I have said which is not accurate.”)

Have a great week, may God Bless America, and may we stand for truth and justice.

“Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.” - Proverbs 14:

Tongues - The NT Kind

2006-10-27T09:37:00.000-05:00

In order to give Southern Baptists a thorough understanding of issues, we pursue them in great detail here (no drive-bys or spin). Therefore, we are continuing our study on tongues. The following “white paper” was also given to the SW Trustees at their last meeting. It was written by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell. For space considerations we have once again not included the foot-notes. To view the foot-notes as well as other excellent papers please visit www.baptisttheology.org - a ministry of SWBTS.

I have noticed that very few blogs have commented on how SW numbers are up this year. I wonder why blogs are not mentioning this? By the way, SE reached an all-time high this year…and I am confident that Southern’s and Midwestern’s numbers are up also (under the leadership of Dr. Mohler and Dr. Roberts respectively). Dr. Kelley shared in SE chapel how well NO is doing, especially in being a light to the community in ways it never could before…and I am sure Golden Gate (Dr. Iorg) is doing well also. (Of course if I were sending a young pastor to seminary, SE would be my first choice:)

While there are some in the blogosphere who claim the full glass SB have been given by God, is half empty, I disagree. SB have long been blessed by God and He has in His grace chosen to bless us now as much as ever. The seminaries, IMB, NAMB and all of our institutions are truly feeling the hand of God. Praise His name. And thank God for our leaders. Concerning the doomsday nay-sayers, let me encourage you to stop trying to make SB a people we have never been under the guise fixing problems. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it:) With that in mind we will turn to Dr. Yarnell’s paper.

Speaking of “Tongues,” What Does the Bible Teach?

When two African theologians, Arius and Athanasius, squared off concerning the ontological relationship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to God the Father, they both treated Scripture as authoritative. Today, both men would probably affirm modern evangelical terminology concerning both “inerrancy” and “sufficiency” with regard to Scripture. However, facile or superficial affirmations of Scripture’s inerrancy and sufficiency are simply not enough when it comes to forming true doctrine; there is also the critical issue of the orthodox “interpretation” of Scripture. Orthodoxy separates the Christian, Athanasius, from the heretic, Arius. Thus, interpretation can lead to either orthodoxy or heresy.

Unlike postmodern Christians, who naively consider differing interpretations of Scripture to be a mere matter of openness or adiaphora [“indifference”], conservative believers recognize that the orthodox interpretation of Scripture preserves the faith of the people and glorifies God. (We pray the Holy Spirit will guide the churches to the orthodox conclusion in the particular matter under discussion here.) On the other hand, errant and heretical interpretations may lead to unhealthy churches at best or false Christianity at worst. Misinterpreting the biblical teaching regarding “speaking in tongues” is, fortunately, closer to the former than the latter.

This essay is written in an effort to set out what this Southern Baptist believes is the orthodox doctrine of Scripture regarding glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. What follows is a popular presentation of one tertiary aspect of the rich biblical doctrine of the Spirit. Those desiring historical and experiential reviews of the modern phenomena of tongues should consult other sources. The author recognizes that a number of close Christian friends will disagree; however, he begs those friends to consider the text and correct his interpretation according to the witness of that text. Let us not allow the Corinthian corruption of glossolalia to bring division; may Love instead reign.

The Biblical Witness Regarding Glossolalia

There are a number of biblical passages cited by advocates of the various modern practices of “speaking in tongues.” Rather than beginning with the positions of these modern advocates, it is best to consider the biblical passages in their canonical context.

While modern enthusiasts begin with their personal experience, it is proper to begin with the witness of Scripture. The relevant biblical passages shall be considered below according to their primary or secondary impact upon the doctrine of glossolalia.

The theological implications of the biblical teaching will be drawn out. Thirteen conclusions regarding the biblical doctrine of glossolalia follow our scriptural review. Please take the time to consider the Scripture’s witness with me rather than jumping to the thirteen conclusions, for the truth is in the biblical text. Historical tradition, personal experience, and rational conclusions are subservient to the Bible and must always be judged by the Bible.

Primary Biblical Passages Regarding Glossolalia

Mark 16:17-18: In this critically questioned yet infallible passage, after delivering the Commission, Jesus declares concerning believers, “And these signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues [glossais lalasousin kainais]; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” These five amazing occurrences are labeled “signs” [semeia]. A biblical sign is an indicator of a deeper spiritual reality. In this case, the signs are intended to provide divine verification of the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 2:4). This gospel concerns Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and continuing ministry, and the salvation available in and through Him by personal faith, a faith evidenced in the first submissive act of a disciple, baptism.

Among the five signs, glossolalia appears second. The languages spoken would be “new” [kainais], indicating their relation to the speakers as something they had previously not learned. These prophesied signs found their fulfillment in the early days of the church, as recorded in the book of Acts, thus verifying the movement of God in the life of the early church (cf. Acts 3:7, 5:16, 28:3-6). The prophecy of Jesus concerning glossolalia was soon fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2), while there were subsequent fulfillments in Acts 10 and 19, echoing the structure of Christ’s command concerning the successive movement of the gospel beginning from Jerusalem (Acts 1:8).

Acts 2:4: After watching Jesus ascend to heaven, the disciples were gathered in prayer on the day of Pentecost. A fourfold phenomenon occurred where they had gathered: a heavenly sound of rushing wind filled the whole house, tongues like fire settled on each head, they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they “began to speak with other tongues [lalein heterais glossais], as the Spirit gave them utterance.” According to Peter, this event fulfilled the prophecy of Joel. Peter was clear that the coming of the Spirit upon the church occurred in this miraculous, wondrous and significant manner (Acts 2:22) for the purpose of letting Israel “know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (2:36). The Holy Spirit’s gifting of tongues at Pentecost was explicitly to verify to Israel that the crucified Jew named Jesus is indeed God.

According to Peter and Luke, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit respectively to speak and write what we have in Acts 2, the sign of speaking with other tongues publicly conveyed the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are four aspects of this significant event which must be grasped. The first three aspects tell us about the speakers, the hearers, and the meaning communicated. The fourth aspect tells us why the communication occurred in the way it did.

First, there is no doubt whatsoever that this was a miracle of speaking in languages that the individual speakers did not know but that others in the Jerusalem crowd did know. From Parthia to Asia to Arabia to Egypt to Rome, multiple languages were being spoken by these provincial Galilean Christians.

Second, these multiple languages were heard and understood by witnesses from around the world. The Christians conveyed information in actual languages to actual people that heard and understood those languages. What amazed the hearers was that the speakers should not have known their unusual languages. Their attention had been effectively obtained.

Third, this event centered on the communication of certain information. That information concerned the gospel of Jesus Christ and prepared the hearts of the hearers for what Peter would soon proclaim and draw to an invitation. In other words, the gospel was being manifested through this miraculous working by the Spirit. Speaking “with other tongues” was not for personal edification but for public proclamation of the gospel to other people.

Fourth, the accompanying and attention-gripping nature of speaking in tongues was intended to draw attention to the gospel of God. Fulfilling His own prophecy (Mark 16:17), the phenomenon of tongues was given by Christ Himself as a sign (cf. Acts 2:22, 34). Signs draw attention to something; Christ intended the sign of speaking in tongues to draw Israel’s attention to the gospel. Peter’s role was then to call the hearers to turn from their sin to Jesus Christ and to be baptized in His name, receiving for themselves the Holy Spirit.

It is also important to grasp what did not occur here. The existing believers received the gift of speaking in tongues, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the new believers received that same gift when they too received the Spirit. Rather, in converting to Christ by repentance and faith, the new believers simultaneously received the Gift Himself, the Holy Spirit. The focus of Peter and the early church was not upon the sign gift of speaking in tongues but on converting their neighbors to Christ. The points emphasized by Peter as he concluded his sermon with an invitation concerned forgiveness, repentance, Jesus Christ, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). And when the hearers responded to Peter’s repeated fervent invitations to be saved, they were baptized and brought into the church. Incredible awe overcame the growing church and the lasting effect of the Spirit’s coming at Pentecost upon the Jerusalem church was the growth of the church and the fostering of unity, fellowship, and community in that church (2:41-47).

Acts 10:46: The unique experience of the Jerusalem church at Pentecost in Acts 2 occurred in similarly public and significant ways for non-Jews in Acts 10 and for followers of John the Baptist in Acts 19.

In Acts 10, God specifically dealt with Peter to help the Jewish Christians overcome their opposition to Gentile conversion. The Holy Spirit came upon these foreigners when Peter preached to them. The Holy Spirit then manifested Himself in these Gentiles in the same way that He had shown Himself upon the Jews at Pentecost.

The Jews who were present in Caesarea heard the Gentiles “speak with tongues [lalounton glossais] and magnify God” (10:46). This wondrous event had a significant impact upon Peter. The sign of the Spirit’s coming upon the Jews was now evident in His coming upon the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians heard these foreign Gentiles magnify God as they communicated intelligibly in languages. Peter therefore commanded that his Jewish Christian companions baptize the Gentile Christians, thus bringing Gentile believers into fellowship with the Jerusalem church (10:47-48).

Afterwards, when word of these events spread, other Jewish Christians questioned Peter. Peter relayed to them that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Gentiles at Caesarea as He had come upon the Jews. The sign-value of this event was not lost upon Peter’s questioners, for they too glorified God that He had graced the Gentiles with repentance and life (11:12-18). Similar to the events at Jerusalem, speaking with tongues at Caesarea publicly magnified God. Moreover, like the Jerusalem occurrence, the purpose of the sign of speaking with tongues was to verify that the Father was active in saving people—here, the Gentiles—by sending His Son and His Spirit. While speaking in tongues, they “magnified God:” the gift both helped publicly convey the gospel and uniquely signified divine verification of that gospel.

Acts 19:6: The dual role of the gift in proclamation and in verification occurs once again in Acts 19:6. Here, the followers of John the Baptist, who were expecting the Messiah but had not yet surrendered to Jesus Christ, were also converted and received the Spirit. For the third and final time in the book of Acts, a unique group of people was publicly verified as coming into the church through the sign of glossolalia. The former followers of John the Baptist were now Christians and “spoke with tongues [elaloun glossais] and prophesied.” Again, the gift functioned as verification that a new people were brought into a church. Again, the gift intelligibly conveyed the gospel. The verification concerned the conversion of the followers of John the Baptist. The proclamation can be seen in the coupling of prophesy with the gift.

These three passages—Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6—are the only instances regarding speaking in tongues in the book of Acts. Pentecostal theologians assert glossolalia also occurred in Acts 8;4 however, there is no textual support for such speculation. All three passages treat the gift of speaking in tongues as the public and intelligible communication of truth about God. These passages also treat the gift of speaking in tongues as a verifying sign of the unique coming of the Holy Spirit upon a new group of people, thereby incorporating that group into the church. There are numerous other instances of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon new believers without any indication of the gift of tongues being present (Acts 2:41-42, 8:12, 9:17-19). Although Scripture teaches that the Spirit must accompany the proclamation of the Word to be effective (1 Thess. 1:5-6), there is no specific reason to assume that the verification provided by the particular spiritual gift of speaking in tongues is required beyond the verification of the incorporation of these three main communities – Jews, Gentiles, and followers of John the Baptist.

1 Corinthians 12-14: In contrast to the churches in Acts, the church at Corinth was an extremely unhealthy and fractured church. Its membership included a number of former pagans who were finding it difficult to leave behind their ungodly ways. In discussing spiritual gifts, a major concern for these former pagans, Paul found it necessary to re-educate the Corinthians by placing the gift of tongues in its proper context. First, he reminded the Corinthians that before converting to Christ they had followed “dumb [aphona] idols” (1 Cor. 12:2). An aphonic idol is literally an idol “without a voice” or “without meaning.” In the Old Testament, God’s powerful voice [translated as phona in the Septuagint] indicated His self-revelation by His Word. In the New Testament, phona may indicate a powerful voice expressed through those who bear the Spirit of God.

Opposite the biblical examples of God speaking phonically, powerfully and clearly, through His servants, idols are known to be aphonic, incapable of speech and meaningless. Pagans believed their idols could express themselves in speech through an oracle, but their speech was unintelligible and a religious poet was required to translate. Examples of ecstatic, untranslatable speech may be found in the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi as well as the cults of Dionysius and Cybele. The pre-Christian background of the Corinthians indicates that ecstatic religious experiences involving unintelligible speech conferred special status upon those who practiced such. Unfortunately, the Corinthian believers brought their pagan religious practices, its attendant elitism, and the resulting social divisions into the Christian church (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-11; 3:1-4, 18; 11:17- 22).

Where the healthy churches of Jerusalem and Ephesus experienced tongues as a significant verification of popular conversion which proclaimed the gospel and united the people of God, the unhealthy Corinthian church was experiencing tongues as a sign of personal status which was unintelligible and resulted in divisions among the people of God. Paul was therefore forced to put the idea of glossolalia in its proper Christian context as intelligible and significant speech, in opposition to the pagan context where glossolalia was unintelligible and insignificant speech. He began fulfilling that difficult task by reminding the Corinthians that the Spirit will never lead people to curse Christ; instead, the Spirit’s role is to lead people to confess Jesus as Lord. The pagan practice of glossolalia, characterized by unintelligibility, could apparently lead some to ignorantly curse Christ (1 Cor. 12:3).

Paul then taught the Corinthians that spiritual gifts are not subject to human manipulation, but are under the sovereign gifting of the Triune God (12:4-6). Paul affirmed that glossolalia is a spiritual gift, but he clearly taught that in the hierarchy of gifts, it was the least (12:10, 28). Moreover, not every Christian possessed this gift (12:30) and this particular gift should be desired the least (14:1).

God’s gifts are given for one primary reason, the common good (12:7). This overarching goal of communal welfare is expressed in three important ways through the remainder of chapters 12-14 of 1 Corinthians: First, the diversity of the members with their various gifts finds its single purpose in the mutual care of the members in the “one body” whose head is Christ (12:12-27). Second, although Christians should desire the better gifts, their goal must always be the “more excellent way” of radically selfless love on behalf of the other (12:31-14:1). Third, Paul then outlines his understanding of the gift of proclamation [propheteia] as better incarnating love for the other because it allows Christians to practically fulfill the important theological end of the “edification” [oikodoman] or mutual “up-building” of the church (14:3).

In light of Paul’s understanding of the common good as the one body, the way of love, and ecclesial edification, his description of the Corinthians’ glossolalia as intended for self-edification shows that this fractured church’s understanding of the spiritual gift is grossly perverse (1 Cor. 14:4). Spiritual gifts, as Paul repeatedly indicated, are for mutual edification, thus the Corinthians should re-orient themselves away from their selfcentered doctrine of tongues.

In chapter 14, Paul shows how the Corinthians’ doctrine of tongues differs from the orthodox Christian doctrine: the Corinthians’ doctrine of glossolalia is insignificant and unintelligible as well as disorderly and indecent, while the orthodox doctrine of glossolalia is significant and intelligible as well as orderly and decent. Paul reconstructs the orthodox doctrine of glossolalia for the Corinthians by closely correlating it to prophesying, or euphemistically, the public proclamation of the gospel. In some detail, Paul denigrates the idea that true glossolalia may occur apart from meaningful communication, which involves the full engagement of the mind with the spirit and the speaker’s intentional edification of his hearers.

Everyone must communicate with languages, but even more than merely speaking, they should clearly proclaim the gospel. Speaking without regard for the correct transference of the meaning of the gospel (i.e. “interpretation”) does not edify the church (14:5). If a person speaks without being concerned for communicating meaningfully, his sounds are meaningless [aphona], like a trumpet which cannot call troops to battle or like a person in a foreign land who cannot understand the local language (14:7-8, 10-11). Those who are zealous for spiritual gifts should above all seek to edify the church (14:12). If one speaks in a tongue, one should pray that God will help him speak with understanding (14:13).

Paul concludes that the idea of unintelligible speech is extremely odd, for the human spirit must not be disconnected from the human understanding in prayer or in song (14:15). After all, how can others be edified if we speak meaningless words (14:16)? Speaking tongue-in-cheek (pardon the pun), Paul lets the Corinthians know that their meaningless speech may represent their sincere effort to thank God, but he is more thankful that he can publicly proclaim the gospel intelligibly with five words rather than mumble on with ten thousand meaningless words (14:17-19).

Echoing his previous reference to the passing childishness of speaking in the tongues of angels (cf. 13:1, 11), Paul exhorts the Corinthians to cease being immature in their understanding (14:20). Those who are mature will understand that language indicates not only blessing but judgment. Unknown tongues in Scripture signify divine wrath. The biblical significance of unintelligible tongues is worryingly different from the biblical significance of intelligible tongues. Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11-12, regarding God’s judgment of unrepentant Israel by sending an invading army of foreigners. The vivid imagery of Isaiah 28 recalls the horrors of watching the occupation of Jerusalem by an invading army, an army which speaks in a meaningless language. In the Old Testament passage, Israel was noted for its refusal to think clearly (Isa. 28:9): will the Corinthians be the same way? The biblical significance of intelligible Christian speech is that the gospel brings life to those who will believe; the biblical significance of unintelligible speech is that God will judge. Unintelligible tongues are intended by God to serve as a sign of judgment on unbelievers; intelligible proclamation of the gospel is intended to bring life to those who believe (14:22). The unbeliever who enters the church and hears unintelligible speech will leave with the understanding that the Corinthian Christians are senseless (14:23). The person who enters the church and hears an intelligible proclamation of the gospel’s power will be convicted of sin, and may repent and turn to worship God (14:24-25).

After carefully distinguishing the orthodox doctrine of glossolalia as intelligible and significant speech from the Corinthian doctrine of glossolalia as unintelligible and insignificant speech, Paul then launches into a discussion of order and decency. If these Corinthians believe they have the true spiritual gift of tongues, then they must practice it in such a way that they function intelligibly and significantly. Paul indicates how the gifts of tongues and of prophecy must be conducted so that all things are “done decently and in order” in the church (14:40). With regard to tongues, it must be practiced for public edification, there must be an orderly presentation, and there must be an interpreter. If these requirements cannot be met, then Paul is clear that the Corinthian enthusiasts must “keep silent in church” (14:28). Paul did not forbid the practice of speaking in tongues in the church (14:39), but he severely qualified its practice with requirements that still apply to churches today (14:26-28).

Secondary Biblical Passages

Romans 8:26: Some scholars consider various other biblical passages in relation to the issue of glossolalia. Romans 8:26 is often utilized in this regard; however, the passage does not address the phenomenon. First, in the prayer of Romans 8, there is an explicit inability to utter words [alalatois], while glossolalia explicitly concerns the utterance of words (cf. Acts 2:4). The only way to equate the phenomenon of Romans 8 with that of glossolalia is to engage in contradictory logic and say that “not speaking” is “speaking.” Second, through much of Romans 8, Paul discusses the Spirit’s role in salvation, and as Martin Luther demonstrated, Paul here expounds the prayer of faith which concerns personal regeneration by the Spirit. Third, if Paul had the gift of tongues in mind in his letter to the Romans, he would have included it in the gifts discussed in Romans 12:3-8. Although many Charismatics as well as the odd higher critic have tried to place this text within the conversation over glossolalia, the most authoritative modern commentator on Romans has declared, with typical British understatement, that such a connection is “not likely.”

Other Passages Cited in Support of Modern Practices: Other biblical passages have also been brought forward by Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians seeking to buttress their modern practices. These passages include Ephesians 5:18-20 and 6:18, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, and Jude 20. However, glossolalia is not mentioned in any of these texts. Modern enthusiasts freely equate biblical glossolalia with various modern practices of “speaking in tongues.” Included among the modern practices are the Pentecostal requirement of speaking in unknown tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the congregational practice of simultaneous expressions of unintelligible ecstatic speech; and, the private practice of unintelligible ecstatic speech as a prayer language. The modern advocates of these various practices assume that the biblical doctrine of glossolalia is what is being practiced today under the name of “speaking in tongues.” This is a precarious assumption, for not all that calls itself biblical actually is biblical.

The Cessation of Glossolalia: On the other hand, advocates of Cessationism have gone to Hebrews 2:3-4 to argue that “signs” [semeiois] were intended to verify the original dissemination of the gospel message. Since that message has now been recorded in the apostolic writings, there is no longer any need for sign gifts like speaking in tongues. W.A. Criswell affirmed this interpretation: “One of these sign gifts was speaking in tongues. When the authenticating necessity for the sign gift ceased, the phenomenon ceased. It was needed no longer. It had served its purpose. For us to seek to re-create the sign is not faith but presumption.” In the debate over whether the miraculous gifts are for today, the Cessationist argument makes valid points; however, the “Open but Cautious” view is also worthy of consideration. The open but cautious view allows for the continuation of many spiritual gifts into the modern churches, but is unwilling to make a one-to-one correlation between modern practices and the biblical witness. Unfortunately, the “Third Wave” and “Pentecostal/Charismatic” positions too often begin from the vantage of personal experience or tradition.

Thirteen Conclusions Regarding Biblical Glossolalia

1. Biblical glossolalia is a gift of the Holy Spirit from Jesus Christ.
2. Biblical glossolalia involves a Christian using an existing spoken language that he or she has not previously learned.
3. Biblical glossolalia involves non-Christian hearers who understand an existing spoken language they previously knew.
4. Biblical glossolalia involves the public communication of intelligible information concerning the gospel.
5. Biblical glossolalia was intended by Jesus as a sign to verify the proclamation of the gospel concerning salvation through His death and resurrection.
6. The sign of biblical glossolalia was fulfilled in the unique events surrounding the incorporation of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the followers of John the Baptist into the New Testament churches.
7. Biblical glossolalia is not intended for every Christian.
8. Biblical glossolalia is the least important of all the various spiritual gifts.
9. Biblical glossolalia is intended for the common good and results in unity, loving fellowship, and congregational edification.
10. The biblical sign of intelligible language indicates divine blessing, but the biblical sign of unintelligible language indicates divine wrath.
11. Biblical glossolalia must be distinguished from Corinthian glossolalia.
a. Biblical glossolalia comes from the Holy Spirit while Corinthian glossolalia comes from the pagan religious background of Corinth.
b. Biblical glossolalia involves intelligible speech concerning the Gospel while Corinthian glossolalia is unintelligible speech that may curse Christ.
c. Biblical glossolalia results in unity, love, and edification, while Corinthian glossolalia results in division, discord, and destruction.
12. In light of the problem of Corinthian glossolalia, if a church wishes to discern whether biblical glossolalia is present, Scripture establishes some guidelines:
a. It must involve the congregation.
b. It must result in public edification.
c. There must be a decent and orderly practice.
d. There must be an interpretation.
13. Biblical glossolalia may be allowed by the church, but those who embrace Corinthian glossolalia must keep silent.

Glossolalia and Southern Baptists

2006-10-23T19:08:00.000-05:00

I promised to start dealing with the issue of tongues and so I thought a good start would be to post one of the “white papers” which was given to the Trustees at SWBTS. Dr. Emir Caner is the scholar who wrote this paper. For length consideration I have not included the footnotes. To see all the footnotes please read the paper at: http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/SBCTonguesHistoricalPolicy.pdf

The situation seems all too familiar now. Trustees of a mission board, empowered to enact policies they believe best represent Southern Baptist doctrine and practice, pass a new policy which stipulates that any missionary candidate who speaks in a private prayer language has disqualified himself from consideration. This stricter set of regulations is first birthed via general guidelines which the trustees believed needed to be codified with stronger language. Subsequently, one trustee speaks out against the new directive questioning the definition of glossolalia (Gr., “speaking in tongues”). Moreover, the president of the agency, elected because he was considered a conservative, incredibly speaks out against the new policy, although he subsequently promises to follow its guidelines. Finally, accusations are then leveled at some of the trustees, alleging a dispensational view of Scripture is behind these actions. One noted critic wrote, “If a fundamentalist understanding of scripture was to be the guiding principle, then glossolalia could not be allowed.”

Yet, the situation is not exactly what one may think. The above situation is not about new directives given to the International Mission Board in November 2005; rather, it involves the Home Mission Board (now North American Mission Board), and the year this new policy was adopted was 1987. At the time, the battle for the soul of the Southern Baptist Convention was raging and in many ways reaching its peak. The Dallas convention of 1985, which registered more than 45,000 messengers, proved to be a watershed year for the conservative cause with Charles Stanley being elected President. By 1988, the year following the enactment of these new policies regarding tongues, Southern Baptists met in San Antonio, Texas, where more than 32,000 messengers were registered.

Considering the present outcry from a few Southern Baptists over the new IMB policy, one would think a similar chorus of disapproval would have arisen during the 1988 San Antonio convention. Yet, when the report of the Home Mission Board was given, there were no objections and no questions whatsoever. In fact, the session was rather poorly attended—with less than one thousand people in the audience. Therefore, what possible reasons could there be for this lack of protest? Consider the following facts:

1) The president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Adrian Rogers, voiced no disapproval of the new policies.

2) Jim Strickland was the sole opposition to the new policy, in spite of a good number of “loyal opposition” moderates and “swing votes” on the board.4

3) The trustee board was obviously far more unified regarding the new tongues policy than they were regarding the new divorce policy adopted at the same meeting. The vote for a more restrictive policy on divorce passed 48-20; the vote strengthening the policy on tongues passed with near unanimity.

For nearly twenty years now the North American Mission Board (NAMB) has maintained its course with regard to its restrictive policy on tongues, while experiencing substantial growth in its missionary force and its new church plants. Today, the board employs more than 5,300 missionaries, an increase of more than 1,500 since 1987. Additionally, NAMB is now reaching out to more ethnicities than ever before. The narrowing of parameters did not prove to be a detriment in any evidentiary way. Indeed, pristine doctrine proved to be a boon to growth. Once again, Adrian Rogers may have proven to be a prophet, when he reminded conventioneers during his sermon in San Antonio, “The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power and the wider its usefulness. The modern cry, less creed and more liberty, is a degeneration from the ‘vertebrae to the jelly fish.’”

The Issue at Hand: Glossolalia and Policy

The issue at hand is not merely the interpretation of glossolalia, but whether the Board of Trustees has the right to make restrictive policies. Does this duly-elected body of governors have the right to go beyond the bounds of the accepted confession of faith? The obvious answer concerning their right to do so is an unequivocal “yes.” Trustees are charged by Southern Baptist churches through appointments during the annual Southern Baptist Convention to represent Southern Baptists in carrying out the task of sending biblically-qualified missionaries to the field. Frank Page, newly elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006, reiterated this notion: “There are a multitude of issues that have to be dealt with within the trustee framework that go way beyond the Baptist Faith and Message…. There are many things that the Baptist Faith and Message just simply doesn’t deal with….”

Furthermore, not all—or perhaps any—decisions will be met with unanimous agreement. For example, although the Baptist Faith and Message does not address the matter of divorce, the International Mission Board has from its inception in 1845 argued that divorced men and women may not be considered for appointment. This was reaffirmed by the preceding Foreign Mission Board in 1987.8 Here is another decision that carries many similarities with the present-day controversy. It is certainly clear that the biblical parameters of divorce are hotly contested in some Southern Baptist circles, and even more so in the broader evangelical world. Godly scholars often disagree with each other’s interpretation on this issue. Yet, although many interpretations from Scripture have been offered, Southern Baptists have consistently come down on the side of caution. In the end, it is our responsibility as Southern Baptists to speak for Southern Baptists, not to appease a broader and often poorly-defined Evangelicalism.

Autonomy is another issue that must be addressed. Not only is each church autonomous, but every association, every state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention are autonomous as well. Thus, in spite of claims otherwise, there is no violation of local church autonomy when trustees address the issue of glossolalia. Just as every church has the right to affirm or deny the modern practice which goes under the name of “speaking in tongues,” so does the Southern Baptist Convention.

In fact, historical precedent demonstrates that many local associations and state conventions have dealt with this very issue. Note a few representative instances:

1) In 1975, six churches were “barred from fellowship by four associations of Southern Baptist churches in three states.” A news article acknowledged the divisiveness of tongues upon congregations, and Robert Baker, then professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, articulated that he would rather see these churches withdraw.

2) In 1996, the Florida Baptist Convention’s mission board voted to disfellowship two churches for neo-Pentecostalism.

3) In 1999, the Webster County Baptist Association (Missouri) voted to withdraw fellowship from Calvary Baptist Church, Marshfield, over the issue of charismatic worship. As one article noted, the issue involved “practices such as speaking in tongues.” The vote was 102-2.

It is evident that Southern Baptists have historically taken a cautious tone towards the Charismatic movement in general and glossolalia in particular. They have recognized the lesson of church history that these enthusiastic movements can be greatly divisive to the local churches and to the larger body of Christ. One need look no further than the second-century Montantist movement—the first true dissenting movement within early Christianity which was largely based on prophecy and ecstatic utterances—to understand the controversial nature of these practices. A mature Christian clearly knows that this problem is not simply an argument over Paul’s command to “not forbid the speaking of tongues.”

Moreover, the International Mission Board itself has, to a certain extent, previously dealt with the issue of speaking in tongues. Indeed, the Mission Personnel Committee handled the subject of tongues and issued a statement on June 23, 1992. It maintained:
The Foreign Mission Board has not voted a policy statement with regard to glossolalia and it is not mentioned among the criteria for mission service. However, the Foreign Mission Board represents all Southern Baptists and it is important that our missionaries be people who are comfortable with worship as it is normally expressed within the Southern Baptist family of churches. As we talk with candidates we discuss their beliefs, patterns of worship and devotional life, and a host of other issues related to their life as Christians and Baptists. In the course of such discussions we find that it is appropriate and natural to talk about worship and prayer, including glossolalia if that is a part of the individual’s experience. Our intention in those discussions is neither to interrogate nor to instruct, but to come to a point of mutual understanding. In terms of worship practices, the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossolalia in their public services. Therefore, if a person feels that glossolalia is a vital, significant and public part of his or her conviction and practice, we believe that person has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the majority of Southern Baptists [emphasis mine]. At the same time, we do not try to enter into the prayer closet of an individual to monitor or evaluate that person’s prayer language or life.

This quote illustrates the importance that IMB trustees and staff have always placed upon relating to “worship as it is normally expressed within the Southern Baptist family of churches.” It is critical to understand that guidelines or policies must acknowledge the need for Southern Baptist missionaries to represent faithfully those who support them financially and pray for them continually. This faithfulness to the churches extends to the public practice of speaking of tongues—and, with the new policy, it extends to “private prayer languages,” too. The guideline argues that a person who “feels that glossolalia is a vital, significant, and public part of his or her conviction and practice…has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the majority of Southern Baptists” [emphasis mine].” Jerry Rankin, who was elected after this guideline was passed, affirms the position held and fully supports its justification.

Exegetical Fallacy: Can Public Tongues Be Divorced from Private Tongues?

The controversy, then, does not pit Cessationists (those theologians who believe that the spectacular gifts ceased to be necessary once the New Testament was written) versus Continualists (those who assume that the New Testament gifts are still in evidence among Christians, today). For example, Jerry Rankin, who prohibits the public speaking of tongues, may be considered a semi-Cessationist, because he forbids speaking in tongues in public worship but not in private worship. Instead, the disagreement concerns whether one can exegetically argue that a private prayer language is allowed while a public prayer language is prohibited.

There are two principle passages which must be considered regarding a private prayer language: Romans 8:26 and 1 Corinthians 14. Paul writes in Romans 8:26: Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Though it may (and should) seem logically incoherent to non-Charismatic readers, many Charismatics argue that “the groanings which cannot be uttered” can be better rendered “with groanings that words cannot express.” Thus, the argument goes, when a believer can no longer use his own language, the Spirit intercedes in His language.

But it takes hermeneutical gymnastics to get to the point where that which is unutterable—“words cannot express”—means “articulated through the Holy Spirit and His language.” First, the context of Romans 8 concerning the Spirit’s decided role in salvation, has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. Second, any word study immediately identifies the “groanings” as speechless or lacking speech. A.T. Robertson, the greatest Greek scholar ever produced by Southern Baptists, exclaimed, “It is the picturesque word of rescue by one who ‘happens on’ (entugchanei) one who is in trouble and ‘in his behalf’ (huper) pleads ‘with unuttered groanings’ (instrumental case) or with ‘sighs that baffle words’ (Denny). This is the work of our Helper, the Spirit himself.” Confirming this interpretation, the Revised Standard Version translates the phrase, “with sighs too deep for words.” Third, it may be worth noting that the Spirit intercedes “on our behalf” or “for” us, not “through” us. Fourth, any insistence upon the Holy Spirit speaking for us is, as two scholars have noted, “to admit that God cannot know the mind of the Holy Spirit or the mind of the believer unless prayer is verbally expressed, or else He has an inclination toward hearing spiritual mutterings that are non-sensical to the masses. No Christian would wish to argue that way.” In the end, one should be wary of building doctrine on one verse of Scripture, especially according to such an unusual interpretation of that verse. Thus, if an unusual interpretation of Romans 8:26 is the sole basis for one’s practice of a private prayer language, that believer should excise this experience from his walk with the Lord.

But most of those who defend a private prayer language use 1 Corinthians 14 as the justification for the practice. In particular, verses 14 through 17 play an integral role in such an interpretation. Paul writes in these verses: For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

The issue of prayer, of course, is center stage in the discussion. With that reminder, A.T. Robertson asserts, “Paul is distinctly in favour of the use of the intellect in prayer. Prayer is an intelligent exercise of the mind…. There was ecstatic singing like the rhapsody of some prayers without intelligent words. But Paul prefers singing that reaches the intellect as well as stirs the emotions.”

Using the same line of reasoning, John MacArthur contends this passage discourages any prayer language, because “[t]he type of tongues the Corinthians practiced had no edifying value at all.” His argument is based on certain principles in the text, including:

1) Prayer is always intelligible. “I believe a better translation, however, is ‘to a god’…. The translation here of ‘a god’ is supported by the fact that the Bible records no instance of believers speaking to God in anything but normal, intelligible language…. His reference included the repetitious and unintelligible gibberish of pagan tongues-speaking, in which certain meaningless sounds were repeated over and over again.”

2) Without interpretation, private prayer language is useless. “Because even true tongues must be interpreted in order to be understood, they cannot possibly edify anyone, including the person speaking, without such interpretation. They cannot, therefore, be intended by God for private devotional use, as many Pentecostals and charismatics claim.”

3) Spiritual gifts are for the edification of the body. “The purpose of gifts, Paul was saying, is to minister for God but not to God….’ To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good’ (12:7)”

In early church history, most of the church fathers would agree with MacArthur’s conclusions. Ambrosiaster, a proconsul in Africa in the mid-fourth century, whose commentary was used by Augustine, remarked on verse fourteen by asking the rhetorical question: “What can a person achieve if he does not know what he is saying?” John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), the Eastern bishop nicknamed “Golden Mouth” for his homiletical prowess, affirmed Ambrosiaster’s sentiment, exclaiming, “Paul does not forbid speaking in tongues, however much he may belittle the gift, but he insists that it be kept under control and used for the edification of the whole church.”

In the end, one must recognize that Paul was engaging practices within the local congregation at Corinth. He was not issuing statements on any private consideration, but was referring to the need for balance found in the fact that all spiritual gifts are for the common good, not for self-edification (1 Corinthians 12:7). Indeed, this passage, which has been used by some to justify a private prayer language, actually argues against such practice. First, Paul affirms that he will pray both in the Spirit and in understanding. But a prayer language cannot accomplish the latter. One would have to claim that Paul was discussing two different types of prayer in the passage, an argument from silence at best, and an argument which has no confirmation in any other New Testament passage. Second, the prayer in the context of the passage was given for the benefit and affirmation of the congregation. That is why they say “Amen.” Yet, a private prayer language cannot grant this blessing. Finally, tongues in the form of a private prayer language would be singled out as the only spiritual gift listed that has a personal use outside the body of Christ. Can anyone imagine prophesying privately? Or, teaching privately? Or, giving privately? Or, leading privately? Or, helping privately? Or, evangelizing privately?

Evangelical Ecumenism, Southern Baptists, and the Need for Prevention

The contemporary phenomenon of speaking in tongues, along with other Charismatic practices has infiltrated every major denomination in America, including Southern Baptist life. With historical origins of the Charismatic movement beginning in the 1960s, many believers, regardless of church affiliation, “started seeking all the spiritual gifts mentioned in the New Testament.” One need look no further than at examples such as Abba’s House in Hixon, Tennessee, a church led by Southern Baptist pastor Ron Phillips that holds charismatic conferences annually praying that many Southern Baptists will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Charismatic influence has also arisen in academic circles through scholarly books, such as Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994). In that text, Grudem, a Reformed Charismatic, grants a sympathetic hearing for a Charismatic interpretation of spiritual gifts. In fact, it is quite telling that less than a generation ago, most Southern Baptist seminarians were using more traditional Baptist texts like Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology (Baker, 1983). Unfortunately, that is not the case today.

Noting the paradigm shift, one cannot overlook the momentum the Charismatic movement is having on Evangelical life. Yet, Southern Baptists remain very uncomfortable with Charismatic practices, especially when they note the weak epistemology of experientialism latent within the movement. For the most part, Southern Baptists have reacted negatively to inroads Charismatics have forced into the local Baptist churches. This response is largely due to the novel interpretation of how such gifts should be used and the excesses generated. The Southern Baptist response toward the Charismatic movement has always been extremely cautious.

Yet, the question must be asked, “Should Southern Baptists acquiesce in their policies due to the claims of a few who practice some or all of these Charismatic gifts? From the perspective of a pastor, one should answer “no.” A pastor leads his flock by preaching the Word of God as faithfully as he can. When the pastor comes across certain issues in the Scripture which are highly controversial, he must teach his congregation to uphold theological parameters that he deems most faithful to the biblical texts. Though some godly Christians in his congregation may reasonably disagree, his position should remain unchanged unless he is convinced otherwise from Scripture.

For most Southern Baptists, there is little or no compelling evidence that tongues as practiced by the Charismatic movement has any basis in Scripture. Since we are a people of the Book, whose authority must be guided by what the Scripture says, we have a weighty obligation to uphold the principles in the Word of God in every one of our policies. The first generation of the Conservative Resurgence focused upon the inerrancy of the Bible, a battle which has been victorious for more than 25 years. But the second generation of the Resurgence must spotlight the sufficiency of Scripture in our lives and in our policies. Ultimately, Southern Baptists must remember that truth is eternally vigilant and hence, as soldiers of the Lord, we must always be ready to stand for truth.
Truth is immortal.
Dr. Emir Caner

Joshua Convergence and other NEWS - Updated!

2006-10-18T17:21:00.000-05:00

For those interested you can review those who signed the Joshua Convergence Affirmations and add your name if you so desire at www.joshuaconvergence.com

Also, I have been asked by numerous individuals to address the situation in the blogworld this week. I am not familiar with all that took place at SWBTS but from what I can gather from some colleagues and pastors, apparently there was a closed door meeting where Trustees were asked to “consider and pray” about some confidential matters regarding the entrusting of millions of dollars of funds to a company who has managed funds for multi-billion dollar investors and who specializes in non-profit organizations (Apparently, information from this closed door session got out). I am assuming that Trustees are either still prayerfully considering it or they have dropped the issue (I really don’t know) because it was not even mentioned in the Plenary session. Now, while it would be nice to read apologies for all the implicatory comments made on blogs this week I highly doubt that will happen, although I am an eternal optimist.

Also BP has run a story, that few of the blogs are picking up on a vote by the SWBTS Trustees on the tongue issue. You can reference Jeremy Green's Blog Tuesday October 17th for a bloggers take on the vote...also Bart Barber presents a good analysis in his post (also on Tuesday October 17th).

Concerning the IMB, I know I said we would continue our revelation but after some thought I truly think it is best to let it lie for now.

This week a student asked me what caused me to become involved in blogging. As I drove home that afternoon I contemplated the question. What would cause anyone to become involved in blogging? What caused you to become involved?

As I considered the question, I did a lot of soul-searching. Is blogging a wise use of time? Does it accomplish anything for the kingdom? Is it worth the abuse that apparently accompanies it?

Had I not started blogging I would have much more done on the books I am trying to write (blogging consumes the time I set aside for this activity). Had I not started blogging I would not have had the numerous false statements and hateful things said about me (not to mention the false assumptions and misunderstandings). Had I not started blogging I would not have seen the pain that my wife goes through when she reads things said of me on blogs (this is perhaps most difficult).

Why in the world would a pastor and seminary professor ever begin addressing the issues in the SBC on a blog? First, I must admit I felt the Lord’s prompting to start a blog back before the convention this year. Therefore, the first, primary and really only reason I began to blog was out of obedience. But I believe there were reasons behind His prompting.

I believe God created me in such a way that I am almost unable to keep silent when others say or imply erroneous things about men of God. I feel God also used my love for the SBC, and my concern about some widening the tent far beyond where we have been since 1979. Finally, I feel God used my sincere desire to see an open and honest exchange of ideas.

I have done my best to maintain a blog, which allows the free exchange of ideas without spin (I have stated time and again if I post something erroneous or with spin, please point it out and I will gladly correct it). I have expressed my concerns about the widening of the tent and I have passionately defended men of God whom I feel have been maligned erroneously.

Inevitably, those of us who blog must honestly consider whether what we are doing is making a difference, and especially if it is pleasing to God. I am not sure we can answer the second question in the affirmative if we don’t answer the first in the affirmative.

I think it is making a difference for those whose minds have not been made up, but I have no empirical evidence. I have e-mails and comments from two who have said their eyes have been opened but I am not sure if these two are representative of masses or not.

What do you think? Do you believe we are speaking to ourselves? Do you think that those who participate on blogs already have their minds made up on the issues and cannot see the others’ views? What are your thoughts? Why did you start blogging?

I can state I certainly enjoy getting to meet and correspond with so many SB across the nation and the world…this has been the most enjoyable aspect of blogging for me. If I don’t ever get to meet my fellow bloggers here in this world we can sure look forward to glory:)
BR

Legitimate Concerns Update.

2006-10-10T16:04:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I posted a comment on Wade’s blog referencing my response to his post “we must not be sidetracked from the issues” and I asked him the following two questions:

1. Do you think CP funds should be given to M’s who believe Genesis is “metaphorical?”
2. Do you think one should be allowed to serve as a Trustee if he views Genesis as “metaphorical?”

He answered NO to both questions. He and I agree here:)

However, his response about my post was “I would encourage you to read Debbie Kaufman's blog.”

I read her post. I consider Mrs. Kaufman a sister in Christ and trust her heart is pure before God and yet I don’t think I could have planned a better example of subjectivity and ad hominem statements. Let’s note some facts:

1. Mrs. Kaufman accuses me of attacks. Please read the post “Legitimate concerns with SB bloggers.” I simply QUOTE Wade…I don’t attack him or put words in his mouth, in fact, even when he attacks me and calls me a legalist, I give him the benefit of the doubt (notice there has been no apology for his statement, rather a continual defense of him, mounted by his supporters). It is my understanding that quoting others is NOT an attack, but simply stating where they stand. If someone can show me where I have called him a name or misquoted him, I will gladly remove it!

2. I was attacked in her response: I was called dishonest. I was accused of playing to the crowd in my message and much more; most of which I have dealt with in my post, “My statement on alcohol.”

3. The issues were not dealt with: The legitimate questions I posed were never discussed. I have given Wade an easy way to clear things up…I have even suggested ways in which he can answer the questions. I would like him to be clear on these issues. The fact he chooses not to, begs many questions and concerns.

4. The following are some of the things said of me in the comment section of Mrs. Kaufman’s blog:

In his Name says:
“No that would not be part of Dr Reynolds agenda to attack Brother Wade? This man is so full of hate He should be removed from his position as a Professor in a SBC Seminary. Dr. Brad Reynolds is paid by CP Funds that means our tithes are paying his salary to spread Hate and Slander. I think the people in the pews need to know what is going on here. IMHO I believe Brad Reynolds is a Disciple of ________ and as I have stated many times, I could not see Brad Reynolds Heart.”

Wow - I’m not sure I have ever read a worse accusation on any SBC blog. "In His Name" is forgiven before he even asks, but one wonders where all the voices of “remove that comment” went.

(It should be noted that Mrs. Kaufman admonishes the commenter who gave the above comment and she disagrees with the last statement, as does Wade).

Anonymous says:
“Finally.
A layperson who sees through the smoke and mirrors of professional legalists in our convention.”

(another accusation of legalism)

Doug “how’s the weather” Meriweather says:
“It should be obvious to all that Dr. Reynolds owes his job and his future to Dr. Patterson.
He is obviously doing all he can to discredit people, using tactics that are dishonorable. In other words, he is appointed by the powers that be to do the dirty work.
Everyone I know sees through it.”

It concerns me greatly that some attribute the Sovreignty of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to mere mortals. Anyone who knows anything about higher education and the SBC knows the way to get somewhere (if that is one's goal) is to stay quiet about most controversial issues and to write books. I can't keep quiet on these issues, and thus have not endeared myself to those who feel I should. Further, this blog takes up my "writing" time. But I must be obediant to Christ and feel He led me to start and maintain this blog for the sake of Truth.

Folks, here is the reason dialogue seems almost impossible. We seem so subjective that we cannot see the difference in ad hominem comments and legitimate questions. Until we can step back and look at things a little more objectively, true dialogue will not take place.

Soon we will be back to the IMB. I will be posting Dr. Rankin’s response followed by Dr. Eitel’s response and then we will tackle the tongues issue. Also, I will give a Joshua Convergence update soon.
BR

Legitimate Concerns with SB Bloggers

2006-10-08T18:49:00.000-05:00

In a debate between Dr. William Provine and Dr. Philip Johnson (one of the great apologists for Intelligent Design) Dr. Provine commits a debating faux pas. He attacks the person of Philip Johnson, by mocking his Christian faith. This ploy of ad hominem statements is often used in political campaigns, in order to stir emotions. It is a technique, which brings high-fives from one’s comrades…yet is very poor debate form. Sadly, it occurs in Christian blogging also.

This past week a blogger (Wade Burleson) expressed concerns over the tenor of comments on blogs in the SBC. His frustrations seemed to be that many were more interested in making ad hominem comments rather than dealing with issues. I share his concerns. I firmly believe we can disagree and yet do so in a Spirit that honors Christ.

Many times an attack takes the form of an outright frontal assault, yet sometimes it is done by telling half of the truth or through innocent implications. I started this blog for the purpose of seeking the whole truth on matters and yet I am certain I have committed subjective errors. I think we all have – therefore, I give the following example in trepidation. The purpose of the example is to caution us all about how subjective we can be. Thus, I refer to Wade’s post expressing concern about ad-homenim comments.

In his post “We Must Not be Sidetracked from Issues,” of the seven comments cited, five are from this blog (I don’t think Wade intended to imply anything but I inferred that this could cause some to believe that this blog somehow condones ad hominem statements)…and yet he fails to portray the entire picture. First, he fails to see the same problem on his blog and second he fails to admit my continual pleadings to steer commentators away from ad hominem comments.

Wade expressed concerns with statements made about him, on this blog. However, he failed to note the statements I made in his defense:

“And Wade has made clear that alcohol played NO PART. While I too have a difficult time reconciling that with the post...WE MUST TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD and trust him. He knows his heart and we do not.”

“concerning Wade we must trust him at his word. If he says that is not what he was saying then we should and are compelled to trust him.”

“he states that alcohol played NO PART in her coming to Christ. To me that's all that matters. I don't care what he said earlier, if he states he believes it played "no part" then that's the end of it.”

“Wade has answered your questions many times now. Let's trust his word.”

And More.

Further, he also failed to note the things said of ME, on my blog:

“Why is it that you insinuate whatever in your apologies and that is not what a Holy Man would do? I don't believe you are a man of integrity”

“there is no denying that you must have willfully and intentionally completely misrepresented that story regarding alcohol. You then proceeded to tell it in such a way that you could get the biggest EMOTIONAL reaction”

“I took time to listen to your message. The pejorative rhetoric of the meeting was alarming. Brother, your willful misrepresentation of this story to get the Amen, was simply the wrong use of the pulpit. Shame on you.”

And More.

Moreover he fails to see the things said of me on his blog, which he never tried to stop or deter by issuing cautions.

Dltj said:
“You sounded quite reasonable at the beginning, but now you are starting to sound like you are losing your core beliefs just to stay on the good side of the powers that be. I know your job depends on keeping these people happy, but don't you think this is starting to go too far. I am reminded of Senator Joseph McCarthy. As you will remember, he went so far that people started to see his quest for what it really was; political demagoguery.”

Scripture Searcher:
“Of course, he dare not humiliate himself by starting his own blogspot...who would read and take most of his bloviating comments seriously???”

Elizabeth:
“Wade,_
PLEASE DON'T POST THIS. This is for your information only, just didn't know how to say it without someone getting offended.
Maybe you and Mr. Reynolds can continue this debate via email instead of on the blog.
It has become like sitting in a Sunday School class with one person dominating the conversation. After a while, people just quit listening.”

Wade did post it, with this comment:
“Elizabeth,
Sorry, but your sentiments are too valuable not to post.”

Wade Burleson:
“I say this gently --- the new problem of the SBC may be your brand of Legalism and Fundamentalism.”

A legalist is one who believes we are saved by works, not grace. A legalist is a heretic. Now I don’t think Wade intended it that way, rather I think he meant that he thought I was trying to push my convictions on others (which I would never do). Nevertheless, such an accusation could cause hurt in my family, and my church without God’s sustaining grace and providence.

And More.

Finally, I think he fails to see some have legitimate concerns:

1. There are true concerns about his understanding of the BFM2K because of these two statements:
A. “since (the BFM2K) is not inerrant and infallible then you can disagree with it in some areas, but still affirm it where it speaks to major, foundational issues of the faith --- which I do.”
B. “I personally affirm all of the BFM 2000”

Possible Solution for Wade: To state if one does not believe in all of the BFM2K (including the exclusion of women pastors) one should not be a Trustee or be paid by CP funds.

2. There are true concerns about his position of wine opening the door for a gospel presentation because of these statements:
“The woman was saved by the grace of God, but she listened to me intently and patiently as I shared the gospel in all its fullness.
She gave me an audience because of who I was (a pastor who had helped her husband and did not fit the stereotype she had of Baptist preachers), how I treated her (with love and respect), and how I behaved (with gentleness and kindness rather than condemnation and superficial spirituality)
The point of my post is that I did not let my cultural or preferential ethic regarding alcohol (abstinence) become a stumbling block to a woman who needed a Savior and happened to be a collector of wine.”

Possible Solution for Wade: To state he believes the woman would have been saved even had he not asked her for wine.

3. There are true concerns about Wade wanting to open the tent wide enough for those who do not believe in inerrancy to be paid with CP funds or serve as Trustees:
“I was further confused because I was told other men like Dr. Daniel Vestal and Richard Jackson were also part of those who wished to lead our convention down the slippery slope of liberalism, from which we would never recover… I now realize that several good, solid conservative evangelical Christians have been slandered and maligned.”

Possible Solution for Wade: To state he believes one must affirm totally the inerrancy of Scripture to serve as a Trustee or be paid by SB.

4. There are true concerns about he and Ben being politically active amongst BGCTers

Possible Solution for Wade: to address why he and Ben were traveling across the state of Texas a few weeks back to speak to pastors.

Until Wade addresses these questions openly he will be plagued with legitimate concerns of how far back into the pre-1990’s era he may desire to see our convention go.

Hopefully Wade will address these concerns; in the meantime may we realize that this example of blogging subjectivity is most applicable to all of us. May we all be more careful. And may our Father guide this blog and open my eyes to my own subjectivity.
BR

Christian Blogging

2006-10-03T15:41:00.000-05:00

It seems whenever something like alcohol, or widening the tent, or such issues arise, the discussion becomes most heated. In heated discussions we say things we would not have said were our emotions under control.

This week while I have been in El Salvador much heated debate took place here on this blog. On two different posts in the comment section I asked numerous times to stay away from ad-hominal approaches. Both sides of the debate seemed to see the other side attacking, rather than dealing with the issues…I think they were both right to a degree.

I have never removed comments because of ad-hominal statements. The reason: it becomes very subjective and I would be accused of allowing some to stand while removing others. Further, a large number of ad-hominem statements are made towards me and I did not want to appear as if I was removing those who disagreed with me…such practice is not open-minded. Finally, I think many times in an ad-hominem statement there is an accompanying comment that actually deals with the issues. Therefore, MY practice has always been to continually caution others while allowing all comments and questions without fear, for we are about truth and truth never needs to run.

I will share more on this soon. But for now, I will not allow any comments that attack individuals. I know this is subjective and so if you feel I am enforcing this with a bias please e-mail me your concerns. I will continue to allow anonymous comments because of the many Missionaries who read and may desire to comment. I do not check ISP’s currently, and have no reason to begin with our new rule in place.

I like to believe we can discuss without devolving into character assassinations. We are about the issues here and will seek truth and answer any and all hard questions. Truth will win the day. Some have warned me that commenters are making remarks in order to discredit this blog. My response has been - people can read this blog, my posts and my comments and make decisions for themselves. I have stated on numerous occasions: if I have said anything slanderous, unChristlike, or erroneous I will be glad to remove it. I certainly try to be a no-spin zone and now with the new rule (which I feel I am compelled to enforce) we will be spin-free (to the degree it is possible) in our comments also.

God Bless
BR

Here I Stand...Redeemed

2006-09-30T04:42:00.000-05:00

Not long ago on another Blog I engaged a young man who spewed forth slanderous implications towards Dr. Patterson as an erupting volcano spews forth molten lava (and he made it clear to me, as I cautioned him of his path, that he has no intention of stopping – so be it, SB will see it for what it is). Well, I am not easily roused, but I was that evening. Retrospectively, I began a self-evaluation to determine the stimulus behind my passion. What fueled the flame that burned so brightly that evening? At first, I thought that it was this young man’s singling out Dr. Patterson as the root of all evil in SBC life, rather than gratefully acknowledging him as an impetus that has helped to remove universalism from our seminaries.

Why was Dr. Patterson the only institutional head singled out? Calling for investigative questions and postulating erroneous implications concerning the use of funds, etc. Why was SW Seminary the only institution he called out for such an investigation…not the IMB, not the executive committee, not any of our other institutions (I have no doubt all of our institutional heads seek to be above reproach in fiscal stewardship, frugality, responsibility, and personal integrity…I was just shocked at the singling out of one man). However, the more I thought about his comments, the more I realized this wasn’t the reason I reacted so ardently.

I began to believe I was aroused because it was an unsolicited drive-by against a Man of God. And yet, as valid of a concern as that was, as I searched deeper I realized this was not the primary motive behind my fire either.

Thus, I contemplated whether I was angered at the outright deceptiveness of it. While that certainly troubled me, it too failed to be the genesis of my response.

Finally, I thought my emotions were a result of the lack of confrontation he received from others. Men, who signed the Memphis Declaration, promising to confront such speech, certainly did not on that blog. I even asked the administrator to, but received silence. Yet, in reality that wasn’t even the origin of my frustrations.

Actually and confessionally, what moved my spirit the most was the knowledge of my own wickedness. I realized, even if there was a tiny element of truth in anything the young man said, my sins far outweighed his accusations of Dr. Patterson.

I knew my wretchedness reached deeper than any depth the leaders of our institutions may have traversed in their humanity. Evil thoughts I have had, impure motives I have entertained, unchaste speech I have used, and unholy actions I have committed reek of shameful odors. What if this young man were privy to my private thoughts? What if this young man blogged my sinful actions to the world with unrestrained and undocumented license? Talk about embarrassing!

As I dwelt on these thoughts an incredibly beautiful Word sprang forth in my mind: GONE.

Gone, my sins are gone…removed by the BLOOD OF JESUS!!!

Even if man (the created ones) knew of all my sins…even if Satan spewed them forth as the Great Accuser that he is. Even if I were laid bare before all creation, there is a joy, which overshadows my shame. For man is but dust, but the CREATOR, the Omniscient One, The Ancient of Days, The I AM, Existence and LIFE HIMSELF sees no sin in me. My filth was laid upon Christ and is removed. I AM CLEAN – FOREVER.

And quite frankly, that’s all that matter’s. So, if there are any who would speak evil of me, so be it (this will keep their time consumed from speaking of others). But as far as I, and my Creator are concerned, my sins are gone. Here I Stand…Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
BR

UPDATES:

1. Florida Baptist Witness posted a new article on the Joshua Convergence Friday, Sept. 28.

2. I am currently on my way to El Salvador. I would appreciate your prayers for the group from SE (35 of us). Also, please keep my wife in your prayers as she is staying home with our soon to be baby boy:)

3. Dr. Jerry Vines will begin a series of message this Sunday night at FBC Woodstock, which will deal with current Baptist issues. He has titled his series Baptist Battles and it will include: 1. LIBERALISM: A Baptist and his Bible; 2. CALVINISM: A Baptist and his election; 3. PENTECOSTALISM: A Baptist and his gifts; and 4. LIBERTINISM: A Baptist and his Booze. You can avail yourself of this series through www.jerryvines.com

4. I don’t know when I will be able to check the comments…so please keep a Christlike spirit (I certainly have no desire to remove comments).

5. HOOK ‘EM HORNS:)

My Statement on Alcohol

2006-09-29T08:11:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I issued an apology to Wade Burleson (see my post “Joshua Convergence News Updated). The reason for my apology was because I accused him of implying that the Holy Spirit worked to bring a lady to Christ because he asked for a glass of wine. I assumed the purpose of the post as well as the title and content confirmed my accusations. However, Wade issued this statement: “I believe that the movement of the Holy Spirit of God upon the wife of a man I had recently led to Christ had nothing to do with the use of alcohol, but rather, God saved her by His sovereign pleasure.” Moreover, he told me on the phone he felt that alcohol played “NO” role in her salvation.

By “NO role” I took him to mean she would have been saved had he not asked for the wine (which confused me, as to why he would have posted the story in the first place). In other words, I felt he was saying that his asking for wine did not, IN ANY WAY, cause her heart to be more open to hearing the gospel or to be more receptive.

And yet last night in my comment section he said:

“The woman was saved by the grace of God, but she listened to me intently and patiently as I shared the gospel in all its fullness.

She gave me an audience because of who I was (a pastor who had helped her husband and did not fit the stereotype she had of Baptist preachers), how I treated her (with love and respect), and how I behaved (with gentleness and kindness rather than condemnation and superficial spirituality).

There is no confusion here. The Spirit of God and the gospel of Christ were the instruments of conversion.

Yet the Bible states, "But how shall they hear if one is not sent?"

The point of my post is that I did not let my cultural or preferential ethic regarding alcohol (abstinence) become a stumbling block to a woman who needed a Savior and happened to be a collector of wine.

That's all I'm saying.”

I then queried Wade about his statement by asking: “Are you now saying that you feel had you not asked for wine that she would have "stumbled" and not been saved?” He did not respond…perhaps he had left already.

First let me state he and I will disagree on abstinence just being a cultural or preferential ethic…I think it is a Biblical Ethic!!!

However, I believe it is the Holy Spirit’s work that opens our hearts to hear the gospel (I think my Calvinist friends would agree here). And so, if Wade can honestly say he believes she would have been saved without his asking for alcohol (in other words alcohol played NO ROLE) I stand by my apology.

If however, he thinks his asking for wine caused her, in any way, to be open to hearing the gospel or IF HE THINKS SHE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SAVED, ON THAT OCCASION, UNLESS he had asked for wine, then I feel I have no need to apologize and stand by my original statement!
BR

Joshua Convergence News Updated

2006-09-28T12:46:00.000-05:00

Florida Baptist Witness has a new article on the Joshua Convergence.

By the way, two bloggers (Wade Burleson and Tom Ascol) have now stated I misrepresented Wade in my address on holiness at the Joshua Convergence. I try to maintain a no-spin blog in a search for truth. And so without addressing the other remarks they made (we don't want to devolve into a tit-for-tat) let me state there appears to be some truth to their accusations based on a statement made by Wade Burleson today. But let us first recall the post I referenced.

The Title of the Post: "CONVERSION TO CHRIST OVER A GLASS OF WINE" - typically the title of an article carries with it the thesis. Let us also recall the section of the article I referred to, which was under the heading "Wine used in the conversion of a sinner" - again, typically the heading of a section contains the thesis of that section. Finally, let's quote the first paragraph of that section, "The following story is a beautiful narrative of reconciliation, conversion, and ultimate redemption --- all INITIATED because of a glass of wine.” (Caps - mine) Usually the first paragraph of a section contains the theme of the section.

Now, my assumptions were; 1) The Holy Spirit initiates ones conversion; 2) the idea that "conversion and ultimate redemption was initiated by a glass of wine" implies the glass of wine (which was an initiating factor in her conversion and redemption, according to the statement) somehow, in the mind of the blogger, contributed to her salvation which was a work of the Holy Spirit.

Now apparently my assumptions based on the phrases "conversion to Christ over a glass of wine," "wine used in the conversion of a sinner," and "conversion, redemption- initiated because of a glass of wine" were wrong because Wade stated today, "I believe that the movement of the Holy Spirit of God upon the wife of a man I had recently led to Christ had nothing to do with the use of alchohol, but rather, God saved her by His sovereign pleasure."

Nevertheless, I think an objective reader can see how logically and easily I arrived at my conclusion.

However,
Wade,
I made that statement in pubic, and therefore I apologize to you in public. Honestly, I am ecstatic to know you don't feel that a glass of wine contributed, in any way, to her conversion. May God bless you my brother.

I do have a difficult time reconciling the title and reason for the post with the above statement you made but that's not a big issue for me, because I have much more important theological issues I still haven't reconciled in my mind (man's choice...God's Sovreignty)

Some added notes:
1. I did believe Wade believed that wine played a role in the young woman coming to faith (his very title implied it, to me). I didn’t know if it was a minor role, such as her being open to hear what he had to say, or a more major role…but I did believe he thought it played a role. HE HAS MADE CLEAR HE BELIEVES IT PLAYED NO ROLE!!! For that I am truly grateful. I have sincerely apologized to Wade publicly and on the phone…he has graciously forgiven me.

I want to make clear I felt I was honestly portraying some thoughts of pastors when I spoke at the Joshua Convergence, in fact, I quoted word for word Ben Cole's comments from Wade's comment section where Ben said, "One of my deacon candidates makes a mean margarita. And it's not an issue. By the way, since we lifted that clause from our constitution and bylaws, our church visitation ministry has taken off, and people in our church are more excited than ever about reaching the lost." MOREOVER FOR THOSE WHO ASSUME I PURPOSELY MISREPRESENTED WADE FOR THE JOSHUA CONVERGENCE PLEASE REFER TO MY POST ON JULY 18TH "ALCOHOL ABSTINENCE: BIAS OR BIBLICAL" WHERE I SAID "The idea that the world will accept us and listen to the gospel if we drink with them verges on apostasy. One blogger implied a lady was saved as a result of his affirmation of wine. Such theological naiveté assumes that alcoholic spirits move the Holy Spirit…how sacrilegious!" - NO ONE corrected my misunderstanding then (see the comments), and until Wade made it clear today he did not mean that, I was certainly confused because of his title and post.

Further I want to be clear that I do feel strongly (and I mean strongly) that it is sad and wrong for any pastor to teach their congregations a Biblical position of moderation. For this I DO NOT APOLOGIZE!

2. I truly believe whether one believes I misrepresented him before he clarified depends on one's perspective. It appears moderationists, by in large, feel I misrepresented him, however, abstentionists, by in large, feel I didn't. Perspective is important. However, Wade has made clear where he stands and as far as I am concerned it’s over.

3. Concerning the comments about my making the statement for applause or any other supposed motive…I try not to defend myself. God knows my heart and I rest in that.

4. Allow me also to clarify some other things. Wade made clear in our conversation that Harvey the Rabbit’s information was wrong! He did not speak to Dr. McKissic within an hour after chapel because he listened to the tape first and then called Dr. McKissic and has only spoken to him once. He has no plan, nor has he even discussed a plan, to run Dr. McKissic next year (please see his comment to Harvey the Rabbit under my post Dr. Eitel's Second Paper...) He also told me that when he said “since (the BFM2K) is not inerrant and infallible then you can disagree with it in some areas, but still affirm it where it speaks to major, foundational issues of the faith --- which I do” What he meant was that he affirmed the BFM2K in EVERY and ALL parts but did not like it being used to remove others from the convention. I was and am honestly confused as to how he meant that in his first statement, but I trust him at his word.

Further, I don't think the BFM2K is being used to remove some from our convention...I think it should be used to remove employees of the convention if they don't agree.

5. He and I have some honest theological disagreements.

6. Holiness is just one of our affirmations. And alcohol was just a "symptom" of a lack of holiness, in my opinion. The issue was that we are not being good examples of separating ourselves from the world and to Christ. And I speak of myself first and foremost.

BR

More Truth about Drs Eitel and Patterson and the IMB

2006-09-27T19:03:00.000-05:00

I have received requests that I post Dr. Rankin’s response to Dr. Eitel’s paper. In fact, some have claimed I would be biased if I did not post it. I hesitated because I felt it could be detrimental in some ways to the IMB administration. I have even e-mailed Dr. Rankin and he was very kind to respond. He expressed no desire to re-live the past by my posting it, however, I have pledged to continue to put out truth as long as blogs continue to imply error with Dr. Eitel’s paper.

Recently Wade Burleson referenced David Rogers’ Blog in response to Dr. Eitel’s second paper…so in fairness to all, we shall continue down this road. Hopefully as more truth comes out, bloggers will stop the false implications and allegations toward Drs Patterson and Eitel.

First let me set the timeline of the papers and responses. Dr. Eitel’s first paper was written and sent. Dr. Rankin’s response (which will be posted soon - I leave for El Salvador Saturday, so I'm not sure when I will get to post it - but it will be soon) was sent back to Dr. Eitel. Dr. Eitel then responds back to Dr. Rankin (I will also post this soon) and finally Drs Patterson, Eitel, and Hadaway sent the second paper (it is actually more insightful to read the correspondence in chronological order while recalling that the original paper was written by Dr. Eitel without Dr. Patterson's knowledge as preparation for an interview).

Allow me to respond quickly to the very insightful and thoughtful post by David Rogers. He is an excellent writer and brings great insights, however, some things need to be made clear:

1) The implication that what was found was not systemic, does not take into account that Dr. Eitel’s observations were drawn from multiple individuals from different regional areas for over a decade (I doubt they were all wrong about what they were seeing in the IMB). Furthermore, Robin Hadaway was a RL and had worked in three different regions over a 20+ year period. Moreover, to cite more examples may have been very costly to M's (personally, I have received numerous e-mails from M's claiming Dr. Eitel's concerns were valid and systemic (actually, there are still "field" concerns) but they have requested I maintain their anonymity because of possible repercussions).

2) The systemic nature was further confirmed when over a ten month period 3 student units at the MLC were apparently fired simply for asking questions or refusing to participate in things they felt were unbiblical (Women in the quads leading the "mock" house church services & deciding to preside over the administration of the Lord's Supper).

3) David did an excellent job of cross-examining Dr. Eitel’s paper but the paper can not respond. It would have been a totally different post had he cross-examined Dr. Eitel rather than his paper. I feel confident in saying Dr. Eitel will be more than glad to answer any questions from anyone who seeks truth here.

4) No one has shown…let me repeat: NO ONE HAS SHOWN where either paper erred in anything it asserted!!!

I honestly feel there are times I must post Truth and have even stated time and again I will remove and admit error publicly if I post anything erroneous (in fact I told Dr. Rankin in the e-mail exchange that I would be glad to correct anything I have posted erroneously). I will try to maintain this blog as one that presents the Truth without spin and allows the chips to fall where they may.
BR

More on the Joshua Convergence (Updated)

2006-09-26T16:07:00.000-05:00

You can now view the worship service of the Joshua Convergence where the affirmations were presented. The web link is http://www.alomachurch.org/joshua.wmv

One of the things I appreciated about this inaugural meeting was the spirit. I appreciated the openness, the honesty, and the Spirit of Christ expressed. Every meeting was an open meeting; in fact Joni Hannigan from the Florida Baptist Witness was present recording and taking notes of the meetings. I am glad this was done openly, no backroom politicking or planning, rather a statement: "this is who we are."

There appeared to be a sincere desire that all Southern Baptists see what the Joshua Convergence is and say, "We find unity here." Nevertheless, there seemed to be agreement that if some decide they don't have such unity with us, so be it, in the words of Martin Luther: "Here (We) Stand, (We) Can Do No Other."

Furthermore, be sure to check out www.joshuaconvergence.com from time to time. Men from across the convention will be posting articles related to the 7 affirmations.

Also, Pastor Mike, Tim Rogers, and Jeremy Green have all posted on the Joshua Convergence (http://pastormikehgbc.blogspot.com; http://southernbaptistinnc.blogspot.com; http://www.sbcpastor.blogspot.com)

BR

The Joshua Convergence

2006-09-24T16:31:00.000-05:00

On Monday, September 25th and Tuesday, September 26th Aloma Baptist Church in Winter Park, Florida will be hosting a gathering of young men and women from Southern Baptist Churches across the nation. This gathering will be the inaugural meeting of the Joshua Convergence.

To find out more go to www.joshuaconvergence.com

May God Bless the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention!

For those interested and unable to attend I will provide a link later this week to view the Joshua Convergence online.

BR

Dr. Eitel's Second Paper w Drs. Patterson & Hadaway

2006-09-20T17:18:00.000-05:00

This second paper will dispel the notion that Dr. Eitel's first paper was erroneous. Interestingly, this paper did not recieve much attention by baptist news agencies and almost NO attention by bloggers...in fact this will be the first time many of you have ever read this!!! It was written to validate Dr. Eitel's concerns, after his first paper was accused of referencing "isolated incidences." According to one Trustee, this paper helped move the Trustees to address needed changes. Other than footnotes it is published in its entirety. It is long but revealing of 2003 and before.

As one missionary pointed out recently, it is the responsibility of administrators and professors to protect their students and address concerns their students have. Thank God for the response of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel and the impetus this response has provided for the restructuring of curriculum at the ILC. Now, I call on all bloggers who have wrongfully accused Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel concerning their papers to issue a public apology.

Drs. Paige Patterson, Keith Eitel, & Robin Hadaway

In keeping with a simple and yet focused discussion format, the following depicts the primary concerns raised by the “Vision Assessment” white paper written by Keith Eitel and the subsequent flow of email and letter exchanges that bring us to this meeting. A given issue is stated, then supporting evidence is offered, and finally a possible way forward is proposed. The incidences cited as examples to various issues are only representative. Numerous other instances could be noted from multiple regions over about 15 years of observed practice on the field. In other words, these ARE NOT isolated incidences. They are systemic problems running throughout the structure. In addition, details supporting Eitel’s contentions have been contributed by Robin Hadaway. Some of these comments are from Hadaway’s paper, “Rejoicing Together: Balancing the Biblical Perspectives: A Missiological Analysis.”

Issue One: What is the precise policy and practice relating to church planting? Are we planting Baptist (not merely Baptistic) churches? If the practice is varied, what are the guidelines for determining whether we plant a Baptist church or not? To what degree are we involved in ecumenical church planting? What theological guidelines do we have to prevent this as we partner with the Great Commission Christians around the world?

Observations

• SD21 data has a curious pattern for gathering the data. 10% of the entire field force was surveyed to discover a variety of things, mostly reflective of how well they’ve understood the Church Planting Movement (CPM) concepts and methods. However, the section designed to determine whether the IMB is planting Baptist churches or not is only an opinion scale from the 15 regional chairpersons of the trustee board in consultation with the 15 regional leaders. This same material could have been easily included in the field survey given to the field missionaries. This in and of itself reflects a skewed methodology, but more importantly it seems to imply that the field findings might mitigate the desired outcomes and demonstrate that we are not consistently planting Baptist churches. Rather we’re planting churches that reflect more the mix of ideas inherent in a blend of Great Commission Christian ideas, often neo-charismatic leaning and quasi Biblical (see a discussion of this GCC concept below).

• While on sabbatical in the fall of 2002, Eitel observed five different locations and the network of work in those locations in China. Consistently, there seemed to be an emphasis on the GCC partnerships as vital to the process of planting churches. Dr. David Garrison’s booklet on Church Planting draws concentric circles of levels of partnership. On paper it looks feasible, but in practice in China (Eitel has also observed this in numerous other settings), it breaks down. When pioneers are first entering a people group or city, finding any other believer to work with is an encouragement. Natural bonds of friendship and affiliation develop. The momentum of these relationships carries over and causes the concentric lines of partnership (which are designed to determine when and how missionaries should partner) to collapse. It’s easier to ignore doctrinal differences and not push Baptist distinctives in order to foster a so-called unity in planting the churches. This type of unity is superficial and will usually erupt into conflict after the initial phases of planting the churches. In order to avoid this syndrome, some missionaries advocate and practice a method of planting so-called churches that means brand new believers are encouraged to share Christ immediately, gather a group of unbelievers together and teach them the essentials of the faith to bring them to Christ, and then in a pyramid fashion, the cycle repeats rapidly. While this is indeed a great evangelistic tool, it does not foster maturation of the church, leadership development nor establishment of long-term vision or stability for the church. It seems to rely almost exclusively on the early sections of Acts as a foundation for this model while ignoring the patterns of maturation found in the Pastorals and General Epistles. Nevertheless, this rapid reproduction allows the missionary to avoid the doctrinal issues that come with GCC partners yet they do not compensate for it by taking the time to “commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

• In Islamic contexts, the GCC influences are stimulating unhealthy contextualization patterns that undermine New Testament Church Planting much less anything Baptist. For example, a missionary wrote to me about this very issue. He stated that someone working with Frontiers had come to teach them about how to establish C-5 Islamic churches. This missionary goes on to say that another GCC partner was willing to call someone coming from an Islamic background that is in a C-5 church plant a believer even though that person emphatically denies the deity of Christ. Yet, this approach to CPM is encouraged and doctrinal concerns are subsumed to foster a so-called unity. Conversely, Dr. Hadaway reports that his strategy in Sudan called for starting Baptist churches (and calling them Baptist) from the beginning. This work has grown through the team Hadaway started and others have continued to over 85 churches and 100 “outreach groups.” His rationale for the persecuted world was “since it was illegal to start any kind of church in Sudan, one might as well start an illegal Baptist church than an illegal non-defined church.”

• In 1992 Hadaway (then an SC) attended a strategy meeting where SC’s were encouraged to partner with Eastern Orthodox churches in their strategies. Dr. David Garrison (then a CSI administrator) said at this meeting, “It does not matter the gender of the pastors of the churches with whom you bring into your areas.” In addition, SC’s were encouraged to include charismatic groups such as the Assemblies of God denomination in their strategies, including church planting.

• In late 1996/early 1997 Hadaway (then a supervisor of SC’s) attended a meeting called by David Weston to plan to enter the country of “Narnia.” CBF representatives (husband and wife) were invited by David Weston to this meeting and attended to take part in the evangelism and church planting strategy. They were introduced as CBF representatives in the meeting Hadaway attended. Although today’s SC’s are given the Garrison document concerning concentric circles of levels of partnership, it is still up to each SC how he or she applies the guidance. Each SC has the freedom to partner with whomever they desire.

• These and numerous other examples can be offered but suffice it to say we’re likely not involved in the formal Ecumenical movement per se, but we’re heavily involved in the Evangelical version of ecumenism by default due to a lack of careful partnering and questionable church planting methods.

Possible Solution

• For all forms of church planting, any partners involved should be inherently in agreement with the BF&M 2000. This will provide a clearly Baptist blueprint for the established pattern of the church and all GCC’s should be able to agree with these beliefs or we should only partner with them on more superficial levels, if the doctrinal differences are not so significant as to undermine partnering at all.

• Since 1963 missionary candidates have been allowed to become missionaries without totally agreeing with the BF&M. Missionary candidates have been permitted to register their disagreement with particular points of the BF&M as long as they agree to “ teach in accordance with and not contrary to” the 2000 BF&M. However, such allowances place missionaries in the uncomfortable position of ministering counter to their own beliefs- something difficult, if not impossible to do. When IMB leadership asked the Region Leaders (RL’s) and Vice Presidents to sign the 2000 BF& M, two RL’s could not sign the document. One RL resigned his position, while the other signed with an annotation. The IMB is the only SBC agency that allows their personnel to disagree with specific elements of the BF& M. Seminary professors at the six SBC seminaries cannot object to points of BF& M and agree to “teach in accordance with and not contrary to” the BF & M. Presently, even ADJUNCT professors teaching at our Southern Baptist seminaries must sign the BF&M 2000 without annotation. We are in the interesting situation where we have many missionaries and even some Regional Leaders who can serve with the IMB in responsible capacities but could not teach even as a visiting professor at one of our six seminaries. This issue was discussed in early 2002 at an IMB senior Management meeting attended by the President, Vice-Presidents, and the Resident Regional Leader (Hadaway). John White introduced the subject by calling for a “post decision analysis” of how IMB leadership had handled the BF&M 2000 issue. In response to John White’s call for free and honest discussion, Hadaway said, “If anyone cannot sign the 2000 BF&M without annotations they should not be missionaries.” The President asked me, “So you would disagree with the IMB’s long-standing policy of allowing missionary candidates to note their points of disagreement with the BF&M.” Hadaway replied, “Yes, as other SBC agencies do not given their employees this option.” Therefore, IMB trustees could better insure that missionaries will follow the BF & M if all missionaries who are appointed to supervisory, RL, and Vice-Presidential roles are not allowed to express points of disagreement with the BF & M. If the trustees do not desire to revisit the BF&M issue with regular missionaries who have signed with annotations, then this board should appoint only applicants who can fully affirm the BF&M. In addition, those who are appointed to supervisory positions (SC’s, Strategy Associates, Richmond Associates, Administrative Associates, and Associate Vice-Presidents) and those who are elected by trustees (RL’s, Vice-Presidents and President) should affirm the BF&M without annotations.

Issue Two: How many of our IMB missionaries are involved in the neo-charismatic movement, and what is presently being taught and advocated by staff concerning "spiritual warfare"?

Observations
• Each year, Eitel leads three short-term mission teams of students somewhere in the world to engage the fields and contribute to the evangelistic and church planting strategies of numerous SC’s worldwide. When working in a Central Asian country in the summer of 2001, the region sponsored a “spiritual warfare” workshop for our students as a preface to engaging in prayer walking through a city. The individual leading the workshop was seconded to the IMB from Frontiers and said he wasn’t taking an extreme approach to spiritual warfare. However, he studied at Fuller Seminary under John Wimber, Peter Wagner, and Charles Kraft. He definitely showed strong influence if not full embrace of their extremist positions e.g. territorial spirits, new revelations, and a complete lack of understanding whether seeking after spirits is more important than simply speaking the Gospel. When prayer walking, we were strictly told not to talk to the people of the city but only to be open to a word from the Spirit.

• Career missionaries often speak of problematic workshops where such ideologies are given and without any critical biblical reasoning allowed. They’re often made to feel as if they are not fully Christian if they even raise a question about the legitimacy of any aspect of such a presentation.

• Missionaries on the field are implementing these things. One lady missionary felt she had to exorcise her curtains of evil spirits. Many who embrace these things are taking it in without thinking it through biblically. Most that fall prey to these strange doctrines have had little or no theological education and don’t have the tools with which to analyze what they’re hearing.

Possible Solution
• Short-term solution would be to redesign the workshops throughout the field structures and bring the subject into biblical balance. Primarily, creating a “reactive” not a “proactive” approach to dealing with the demonic world. That is, be proactive about speaking the Gospel and only stop to deal reactively with demonic issues when/if necessary.

• Long-term, strengthen the required biblical and theological requirements for appointment to give the missionaries better depth understand of Scripture and practice in analyzing issues theologically.

• The IMB receives career, associate and apprentice missionaries from many theological seminaries. In addition, the IMB receives ISC (Journeymen, Masters and ISC) missionaries who have not attended college at all. Since the missionary force comes to the IMB with such varied backgrounds it is no wonder that different beliefs and practices come into conflict with one another on the field. Theology and PRACTICE courses are needed at MLC so that missionaries understand the acceptable parameters for personnel.

Issue Three: What is the policy and practice of the IMB regarding gender roles? Are women placed in supervisory roles such as Strategy Coordinators over men? Are women encouraged to learn to baptize converts and administer the Lord's Supper? Are women urged to be the de facto pastor "leaders" of house churches or any other missionary assignment like the Strategy Coordinator role?

Observations
• One lady student, while serving in her 2+2 assignment, was asked if she wanted to be the SC for a particular city. She declined sensing it was best for a man to serve in that capacity. When the male SC and his wife went home and chose not to return, a lady SC was put in his place. Our student was suddenly ordered to perform the ordinance of baptism for a set of new believers. She was distraught as these are exactly the kinds of things she wanted to avoid. She did more than her share of evangelizing, but she didn’t think it was right to perform pastoral-like functions. Until she appealed to a higher authority that intervened and got her SC to relent, she was in a predicament. The lady SC, by the way, had never been to seminary, was middle-aged, and divorced yet served in a pastoral-like role. Our student thus described the conflict she felt having to sign the BF&M 2000 and then being taught to perform both ordinances while at the MLC (a practice that has only recently been stopped, at least temporarily).

• Curtis Sergeant, the former associate vice president for Strategy Coordination, has had significant input in the design and implementation of the MLC curriculum and teaching of the CPM methodology, especially over the past 2 years. He interprets the BF&M 2000 very strictly and concludes that as long as lady missionaries are not serving specifically as pastors of local churches, then the IMB is in compliance with the document. Yet, he turns around and says in an email correspondence to Eitel, “ . . . if anyone asked me, I would certainly have nothing against it [having ladies administer the Lord’s Supper] . . . All disciples are ministers, however, including women.” Again, in the MLC handout he uses to teach on CPM methodology, he concludes by giving the reader an impression of what the newly established church might look like. “They [the churches] frequently have women in key roles in the church. Women are viewed as ministers, as having spiritual gifts just as much as men, even in patriarchal societies.” Again, in his D.Min. Project, he affirms this same value with the fine line of distinction affirming that a lady should not “pastor” a local church but may do all the ministries of a pastor e.g. administer the ordinances, teach, and lead. By emphasizing that the New Testament requires multiple elders in a local congregation, women can fully participate in leadership roles without holding the title of “pastor”, functionally circumventing the restrictions he acknowledges elsewhere. Sergeant has had significant influence on the SC structure on the field in numerous regions. He states in his Project that over the course of the years he personally taught 727 SCs (Strategy Coordinators) and was the primary resource person for 150 others (see page 14 of his Project). Additionally, in his present role he teaches hundreds of new missionaries headed to the field and encourages ladies to assume leadership roles that are pastor-like, even the performance of ordinances.

• Throughout the world, lady SC’s function and are in roles that restrict them from being a pastor of a local congregation but are unrestricted as to their ministry functions, fully assuming pastor-like leadership and decision making roles.

• During an SC training in Eastern South America in September of 1999 Kathy Hadaway heard a single, 25 year old female tell some other participants that she regularly “preached the main Sunday message and gave the invitations” in many Baptist churches in Brazil. ESA Regional Leader, Hadaway met with her and forbade her to continue in this practice. A year later at another meeting, Kathy Hadaway heard another single, female missionary say, “they won’t let us preach in the U.S., so we come down here where we can preach.” This sort of latitude in the role of women on the mission field led to the ordination of Ida Mae Hays by a local Baptist church in Brazil in 2001 shortly before her IMB retirement. In the same service she received the title of Pastor Emeritus. Hadaway, Kathy Hadaway, and IMB trustee Johnny Nantz asked Rev. Hays to rescind her ordination in a meeting at the Atlanta airport. She told us, “I don’t want to be a pastor,” and said the action by her local church was strictly honorary. Despite some misgivings the ESA trustee committee decided to believe Ida Mae Hays and graciously allowed her to retire without rescinding her ordination. However, a year later she was called to become the senior pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in North Carolina. Today she enjoys the joint titles of Emeritus IMB missionary and Senior Pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in North Carolina.

Possible Solution
• Fully re-evaluate the SC model. Ascertain the pastor-like functions inherent in the actual practice of being an SC. Cull out those functions and restrict those assignments to men. Create a different role with a different title to assume complimentary duties that enhance the SC’s functions in establishing churches. This complimentary role can be performed by either ladies or men as long as there is a male SC.

• The IMB trustees need to clarify the proper roles for all missionary women, including the issues of ordination, supervising men, preaching, and administering the ordinances.

Issue Four: What is the rationale for the approved abandonment of many of our "harvest fields in places like Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa?

Observations
• A joint, “ad-hoc committee” of trustees and senior IMB leadership designed and implemented “New Directions” in 1997. This committee recommended to the Board of Trustees the internal absorption of CSI (Cooperative Services International) into 14 (later 15) new regions (an expansion from the former 10 areas). New Directions was called “a new paradigm” of overseas leadership and was designed to have a “dual focus” to reach the harvest world and the unreached world. The idea was that Southern Baptists would have a global presence.

• A couple of years into New Directions, leadership began speaking of “Strategic Directions for the 21st Century.” It became evident that the IMB planned to scale down work in the places where Southern Baptists had been working for many years (except parts of Asia). In one of the Regional Leader Forums, Hadaway asked the Senior Vice-President-Overseas, about the change from a dual focus to a strictly unreached people focus. He replied, “We’ve changed our mind.” The decision to change from a dual focus to a single focus was reached by staff with minimal trustee input and was not announced to field missionaries until several years later (last Fall).

• At the Global Summit of Senior IMB leadership and the 15 Regional Leaders in August of 2003, another restructuring appeared on the horizon. In a strategy exercise Hadaway was assigned to a table with Curtis Sergeant, former Associate Vice-President for Strategy Coordination and three other Regional Leaders. Sergeant’s notes (which he shared with the group during the exercise) called for reducing the 4 America’s regions from (approximately) the current 1,200 missionaries to a projected 200 during the next 2-4 years. In addition, Sergeant called for placing about 1,200 IMB personnel in S. Asia (India), and approximately 1,150 missionaries in E. Asia (China). The President and Overseas Vice-President verbally affirmed this “strategic realignment” advocated by Sergeant and the Global Research Department (GRD) during the ensuing discussion. Hadaway asked them, “Do you think Southern Baptists are ready to support a mission board with almost 45% of their personnel in only two countries, India and China?” The response was to the effect that it had not been thought of in that way.

• The software used by the IMB Global Research Department (GRD) during the Global Summit weighted every strategic category heavily toward population. In other words, the number of people in a country outweighed every other factor. The office of Strategy Coordination is recommending a radical shift based upon a one-to-one ratio of IMB missionaries to population (see Hadaway paper) instead of strategically placing personnel according to multiple factors (including receptivity and Church Growth principles). Therefore, the heavily populated countries in Asia will within four years make the IMB effectively an “Asian Mission Board” with almost 65% of all IMB personnel assigned to that continent (the 5 Asia regions). Is this the vision of the IMB trustees or the staff? Such a redeployment will mean abandoning Latin America to the charismatic influence (70% of all evangelicals in Latin America are said to be charismatic) and ignoring the plight of the desperately poor people of sub-Saharan Africa who have considerable fewer resources than most of the world.

• The IMB leadership is proposing another regional reorganization. Staff’s plan calls for the America’s to be reduced from 4 to 2 regions. Sub-Saharan Africa will be reduced from 3 to 2 regions. (Asia is being reduced from 5 regions to 4 regions, but the rationale given for that was so it would not seem the America’s were being singled out). Rather than planning this restructuring with the trustees (as was done in 1997), this radical change in strategy (abandoning the harvest) and structure (reducing regions from 15 to approximately 11) was decided with little trustee input, with most trustees being informed after the fact.

• During the May 2003 RL Forum the Regional Leaders were told that due to the budget shortfall and strategic needs, the Overseas Leadership Team (OLT) and administration desired to look at the IMB organization. With this on the horizon the Regional Leaders asked to have “some input” into possible quotas or rumored restructuring. The impetus for reconfiguration did NOT come from the Regional Leaders, but from the administration and the Overseas Leadership Team. The Overseas Leadership Team had planned and proposed a similar restructuring in 2001 (Hadaway wrote the “Rejoicing together paper for that meeting), but was overruled by the President. During the discussion at the August 2003 RL Summit it became apparent that the Associate Vice-President for Strategy Coordination and the statistics office were leading the process down the reconfiguration road. During the ensuing discussion some Regional Leaders disagreed with the quota system and with a reduction in regions. However, when it became apparent that the reconfiguration would happen in the future it was understood that the Regional Leaders should support the OLT and administrations direction. However, it was not the RL’s idea.

Possible Solution
• Trustees represent the will of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Do Southern Baptists want approximately 1,200 missionaries each in China and India, and 50 each in Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, South Africa, and Russia? How would it be possible for the long-term influence of the IMB to continue in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America with this kind of emphasis? Trustees need to create a “Global Strategy Committee” to jointly decide IMB strategy to make sure IMB strategy conforms to the will of all Southern Baptists rather than staff.

• It is impossible for the IMB to send people exactly where everyone feels called to go. IMB leadership is responsible to Southern Baptists to develop a world-wide strategy deployment. However, a balance needs to be struck between the “call of God” and the “strategy of the IMB.” Many who feel called to go to some parts of the world are being denied that opportunity. At one SBC seminary there is a young qualified couple (with a baby due) graduating in May who felt called all their lives to Latin America. There were no openings in some regions in Latin America (due to the quota system) until 2005 and in some regions longer. This couple had to choose another part of the world despite their long term calling to work with a Latin American people group less than 2% evangelical. They could not understand why an unreached people group in Latin America of more than 500,000 and less than 2 % evangelical was less important than an unreached people group in another part of the world. Unfortunately, many couples like this would decide to go to the mission field independently. Such couples would be supported by Southern Baptist churches, in turn causing a negative impact on the Cooperative Program.

Issue Five: Finally, why is there such a de-emphasis on theological education for long-term missionary appointment? Is not the lack of theological depth worsening the problems faced on the field as well meaning missionaries are inevitably dealing with complex choices regarding the interface between culture and the claims and expectations of Christ?

Observations
• As noted in Eitel’s “Vision Assessment” paper, there is a historic trend in the SBC, especially since WWII, to see the influence of Neo-Orthodoxy. The pernicious effect of this influence is a gradual, perhaps even unconscious prioritization of religious experience over objective doctrinal truth. As we partner with GCC’s (Great Commission Christians) on the field, they are usually from backgrounds that affirm an interdenominational or non-denominational priority, and often hold varying degrees of neo-charismatic convictions. So within evangelicalism itself, there’s a downplay of doctrinal truths for the greater practice of unified partnering. So the religious existentialism of Neo-Orthodoxy flows over into evangelicalism and is known as neo-evangelicalism. We find ourselves in the middle of this pool of thought. Now more than ever there’s a need for missionaries to be keenly aware of theological trends and to know how to articulate a biblical position on any given doctrine along with an understanding of historic Baptist convictions regarding doctrine. This all means theological education must be required and emphasized for career appointment of missionaries.

• Neo-orthodoxy has infected the IMB at times through the missionary training system. When Robin and Kathy Hadaway (former RL Eastern South America) were in missionary orientation in January & February of 1984, Alan Neely of SEBTS taught Universalism and Liberation Theology as truth. The Hadaway’s complained to the program (Parks’ presidency era) director of the Missionary Orientation Center (MOC) and were told by him, “every class complains about him and I’ve asked him to ‘tone it down.’” However, we later learned that Alan Neely taught these sessions to every MOC (and later MLC) class for 5 years! This Director went on to become an Area Director, an IMB Vice-President, and was a principle defender of Daryl Whiteman (See Eitel’s Vision paper) when he was criticized for his teaching at MLC in the late 90’s. This person retired as an IMB Vice-President two years ago, still in charge of the Missionary Learning Center. Trustee pressure succeeded in removing Daryl Whiteman from teaching at MLC. This underscores the necessity of recruiting leaders for senior IMB leadership positions that will take the concerns of conservatives seriously (see Eitel’s “Vision Assessment” paper).

• Yet, within the past twelve years, there has been a consistently more flexible allowance made for those without significant seminary training. Career consultants have informed students as each policy change has come out. Initially it was an M.Div. degree with 2 years of experience required for appointment to work with church development or church planting assignments. Then the Strategy Coordinator role developed and folk could be appointed with as little as 20 semester hours of seminary. Later it was raised to 30 semester hours. Now a new policy has emerged that eliminates the need for seminary at all since the IMB cannot fund the hours at the seminaries any longer. An additional two weeks will be added to the MLC experience to compensate for seminary training.

• These short cuts are all encouraged in order to expedite or rapidly get missionaries on the field so we can complete the task. So the tyranny of the urgent commands the policy and careful preparation for a qualitatively healthier church-planting outcome is sacrificed for advancing rapidly.

Possible Solution
• Re-examine the policies that govern these types of appointments and minimally require a return to the 30 semester hour policy for all engaged in SC, church planting, or church development assignments (whether the IMB pays for the hours or not—SBC seminary education is intentionally inexpensive compared to other seminaries). Perhaps there is a need to even return to the earlier policy of requiring a professional degree from a seminary &/or enhance development of the 2+2/3 programs. Practical, hands on experience in conjunction with the overall learning structure of a full M. Div. program, only enhances the candidate’s preparation. Hence, continued development of the 2+2/3 programs with each of the seven seminaries (inclusive of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary) would seem a positive development.

• Prior to the development of the SC program (formerly NRM), everyone had to have an M.Div. (or the professional equivalent such as MRE, M. Music, M.D. or be the spouse of someone with one of these degrees) in order to become a missionary. The only missionaries who were permitted to come to the field with 30 hours were “business managers or treasurer types” who would not be interacting significantly with nationals. Hadaway served as an SC, has supervised and trained SC’s, and has supervised a region as an RL. He believes it would be best to return to the previous requirements for missionary career, associate and apprentice appointment (at least one spouse would possess an M. Div., MRE, professional graduate degree in their field plus 30 seminary hours, or age equivalent church work experience plus 30 seminary hours for older candidates).

Dr. Eitel's First Paper w Cover Letter

2006-09-19T13:07:00.000-05:00

Let me first apologize for not being able to reproduce the Tables Eitel used for his paper. Also, I have edited out the footnotes for space. Other than these two corrections the following is Dr. Patterson's cover letter and Dr. Eitel’s first paper. The purpose for posting it is to dispel the continuous and erroneous criticisms of Dr. Eitel and Dr. Patterson apparently for political purposes. Truth shall prevail. I have recieved multiple e-mails this week from M's on the field expressing appreciation for this blog...as one put it, he had been very discouraged with what he had been reading in the blog world but then he came across this blog and his spirits were lifted by truth. He was so grateful for Dr. Eitel and Dr. Patterson defending their students. The second Paper will be coming soon. Read and judge for yourself.

Dear_____

Without a doubt, the keenest thinking in missiology occurs on the staff of the International Mission Board. Southern Baptists continue to be the leader in the field of international missions, and that is exactly how we want it to be.

However, some profitable thinking and planning is also done elsewhere. Dr. Keith Eitel, one of the cutting edge missiologists of our day, who is professor of missiology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a white paper, which focuses on one of the current major discussions. The critical importance of his paper, especially in light of the conservative movement in the Southern Baptist Convention, will be apparent to you as you read it. Because of your strategic position as a trustee of the International Mission Board, I wanted you to have the benefit of his thinking. May God be good to you as you continue to serve our denomination in so many ways.

Until He Comes,
Paige Patterson

White Paper - by Keith Eitel

Early on I would argue with Adrian Rogers about that [basis for unity in the SBC] and he’d say no, ‘the theme that has held us together is not missions, but doctrine.’ Well, historically I don’t think that’s accurate because historically the SBC is composed of people with varying theological perspectives . . . . My assessment is that they’re [conservatives in the SBC] from an independent Baptist viewpoint where conventions are built around doctrine [sic] than from the heritage that we as Southern Baptists have had that the convention is built around missions. And so after arguing with Adrian several times, I finally came to realize that for him and I think for Paige [Patterson] and for others the unifying element ought to be a unifying perspective of theology . . .according to the Scripture, the Living Word is more important than the written word . . . it’s a mistake in my estimation to elevate Scripture above Christ . . . .(Keith Parks).

Since 1979, the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] has been engaged in a struggle to rediscover and reassert it’s heritage. The citation above reflects the prevailing opinion of many within the convention at the beginning of the conservative resurgence. Conservatives would easily take issue with R. Keith Park’s assessment because he is basing it on a limited historical perspective of the heritage of the SBC.

Gradually, after World War I, the theological climate began to shift as the thought of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner and other Neo-Orthodox scholars took root in American theological schools. Our SBC schools were not immune to these trends. In essence, Barth introduced a dimension to theological methods and thought that would enable intelligent people to affirm simultaneously contradictory opinions. Bart claimed that the Bible is true and applies to the individual’s life yet, he claimed, there is no need to jettison the conclusions of nearly a century of classical liberal thought, particularly emerging out of Germany, which used a higher critical methodology and challenged the integrity of the actual text of the Bible. By moving the location of revelation from the text to an “encounter” or experiential truth, it could be insulated from higher critical attacks. Hence, the Bible is no longer viewed as revelation; it is just the envelope or carrier of revelation that comes to us through an “encounter” with God. What has normally been deemed as the doctrine of illumination became the Barthian view of inspiration. The net effect of this subtle but significant shift in theological method was to tolerate, and even embrace, a wide range of theological opinions since truth became highly personalized and freed from the critical eye of biblical scholars or even objective comparison to the text of the Bible. Theological pluralism, in a hot-house environment, became the ideal aim of theological education.

These basic tenets of belief permeated the SBC’s theological seminaries, especially after World War II. Whenever controversy erupted regarding the theological integrity of the seminaries, there were cries regarding the loss of academic freedom, as though that value superceded the truth of the Bible. Parks was a product of this more recent development in Southern Baptist theological circles. His statement reflects clearly what seems to be the pivotal point of difference between the Neo-Orthodox influenced SBC (1918-1979), and the heritage that preceded, and later followed, that development (1845-1917 and 1979-present). The older heritage is where contemporary conservatives root their beliefs and actions. In essence, Parks was saying that doctrine or theology divides us but missions unites us. Rodgers, however, was indicating that unless our theological convictions are solidly established squarely on an inerrant Bible, we will have no legitimate or reasonable basis for doing missions.

These variances are more than just incidental. The Parks attitude seems pervasive within the day-to-day operations of the International Mission Board [IMB] and represents the greatest future challenge to redirect Biblically the IMB and re-root it firmly in the older theological heritage of the founding fathers and its contemporary conservative commitments.

Cauthen (1954-1979)/Parks (1980-1992): Bold Mission Thrust

M. Theron Rankin died suddenly only eight years into his tenure as the head of the Foreign Mission Board. Baker James Cauthen followed him in this role and remained there for twenty-five years. Cauthen inherited a program designed to encourage SBC churches and missionaries to catch the spirit of enthusiasm that developed in the wake of World War II. Cauthen further developed this inherited plan during the first decades of his presidency. Near the end of his years of leadership, he charged the SBC with responsibility for a new vision of Bold Mission Thrust (1976-2000). This was the final strategic plan designed and implemented by the Cauthen administration. It was an all out call for full mobilization to push to the end of the century and complete the task of global evangelization, as far as humanly possible. Parks assumed the president’s role in 1980 and in his first address to the Board, he drew upon Cauthen’s bold initiatives but showed he was planning to update the mission models used. While advancing toward the same stated goals in the Bold Mission Thrust campaign, Parks was influenced by trends among other Christian agencies. He advocated the use of strategic planning techniques and invited David B. Barrett, author of the World Christian Encyclopedia, into the Board’s facilities in Richmond. Barrett’s own Anglican theological persuasions are far more ecumenical than those traditionally held by Southern Baptists. Barrett quietly influenced several strategic planners at the Board and his methods were used to analyze the remaining task of global evangelization. It was not until the early 1990’s that Barrett was removed from the Board, yet his influence still lingers in the office of strategic planning and research to this day.

Cooperative Services International (CSI), the concept of the non-residential missionary, and people-group foci were all contributions to the process gained during Parks’ era. Yet, as the Board began to work in and with the broader Neo-Evangelical groups (now called Great Commission Christians), the cross-pollination of ideas without a careful analysis of the biblical and theological soundness of the trends that depicted the end of the last century missions world, began to erode even further the commitments Southern Baptists have historically had to a real need for personal evangelism, church planting, and discipleship of the nations. While the stated aims sounded familiar, the means and modes of accomplishing them revealed a theological drift away from biblical moorings. In the background of these developments, during the 1980’s, the SBC was struggling to recover the theological commitments that would, when applied, serve as a filter or corrective to detrimental trends. Parks’ view of doctrine as divisive while the causes of missions are unifying, enhanced the uncritical acceptance of these and other missiological trends.

Rankin (1993-Present): New Directions

Trustees elected Jerry A. Rankin as the Board president on 14 June 1993. For the first four years of his administration, Rankin built his team and pointed the Board to the early stages of a “New Direction”. In the spring of 1997, Rankin acted to dissolve CSI, reconfigure the entire Board structure, and openly advocate a set of new directions. What was new was an emphasis on church planting that resulted in movements or the contagious exponential expansion of churches. The means of accomplishing these new directions were to streamline the administrative operation of the Board on the field by dissolving the archaic localized mission administrative structures in the countries where the Board traditionally worked, move toward the unevangelized edges of each region by city or people group segment, and to move to the unreached areas more intentionally.

Rankin’s “New Directions” campaign drew the Board more directly into the network of GCC’s, again with no mechanisms in place to filter or check the entry of unbiblical practices other than the specific theological preparation of the individual missionary. Yet, under the Rankin administration, there has been an obvious and apparently intentional move away from requiring seminary training for the key roles related to church planting or church development. Pre-Rankin, the normal requirement was an MDiv or equivalent plus two years of pertinent experience. Today one may assume such roles with as little as 20-30 semester hours and there is a spirit or culture within the Board that downplays or undermines the need to even go to seminary at all. If it weren’t for the Trustees holding the line on this requirement I am afraid that seminary requirements would be dropped completely. In lieu of seminary training, business management techniques and/or secular training in a variety of fields are much more highly prized and encouraged. While not meaning to demean the value of such backgrounds in general, I am concerned that evangelism, church planting, and discipleship are in the hands of theological novices. It raises serious questions regarding whether the end justifies the means when the types of churches planted increasingly do not reflect a biblical ecclesiology, Baptist values, or in some cases even appear Christian.

Additional issues surfacing as the Board has progressed more deeply into “New Directions” ideologies relate to the role of women in missionary ministry, especially in the strategy coordinator (SC) capacity. SC’s, or Strategy Leaders (SL’s) in some regions, are the heirs of the earlier non-residential missionary model. The concept has evolved in numerous ways and is never quite the same from region to region or missionary to missionary. In one sense, this kind of flexibility is the strength of the concept. In another sense, it has little or no structure in place to regulate theological concerns. Women, while certainly capable in numerous ways to do ministry, should not be placed in doctrinal or ethical authority over men, and the SC role often causes this to happen. Additionally, partnering with GCC’s is supposed to be guided by concentric circles of levels of partnership as outlined in David Garrison’s book on church planting published by the IMB. Yet, there is no theological statement of boundaries. By default the structure collapses and SC’s frequently lead their teams to partner with theologically suspect organizations. Again, without clear boundaries regarding GCC’s and guidelines for partnering, with many who are theological novices guiding the process, problems emerge.

In the final analysis, the “New Directions” campaign seems to reflect the same theological position inherited from the Parks era. Theological definition is minimized and that which is “new” reveals it’s roots in the very theological heritage that influenced Parks to conclude that doctrine divides and missions unites.

IMB Future: Biblical Renewal

In order to synchronize the IMB with the theological convictions of the SBC, consistently expressed since 1979 and to set the Board’s course directly back into the evangelical roots that were the convictions of the founders of the convention, then there must be a system set in place whereby biblical and theological inquiry is not minimized in importance. Rather it should be affirmed and elevated to serve as a critiquing mechanism for setting the policies, practices, and procedures of the IMB in line with Bible as true Truth that instructs, informs, and determines the IMB’s worldview and culture. At this juncture, I can only present a rough set of ideas for doing this, but that does not minimize my commitment to the desired outcome. At least the following should be serious considerations:

• Recruit administrators committed to theological renewal of the Board.

• Change the appointment criteria and procedures to encourage theological preparation. Enlarge and encourage development of the 2+2/3 programs in the six SBC seminaries and Mid-America.

• Revise the entire curriculum and teaching staff at the MLC to create a coherently biblical foundation for missions, cultural adjustment, cross-cultural communication, and church planting. Procedures used at the MLC should be more “family friendly” and not use secular personnel management techniques that are thoroughly unchristian in nature (e.g. negative peer review processes).

• Renew the office of strategic planning to inculcate proper research techniques, move away from trendy data analyses (e.g. Barrett’s model), and bring a balance to the view of the world needed to engage global harvest fields, especially among the unreached, that is untainted by ecumenical premises and thoroughly biblical.

• Generate theological definitions and boundaries for partnering with GCC’s, review the nature of the SC/SL position and create alternatives suitable for women that are in line with the sentiments of the BF&M 2000, and create guidelines for church planting that will insure healthy theological development and be reflective of Baptist distinctives.

• Create a budget and planning process that prioritizes transparent use of funds and one that causes everyone to sense an accountability even to the little children in VBS programs or widows that faithfully give to the Board, as well as everyone else.

• Additionally, budgeting should balance the work in established areas with those in pioneer areas. The nature of the work in each will necessarily be different and the budgeting processes should reflect that reality.

• Create a synergy within the Board’s culture that will minimize the competitiveness and enhance the value of a “koinonia” spirit generated from a common, likeminded faith.

• The aim of these types of changes is to solidify the foundation for engaging in missionary activity. Hell is real. Heaven is real. Everyone that has ever lived, or shall someday live, will spend eternity one place or the other. We’ve been charged with the responsibility to make sure everyone knows The Way to salvation through Christ’s finished work on the cross alone. Shaky theological foundations that erode confidence in the integrity of the text of the Bible soon undermine the integrity of Jesus as the main character of the Bible and His exclusive statements regarding the need for salvation in and through Him. So the goal is to do our share of winning the world to Christ and to see His church established in every city, town, and village, thereby pleasing Him without care for the ways of the world.

The IMB, Eitel’s letter and the Blogs

2006-09-15T16:31:00.000-05:00

Marty Duren has questioned me concerning my timeline of events at the IMB as posted here under “The IMB, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Eitel, and Truth.” I will now respond to him. Let me state, up front, I believe Marty to be a man who loves Jesus and seeks Truth with a pure heart...for that we are grateful. However, I think he is still Hoodwinked:)

1. He is correct in stating that I said “Dr. Eitel sent the letter to the IMB Trustees.” I was wrong in saying that and I apologize to all. He is also correct in stating it was unintentional on my part as evidenced by other comments I have made. He is further technically correct in saying, it wasn’t Dr. Eitel that mailed it, but Dr. Patterson.

This however, does not change the fact that Dr. Eitel wrote the paper WITHOUT Dr. Patterson’s knowledge or input and that he sent it to Dr. Patterson to send to the Administration and the Trustees on his behalf.

2. Marty claims I took a miss-step Chronologically. And points to the committee not looking at résumé’s until January of ’04. However, he also makes a miss-step here:)

- Dr. Eitel was contacted in May ’03
- August ’03 - A trustee TELLS Dr. Eitel the Administration is slowing the process in an effort to make sure Dr. Eitel won’t be looked at.
- September ’03 – Dr. Eitel has heard nothing from the committee.
- Dr. Eitel and Dr. Patterson conclude he will not be interviewed.
- Dr. Eitel sends Dr. Patterson his paper to send to trustees on Eitel's behalf.
- He wasn't interviewed.

SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSION: 1) paper written in June/July by Dr. Eitel for an interview; 2) it was viewed in August by Dr. Patterson; 3) Eitel and Patterson conclude he will not be interviewed; 4) Paper sent in Sept.

Out of courtesy, I will also do my best to honestly answer Marty’s questions, even though I believe the questions belong in a gossip column on SB politics rather than on my blog where I desire to deal with substantive THEOLOGICAL ISSUES. Marty, there is no harshness intended here…I’m just not sure this has anything to do with the substance of Eitel's paper or with happenings in the SBC.

Marty: - 1. Is there a little greasy spoon cafe in Wake Forest known as The Border?

Actually Wake Forest does have a restaurant called The Border, it also has many other restaurants where we professors like to eat: Over the Falls Deli; Havana Jax, etc.

Marty: 2. In the first half of this decade was it a common practice for students, faculty and employees of SEBTS to eat lunch there between 11:00 and 3:00 on most, if not all, days of the week?

It is still common practice for those of us on tight budgets to eat at the Border on many days of the week. EXCELLENT FOOD – MINIMAL PRICE:)

Marty: 3. Was it common for the attendees at this almost daily get together to discuss any and all activities, personalities and politics of SBC life?

It is very common for me to discuss things in the SBC, no matter where I eat or who I am eating with – I love the SBC and am concerned about all facets of it…I even pray for it (i.e. – I talk to Father about it also). The implication that my “shooting the breeze” with colleagues has any power to influence decisions in the SBC is most fallacious. I wish we did have that type of power (If we did, I would like to believe we would not only solve the SBC problems but most of the world’s problems too).

Marty: 4. Was part of this ongoing conversation the situation at the IMB, which was of such concern to Drs. Eitel and Patterson?

To this day, part of my conversation with colleagues, students and friends still involves the SBC, the IMB, our seminaries, churches, etc – Our conversations at the Border is by no means limited to the IMB or even the SBC for that matter.

HOWEVER, I DO RECALL A PRAYER REQUEST BY DR. EITEL IN WHICH HE STATED THAT HE HAD RECIEVED AN E-MAIL FROM THE IMB ADMINISTRATION CONTAINING A THREAT TO REMOVE OUR 2+2 PROGRAM IF EITEL CONTINUED IN HIS PRINCIPLED DISSENT. In other words, we will not work with SE students (but we will work with Great Commission Christians of other denominations) unless you stop dissenting from our practices.

Marty: 5-8

I have NO knowledge of a discussion about a Trustee vote to oust Dr. Rankin. However, even if it did occur and some profs theorized on how many Trustees were needed…this does not imply anything but seminary faculty “shooting the breeze” (we are just not as powerful as you assume).

Marty: 9. Was there an offer made to Benjamin S. Cole, as he alleges, “to go on payroll at Southwestern Seminary in February of 2004 when a job was offered to [him]. The proposed job was to listen to audio-recordings of Jerry Rankin and to cull them for suspicious charismatic theology”? If so, would this be considered a proper use of Cooperative Programs funds?

Ben is in a position to answer that, not me. He could probably further explain why he was dismissed at the ILC and the theological concerns he had while he was there.

Marty: 10. If the answer to most or all of these questions is “yes,” does it not demonstrate a “behind the scenes, underhanded, manipulative effort to undermine the IMB administration or to influence policy”?

NO – There are a few reasons we may conclude NO. First, to my knowledge Dr. Patterson has NEVER eaten at the Border. He did not participate in any “back-room” discussions because he was not there. Second just because faculty get together and discuss happenings in the SBC does not mean there is a “behind the scenes, underhanded, manipulative effort to undermine the IMB administration or to influence policy?” - In other words, just because guys get together over a meal and discuss problems in the SBC (something that happens everyday across the convention, especially over the GREASY SPOON of BLOGS) does not imply a Great Deceptive Conspiracy, which will doom the IMB administration.

Now, if I contacted a group of colleagues and said “I want to get with you in Memphis and discuss a plan on how we can change the leadership of the SBC”…then maybe some could conclude a conspiracy, but this isn’t what happened at The Border.

Yet this leaves us with some real substantive ETHICAL and THEOLOGICAL issues.

1. No one has shown where Dr. Patterson, in any way, influenced Dr. Eitel’s Paper – to imply so without evidence is not just wrong it is intentionally deceptive and unethical.

2. No one has demonstrated, in any way, where Dr. Eitel’s concerns were invalid. Some have tried to imply that the Leadership Development Sub-Committee’s Report has shown Eitel’s paper to be erroneous. Yet, it has done nothing of the sort. In fact one Trustee met with both Dr. Rankin and Seminary Leadership over two years ago to address the problems at the ILC after the IMB Trustees had received numerous complaints of teaching at the ILC.

The man overseeing the curriculum at the time has since resigned (but Ben Cole has demonstrated some of his non-BFM2K Theology on Ben’s latest post).

Ron Wilson began making immediate changes and has continued to make excellent changes over the past two and a half years. Moreover, the guidance of Dr. Tom Elliff for the past year has further contributed to this correction. One Trustee I spoke with basically said: with the changes provided by Dr. Elliff and Ron Wilson in tandem with more and more seminary professors teaching at the ILC there has been drastic improvement “both in the teaching and the curriculum.” Of note, a Trustee also told me: the input of Dr. Eitel’s paper was, in large part, the impetus “that helped make these changes!”

I was further informed, that the latest report dealt with the CURRENT standing of the ILC, NOT the happenings when Eitel wrote his paper!

I want to Praise God for the IMB administration’s wisdom in making these changes, I want to Praise God for the impetus (however great or small) Dr. Eitel’s paper provided for the changes. And most of all I want to Praise God for the changes!!!

To those interested I will soon post both of Eitel’s papers and Dr. Patterson’s cover letter. However, I felt I owed Marty a response. Marty, may we keep digging for Truth.

However, I am trying to not post much of what I know, because I am not convinced that it will enhance the Kingdom of God. And yet, I will correct false allegations made in the SBC blogworld, for the sake of truth.

Which leaves us with two lingering questions: HAS ANYONE SHOWN DR. EITEL’s PAPER TO BE ERRONEOS IN ANY OF ITS ASSERTIONS OF THINGS OCCURING IN ‘02 AND ’03? And if not, do the Bloggers who have asserted its error not owe Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel an apology?
BR

The IMB, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Eitel and TRUTH (UPDATED)

2006-09-08T13:23:00.000-05:00

I shall leave the rest of this post intact, but am adding this first paragraph to update some occurrences at the IMB. This week, the Trustee sub-committee charged with looking into complaints about the MLC (now known as the ILC) came back with a clean bill of health after two years of inquiry. Praise God...I think we can all celebrate that. Some bloggers, however, are concluding that this has rebuffed Eitel's first paper and Eitel's, Hadaway's, and Patterson's paper written 3 years ago. Such a leap is unwarranted. Perhaps it was those very papers, which provided the impetus to get things in order or maybe it was something else. In either case we celebrate where things are currently. But until and unless one can show that what was written in the papers were erroneous at THAT TIME...then logic demands they have not been rebuffed:)

The misquoting, misrepresentations, and subjectively skewed analyses of Dr. Patterson and current events in the SBC continue to amaze me. My surprise at what I read in the blogosphere is surpassed only by the ignorance or outright deception of some of those who are writing.

I have evidenced, in the past, the recklessness and disregard for truth that appears to accompany some of what is written on SBC blogs (see my posts ”Bloggers: Are they Really Honoring Christ?” and “Southern Baptist Bloggers Sound False Alarm.”) Today, as I perused the blogs I was once again confounded. For instance:

1. On one blog, the administrator asks, “Why is there a movement by some within the SBC to narrow the doctrinal parameters of cooperation and participation beyond the BFM 2000?”

Interestingly, the administrator gives no evidence that this is occurring. I am left to assume that he is speaking of policies adopted by our agencies. If this is the case, then he is correct, every agency in the SBC goes beyond the BFM 2000 in regard to their guidelines and policies. At Southeastern we have a handbook that deals with issues such as speech, conduct, and dress, which goes far beyond the BFM 2000. The IMB has always had such policies too. The idea of an institution developing policy for more effective ministry is not something new.

On this same blog a second question is asked: “Why was a public statement made by the administration of SWBTS that what Dr. McKissic taught in chapel regarding a private prayer language was "harmful" to churches, and not the position of the "faculty" at SWBTS, when the published writings of several faculty members seem to support the very thing Dr. McKissic was saying?”

ASTOUNDING. My astonishment at the inaccuracy’s implied by this question was compounded by the fact that this same blog has a link to the statement that was issued by the SWBTS administration. The SWBTS statement does not say, NOR EVEN imply “What Dr. McKissic taught in chapel regarding a private prayer language was harmful to churches…” in fact the statement says: “Equally in keeping with our emphasis of religious liberty we reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which WE FEAR MAY be harmful to the churches.” Of note are the words I have capitalized, namely: “We" "Fear” and “May.” In other words the administration is saying "in our personal opinion (we) what was said in chapel gives us concern (fear) that there is a possibility that the doctrine could be harmful to churches (may)."

Of concern to me, is not necessarily the statement from the SWBTS administration but the purposeful misrepresentation of it on blogs. However, I can affirm from personal experience, as a pastor, that the practice of a “private prayer language” “may be harmful to churches.” I recall a lady in a church I pastored who had such a language and shared it, of note was a statement she made to me which came from her PPL. She said, “God told me that you and I are the two witnesses in Revelation!” HELLO? These types of statements “may be harmful” to churches.

Further, the statement, by the SW administration does not say that Dr. McKissic’s views are, “not the position of the "faculty" at SWBTS.” Rather it says, “tongues as ECSTATIC UTTERANCE is not a position that we SUSPECT would be advocated by MOST faculty or trustees.” Notice, first the administration does not speak to PPL but to “ecstatic utterances” – there is a difference. Second, the administration purposefully says, “not a position WE SUSPECT.” In other words they are not saying that the majority of the faculty and trustees would not advocate tongues, but rather they are saying, “WE DON’T THINK the majority of the faculty and trustees would advocate tongues.” Finally, notice the sleight of hand the blog administrator used to turn the word “most” into “all.” The blog administrator in quoting “most faculty and trustees” changed it to “the faculty.” No where does the administration claim that there is not a faculty member or two who may agree with McKissic, rather they claim it is the administration’s BELIEF that “MOST” faculty members AND trustees would not agree with McKissic on this issue.

2. On another blog, a different administrator says, “Southwestern will not use its resources to promote the use of a Private Prayer Language. Southwestern will use its resources to call into question the leadership and direction of the IMB” On this blog the author implies that Dr. Patterson’s cover letter for Dr. Eitel’s paper to the IMB in some way questioned the leadership and direction of the IMB. While the paper itself (not the cover letter) certainly focuses on the direction of the IMB, the purpose behind it was not to question the leadership but rather to critically think about where we want the IMB to go in the future. If and when our agencies reach the point where they are not open to receiving and contemplating constructive criticism, it will be a sad day for Southern Baptists.

Having said all of that, I want to be clear, my purpose for posting this is not reactionary, retributive, or even rebutive. MY desire is to set forth truth and to show the conscious or even sub-conscious skewing that continues to cloud the accuracy and thus the integrity of some blogs. As time continues, more and more open-minded Southern Baptists are seeing the misquotations, malevolence, and misrepresentations made by some bloggers, which begs questions concerning much of what they post.

Therefore, with veracity in mind I want to address the letter Dr. Eitel sent to the IMB ADMINITRATION and TRUSTEES. The following is a chronological sequence of what ACTUALLY occurred. Contrary to statements and assumptions, Dr. Patterson did not ask Dr. Eitel to write a paper for the purpose of some behind the scenes, underhanded, manipulative effort to undermine the IMB administration or to influence policy from Ft. Worth. In fact, Dr. Patterson didn’t even ask Dr. Eitel to write a paper!!!

1. Spring ’03 – Some IMB Trustees contact Dr. Eitel for a possible interview for Avery Willis' position that was vacated.

2. Eitel prepares a paper of talking points for the interview. He was to address: where the IMB had been, where it is and where he thinks it should go.

3. He develops his talking points from: a) feedback from dozens of missionaries and students on the field and at the MLC; b) His observations from his recent sabbatical in East Asia; c) 18 years of short-term mission work.

4. The genesis of the paper was a discussion between Keith Parks and Adrian Rogers concerning what unites Southern Baptists. Parks claimed it was missions; Rogers claimed it was Doctrine. “In essence, Parks was saying that doctrine or theology divides us but missions unites us. Rogers, however, was indicating that unless our theological convictions are solidly established squarely on an inerrant Bible, we will have no legitimate or reasonable basis for doing missions.” Eitel felt Rogers to be right and referenced historical evidence for support.

He then argued that the “New Directions” strategy implemented by the current administration was a strategy that was more in sync with Dr. Parks’ understanding of what unites Southern Baptists than with Dr. Rogers’. He references, the current move toward promoting missionaries without much seminary education to key roles related to church planting and church development. This apparent move caused Eitel to be concerned about the lack of theological training of missionaries on the field. This lack of training was apparently contributing to an exaltation of women in authority over men in doctrinal and ethical matters. Further, and even more dangerous was the lack of theological structure to filter cooperation with "Christians" of other denominations or even cults. Thus, Eitel states “In order to synchronize the IMB with the theological convictions of the SBC, consistently expressed since 1979 and to set the Board’s course directly back into the evangelical roots that were the convictions of the founders of the convention, there must be a system set in place whereby biblical and theological inquiry is not minimized in importance. Rather it should be affirmed and elevated to serve as a critiquing mechanism for setting the policies, practices, and procedures of the IMB in line with Bible as true Truth that instructs, informs, and determines the IMB’s worldview and culture.” He then concludes with his understanding of how to do this.

5. Several WEEKS after Eitel wrote the paper he told Dr. Patterson about it over dinner. Patterson asked to read it. Next day Eitel sent it to him.

6. Patterson tells Eitel, if you don't get interviewed for the job it would be good to send the paper to the President and the Trustees anyway.

7. Intriguingly, he was not interviewed.

8. He sent the paper to the President and the Trustees.

9. Apparently, the IMB administration claimed the paper inaccurately used “isolated incidences” as proof of “systemic” problems.

10. Some Trustees ask Eitel for clarification.

11. Eitel works with former RL Robin Hadaway and Paige Patterson on a second paper citing and documenting numerous on field incidents, which support the statements in the first paper. This paper is sent to one of the Trustees who had asked for clarification. He in turn sends it to the President and the other 87 Trustees.

In this paper, Eitel references the apparent direction of planting “baptistic churches” rather than “Baptist churches.” This is done in order to cooperate with other “Christians” on the field. I, for one, am a little uneasy with our missionaries planting churches with an individual who believes one can lose their salvation. Even worse, is cooperating with those who are “willing to call someone coming from an Islamic background that is in a C-5 church plant a believer even though that person emphatically denies the deity of Christ.”

Other, theological problems occurring on the field with some of our missionaries included: 1) “One lady missionary (who) felt she had to exorcise her curtains of evil spirits”; 2) a female missionary who was ordered by a non-seminary trained divorced female SCer “to perform the ordinance of baptism for a set of new believers” even though the female missionary was uncomfortable doing so, since she felt pastors should perform the ordinances of the church; 3) MUCH MORE including women functioning as pastors without the title (contrary to the BFM 2000); Universalism concerns and Neo-orthodox concerns (see Eitel’s second paper).

This summarizes the papers and events of Dr. Patterson, Dr. Eitel and the IMB.

Interestingly, only ONE person has called Dr.s Patterson and Eitel about what they have been accused of, and he did so because two of his colleagues on the field (who know Dr.s Patterson and Eitel) refused to believe what was being said on the blogs.

This person was shocked to find out no one else has even cared to ask Patterson or Eitel...many are just assuming the blogs are correct.

Even more interesting and ironic is one bloggers' call for people to confront fellow Christians privately before making public accusations, however, he has yet to call Dr. Patterson with his concerns on how the Chapel service on tongues was handled or his concerns of Patterson's and Eitel's perceived involvement at the IMB. This type of systemic blindness certainly gives pause for thought.

While, some will assume the differences, which exists at the IMB and on blogs, are political and adversarial in nature, they are not for me…they are DOCTRINAL and THEOLOGICAL. There is no doubt that the twisting of truth must be brought to light but that does not make this personal...rather it helps us all remain informed about the accuracy and legitimacy of what is being said (logos) and the ethos of those who are speaking. May, the Lord open my eyes to anything I have written that is inaccurate. The desire for Truth and Theological Purity remains my motive before our Father.

With this in mind we will tackle the tongues issue soon:)
BR

Southern Baptist Bloggers Sound False Alarm

2006-09-01T00:31:00.000-05:00

As I perused some Blogs this week I was literally amazed at what appeared to be a collective heart attack stemming from the events that occurred in a Chapel service at Southwestern Seminary. Amazingly it wasn’t the content of the message, nor even the wisdom of attacking the actions of the Trustees of a sister institution which received the Shock and Awe of some bloggers; it was the fact the Seminary President removed the Internet streaming of the message.

If I were to write a summary of this week’s Southern Baptist blog world I think it would be: “In a rare and unusual incident many bloggers experienced what was first thought to be a collective and serious cardiac arrest brought about by a coronary thrombosis, however, after careful inspection it appears to have been nothing more than an intense occurrence of dyspepsia caused by an excessive and immediate release of thermal oxygen.”

Now, lest I offend some of the well-meaning bloggers who assumed this chapel event was Big News, (because other bloggers were making it big) allow me to state I am not speaking to you. I am however, addressing those in the SBC who know that Dr. Patterson’s actions were not earth-shaking, and yet they blogged in order to make news. It reminds me of a newspaper that has no news, so they make a minor event a major story.

Let’s review the facts:

1. Chapel speaker uses chapel time as an opportunity to attack the policies of the Trustees of a sister institution (Interestingly, this was not the big news according to many of the bloggers – in fact, I have not read any blog post that has challenged the wisdom of the speaker assuming such freedom. If a chapel speaker did that in a chapel I attended, my first question would be WHY? What purpose lay behind the use of chapel for such an expression that could be viewed as political? How did those words bring positive press and thereby grow the institution to which he was entrusted by SB?
By the way, I operate under the assumption that Dr. McKissic is a man of God who loves God dearly, has pure motives, and may not have considered the repercussions his statements would generate. Therefore, I refuse, and encourage everyone to refuse, to characterize him in any way other than a child of the living King – my frustration is not with him for I have committed far worse errors in my life. My frustration is with some of the bloggers who want to widen our tent to the point we lose our heritage and our distinctives as Southern Baptists.)

2. SW President removes the internet stream of the chapel message in order to apparently reveal that Southwestern Seminary does not make a habit of approving chapel messages that attack the actions of Trustees of sister institutions. The message, however, is still ATTAINABLE through Southwestern Seminary.

I just don’t get the outrage at the actions of the administration at Southwestern. In defending Dr. Patterson’s actions our current Southern Baptist president Dr. Frank Page says, “It is very encouraging to know that Southwestern Seminary joins this president in strongly asserting that they do not need to be in a place which ‘appears to be critical of the actions of the board of trustees of a sister agency,’” He even prophetically warns these bloggers who are on a feeding frenzy by stating, “While some may question the handling of this situation, please remember that they (Southwestern Administration) are trying to be fair, even under great pressure.”

The volcanic eruption displayed by some bloggers is just inexplicable to me. It’s not as if an unreached people group has been reached, or a revival broke out in New York, or even that a soul was saved from his wretched sin. I’m greatly confounded at their reaction.

Quite frankly, their hyperventilation would be hilarious were the implications not so serious. That which apparently lies behind the brouhaha this week is not outrage at the removal of a message from on-line access (which would be laughable, since it can readily be accessed other ways) nor even a desire to widen our tent to other neglected SB.
Rather what lies at the heart of this eruption is an apparent desire to malign those who labored in building our current tent (conservative resurgence), and then to use such hyped antagonism to remove our tent and give us a different one. In my opinion what lies at the root of this blogging hyper-activity is a hostility towards our current leadership and a desire to remake Southern Baptists into a conglomeration of Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and Cooperative Baptist Fellowshippers.

The issue is not: can SB cooperate on the mission field with some of those who differ with us in doctrines such as: receiving the second blessing of the Holy Spirit, women pastors, eternal security of the believer, or the inerrancy of Scriptures. (While I would struggle with cooperating with some of these on the mission field…that is not the issue.) The issue is: do we want to use CP funds to pay those who differ with us on these issues. Some say yes…they claim we should stop using the word inerrancy because it is divisive (so is the word “sin” – should we stop using it?). They say we should use CP funds to pay those who speak in tongues, as well as those who believe in women pastors. I say NO. It is not who we are. (Don’t erroneously claim that "SB have not historically held the speaking in tongues as a disqualification for employment by the IMB"…WE HAVE…check our IMB policies!).

We are not Pentecostals, we are not Presbyterians, we are not the CBF, WE ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS.

While I consider many of those in these other denominations my brothers and sisters in Christ and am able to cooperate with some of them in reaching souls, nevertheless I am a Southern Baptist. I have friends in some of these other denominations and I thank God for their ministries and their faith but we differ on certain aspects of ecclesiology, pneumatology, soteriology, and missiology.

My point: if you want to be a Pentecostal or Presbyterian or CBF missionary, or if you want to support them, there is a mission agency for you, but IT IS NOT THE IMB. The IMB is for Southern Baptists and who we have been historically.

For those critical of Dr. Patterson please see Bart Barber's article "We Played the Flute for You..." available at http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com

An Open Letter to the IMB Trustees

2006-08-30T16:33:00.000-05:00

Dear IMB Trustees

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your labor of love for the kingdom of Christ. I know you have been under heavy scrutiny for the past year and have received unwarranted critiques and unsubstantiated accusations by some in the Southern Baptist Convention. While there may have been a vocal member who has placed you in the spot-light of convention politics, and in so doing contributed, in no small way, to the fallacious characterizations you have received, please know, I do not believe these characterizations nor do I believe much of what I read on blogs concerning you.

In fact, I believe you are men and women of God who love Him and desire the spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth, while maintaining accountability to the convention and the BFM 2000. I believe you have done your best to seek God’s will in all you do and have labored for the glory of God in the midst of undeserved criticism. I believe your motives have been pure and your example of turning the other cheek, impeccable. I have oft wondered why you have not publicly corrected what I believe to be misstatements and misjudgments of you, but your passivity is reflective of the spirit of Christ. There may come a day when you need to correct the record for the Kingdom's sake but I trust your wisdom in this.

In conclusion, I want to let you know that there are many who do not believe every thing the blogs say concerning you and who have full confidence in both the Trustee system and in you. Again, Thank you and may God bless your labors.

BR

Blinded by our Sight

2006-08-20T20:17:00.000-05:00

In the movie Jurassic Park the great hunter turned Game Warden Robert Muldoon is blinded by his sight. Muldoon finds himself totally focused on a “raptor” he has been hunting and is about to pull the “trigger,” when another raptor pokes it’s head through the bush next to him.

His focus had caused him to lose sight of his surroundings. This is an all-too often occurrence amongst the human species. I know I have done it many times myself. Perhaps one of the trustees of one of our Southern Baptist institutions has also made this error.

How would you council a fellow Christian who shared the following scenario with you:

He felt an organization that he had been a part of for years was headed in the wrong direction. A few years back the organization passed some guidelines for its employees and institutions. Your Christian friend tells you he thinks the essential parts of the guidelines are good but disagrees with what he calls non-essentials. However, he is asked to be a Trustee for one of the institutions, he agrees and signs his name affirming ALL the guidelines (essentials and non-essentials), without telling the organization of his reservations. He did this, because he felt it was what God would have him do to bring about changes. Moreover, his motives are pure.

He then tells you that the organization passed a resolution by an 85% majority. He disagrees with the resolution and speaks out publicly against it. The current and the past Presidents of the organization affirm the resolution whole-heartedly. In his disagreement he implies that all who affirm this resolution are not abiding by the Bible of the organization.

I don’t know about you, but I would council him to resign his position and seek to work the changes he desires from a different position, which does not require his signature on a document he cannot TOTALLY affirm. Furthermore, I would suggest that he is not representing the individuals who entrusted him with such a position if he speaks out publicly against a resolution they overwhelmingly passed and one, which is affirmed by the current President.

If I were the one in his position I hope I would be aware of my surroundings enough to see the integrity and authority issues which would demand my resignation.

We have such a Trustee in the SBC. We passed the BFM2000 years ago and this Trustee signed it last year. However, I did not hear of any reservations at the time of his signing. This causes no small concern with his current statement: “since (the BFM2K) is not inerrant and infallible then you can disagree with it in some areas, but still affirm it where it speaks to major, foundational issues of the faith --- which I do.”

Moreover, the SBC overwhelmingly passed a resolution which, in part, says “RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further_RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.” Dr. Frank Page, Dr. Bobby Welch and numerous other leaders of our convention have publicly agreed with the 85% majority on this issue of abstinence. And yet this Trustee in a post speaking of alcohol says “The Bible is authoritative when it speaks to Christian faith and practice. Your traditions are fine, but if you can't support them from Scripture then you better not get angry with those in your convention who don't hold to your traditions --- you taught us to believe the Bible.” I think the implication is obvious concerning our present and past Presidents as well as 85% of the messengers at this years SBC.

I applaud him for standing by his convictions, however, I am very concerned about these issues and about how broad he apparently desires to take our convention as illustrated in his critique of the resurgence. It may be, that he has been blinded by his sight.

What happens when I die?

2006-08-16T12:31:00.000-05:00

The Bible teaches that everyone has sinned. That truth is evident. The Bible also teaches that when we sin, we break God’s universal law and offend our Creator. In so doing we have defied His authority and declared ourselves lord of our world. We have, in essence, become God’s enemy.

Since God is perfect, He cannot be in the presence of sin; He cannot be tainted with it. He is, in a very real sense, allergic to sin.

He has created a place for sinners, where His presence is not. The Bible calls this place hell. It is an eternal lake of fire, a bottomless pit, and outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Bible further teaches that the soul of man is everlasting. Therefore, without intervention on God’s part our soul, at death, enters an eternal hell.

And yet, the Bible has been called “God’s love letter to man.” Although God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin, He does love the sinner and desires to have a relationship with him/her. Therefore, in order to provide a way for such a relationship, while maintaining His essence (His Holiness), the triune God devised a plan in eternity past. In this plan the second person of the Godhead, the Son - Jesus Christ, at the appointed time would leave His heavenly dwelling and come to earth to be born of a virgin, to live a perfect life (as a man), and to pay man’s penalty for sin. Jesus did so. Born of the virgin Mary, Jesus lived 33 years without sinning. Then in six hours on the cross He paid the eternally penalty for all men. Only an infinite God could do so, only man could die for man’s sin. Thus, the God man Jesus Christ.

A story from history helps to illuminate this amazing work of Christ.

At the turn of the 19th Century in a small one-street town in Arizona there lived a Blacksmith: a loner, who was avoided. One holiday, the entire citizenship, except for one man, had a celebration. The Blacksmith stayed in his shop, at the opposite end of town. During the festivities a child strayed near the shop. A lady looked toward the child and shrilled in terror. A coyote was eyeing the young lad. Everyone knew that a coyote this close to town, at mid-day, meant rabies. The coyote sprang for the child yet was snatched in mid-air by the Blacksmith who immediately broke its neck; yet the damage had been done as the unsung hero drew back his bloodstained arm. The blacksmith died a slow, painful death.

He had taken the lad’s place, just as Jesus took ours.

One might ask, “If Jesus died for every man does every man go to heaven?” No. If you were dying of thirst and I purchased water and offered it to you, you would still have to accept my gift.

The Bible teaches that in order to accept the free gift of salvation one must trust his life totally into God’s hand. It is not enough just to believe that Jesus dies on the cross for one’s sins and arose from the dead. One must believe that truth to the extent that he/she trust his/her live into His hand.

Not long ago a prisoner and a jail deputy developed a relationship. Her love for him prompted her to trust her life into his hands. She resigned as a deputy, married the inmate, and within a year her entire life had changed because of her faith in him.

This former deputy showed up at the courthouse one day where her new husband was being transferred, she shot two of her former colleagues and freed her husband. Soon they were caught, but the story of George and Jennifer Hyatte is an example of how much we must trust a loving God with our life. His Word must become our guide. (While George was evil in his request of his bride our God could never be.)

So, “what happens when I die?”

It depends. The Bible teaches, the moment we breathe our last breath our spirit will immediately go to one of two places. Either an eternal hell or an eternal heaven.

If it is your desire to go to heaven, then trust your life into God’s hands. It is as simple as accepting His gift and trusting Him. It can be done, by saying “God I confess that I am a sinner, I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, I believe that He appeased your anger, removed my sin and took my place, I believe He arose from the dead. Jesus come into my life and be my Lord and Savior. In Jesus name, Amen.”

The prayer does not save you, but rather the trusting of your life to God. If you did trust God with your life, please, leave a comment. I will get in touch with you and share what to expect with the wonderful changes God has begun in your life as well as some material to help you in your new relationship with Christ.
BR

The Bloggers Who Cried Wolf!

2006-08-02T18:03:00.000-05:00

There once was a shepherd boy tending his flock. One day he decided to cry, “Wolf” when there was no wolf. To his delight he received much attention. The town heard his cry and the people came to help him. However, they were frustrated when they realized it was a false alarm. Later, he cried wolf again when there was no wolf. And once more he received attention as the townspeople came to help. After they left the second time the boy really saw a wolf. With all of his energy he cried, “Wolf,” but this time no one came. He had lost his integrity and could not be believed.

I have always enjoyed the lessons contained in Aesop’s Fables. But the lesson of the boy who cried wolf is only a shadow of the tragedies that occur when one cries fowl erroneously. Let’s look deeper at these tragedies.

There once was a great town, which maintained a lighthouse for lost ships. A group in the town sought to extinguish the light. However, the townspeople rallied behind their leaders and rose victoriously through civil strife as they dismantled the heretical group of light-haters. The town lived in harmony for many years after this incident.

In time, a new generation of townspeople arose. This generation had not fought in the civil strife and yet they were preparing to be the next keepers of the light. One day a small group of bloggers within this generation decided to cry warnings of improprieties about the leadership of the town. “WOLF!” They cried. They received much attention. Their buddies applauded them, light-haters encouraged them, conspiracy theorists believed them and the townspeople listened. However, as their accusations were checked for validation they were found wanting.

For whatever reason the bloggers decided to cry wolf again. And again: applause from their buddies; encouragement from the light-haters; belief by the conspiracy theorists and; concern by the townspeople. However, like before, their cries were unsubstantiated.

Who knows what prompted these bloggers to continue to cry wolf…but they did. And their cries received the same reaction from many. However, in time their unfounded claims caused them to lose credibility with more and more townspeople. Furthermore, their legacy became one of tainting the town erroneously.

Obviously, this is a story of the SBC and yes this is about the bloggers who are crying fowl concerning our leadership. The unsubstantiated claims and implications continue to be voiced to the applause of buddies, the encouragement of liberals, and the belief by conspiracy theorists.

Those who are doing the crying would have us believe they are really concerned about the SBC and there are no more liberals amongst us. The validity of the first I cannot speak to, however, I assure you, there are liberals in our convention.

My grandparents were members of First Baptist Church of Richmond, Va. Their last shepherd before they passed was the current pastor Rev. Jim Flamming. I remember one weekend when I was a student at Southeastern I went to their house in the fan district of Richmond. My grandmother asked me if I really believed all the miracles in the Bible. Immediately, I replied yes. She said, “Do you really believe a fish swallowed a man, spat him up on a beach, and then, the man preached?” I said, “Yes.” She replied, “but that is scientifically impossible.” I said, “If God can create the universe by speaking it into existence, then I believe God can have a whale swallow a man, spit him up, and then, have the man preach.”

I truly believe my grandparents were saved and are now in heaven. They both believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and had professed him as Lord. While their erroneous beliefs about some of the miracles in the Bible concerned me deeply, I was more concerned with whoever was teaching them such heresy.

Fellow Southern Baptist to assume there are no liberals amongst us is a most naive and dangerous assumption. There are. And they would like nothing better than for us to lower the standard of inerrancy under the guise of widening the tent.

I am convinced our President Frank Page would never allow such a lowering. And I am grateful for him and his leadership. I also feel many of the bloggers would not lower the standard, but there are some amongst us who would, and they are enjoying the bloggers crying wolf.

Perhaps our wolf-crying brethren would be better off masticating on God’s Word (Proverbs 6:16-19) than castigating God’s children.

My great-grandmother used to say, “the more you stir manure, the more it stinks.” While some may enjoy such an aroma producing activity I do not, however, I do desire to scoop it out.

BR

God's Word

2006-07-29T13:22:00.000-05:00

Let’s encourage each other with God’s Word.

What’s your favorite verse? Why?
What verse is the most interesting to you?
If you have a life verse, what is it?

I love the liveliness of the King James translation. Like when Luke said, “the Jews took unto them certain lewd fellows of a baser sort.” However, some of my friends are King James ONLY, I enjoy asking them what the following verse in the King James Bible means:)

“At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.” (1 Chr. 26:18)

April and I will be on the road to TEXAS for a couple of days. Vacation:)

Please abide by our new rules.

We will continue the alcohol study when I receive the next article.
BR

Bloggers: Are They Really Honoring Christ?

2006-07-28T04:34:00.000-05:00

Blogging can be dangerous. It is certainly not for the weak, and some question if it is for the Godly. I think it can be used for good, yet have seen abuses by veteran bloggers. Allow me to illustrate and draw some conclusions for application.

1. Not long ago there was a post, by one of the more well-recognized bloggers among Southern Baptists, implying impropriety at a “very-high” level in the administration at SWBTS. Then, in the comment section, when asked of the validity of his statement, the Blog Administrator said “everything I write is well researched and usually verified by a minimum of 2-3 sources.” Later, when a different scenario was suggested, the Blog Administrator said the “connection I have insinuated was wrong.” However, no POST retracting the scenario has been posted (which, even if it had, would not reverse the damage). Moreover, only if one reads through the 80 plus comment section does he realize the error of the original post.

2. On two other recognized blogs, I have been accused of holding to a “private interpretation” of the Abstract of Principles (ONE of the documents professors at Southeastern have to sign) and “interpreting them as long as I get to define their meaning.” These accusations were also made by veterans of the blogging world, in spite of the fact I have never said either of them..

The latter accusation took a statement I made about Calvinism out of its context, and then amazingly replaces the statement “3 Points of Calvinism” with “Abstract of Principles.”

The former was made because I said I signed the Abstract according to my understanding (which is not private) of what it says. Further, I went to great lengths to make my position very clear (ie – I cannot sign the Abstract based on what John or Tom or Fred understands them to say, for I am not John or Tom or Fred…I am Brad). I even revealed that my understanding fits into the parameters of what Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin believe the Abstract to be saying.

And yet, amazingly these accusations are STILL made without any retractions.

You can imagine the unchristian comments and untruths these Posts generated. The statements, comments, and accusations were false and horribly inaccurate, however, I have done things in my life much worse than I was accused of. Thus, what concerns me is not what the Blog Administrators said or implied, but that they made such errors in the first place. These intelligent men are far more experienced bloggers than most of us. I believe their motives to be pure in a pursuit of truth. I further believe they are Christian men who love our Savior.

Yet, if these men can err like this, then what hope do we have of avoiding such.

Wade Burleson posted an excellent article on his blog written by Alan Jacobs author of “The Narnian: The life and Imagination of CS Lewis.” I shall quote:

“As I think about these architectural deficiencies (of the blogosphere), and the deficiencies of my own character, I find myself meditating on a passage from a book by C. S. Lewis. In his great work of literary history, Poetry and Prose in the Sixteenth Century, Lewis devotes a passage to what he describes, with a certain savageness, as "that whole tragic farce which we call the history of the Reformation." For Lewis, the issues that divided Catholics and Protestants, that led to bloodshed all over Europe and to a seemingly permanent division of Christians from one another, "could have been fruitfully debated only between mature and saintly disputants in close privacy and at boundless leisure." Instead, thanks to the prevalence of that recent invention the printing press, and to the intolerance of many of the combatants, deep and subtle questions found their way into the popular press and were immediately transformed into caricatures and cheap slogans. After that there was no hope of peaceful reconciliation.

On a smaller scale, the same problems afflict the intellectual and moral environments of the blogs. There is no privacy: all conversations are utterly public. The arrogant, the ignorant, and the bullheaded constantly threaten to drown out the saintly, and for that matter the merely knowledgeable, or at least overwhelm them with sheer numbers. And the architecture of the blog (and its associated technologies like rss), with its constant emphasis on novelty, militates against leisurely conversations. It is no insult to the recent, but already cherished, institution of the blogosphere to say that blogs cannot do everything well. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the blogosphere is the friend of information but the enemy of thought.”

Wow…very powerful, insightful, and convicting. Wade, thank you for the post.

I have a strong desire to address the issues before SB. But I also have an even stronger desire, to do so in a way that honors Christ. I have no desire for this blog to devolve into the kind of antagonism that is already too prevalent. A brawl draws a larger crowd than gentlemanly discussion, but I’m not interested in getting a crowd. So I have some new guidelines for our comments.

1. Any comment that attacks another person (questioning his integrity, his motives, or implying he is cognitively challenged) will be removed and the commenter will be asked to restate his comment.
2. Any anonymous comment will be removed unless the commenter gives his name.
3. Since, I too am subjective and overlook things, if a commenter thinks I have missed an unwholesome comment he shall e-mail me his concerns.

Further, all participants should assume those who differ with them are their brothers/sisters in Christ who have pure motives, love Jesus, and are sincerely searching for truth. Also, participants should NOT assume others are assailing them; therefore, statements like: “I hear you saying ______, is that what you are saying?” are encouraged.

Am I overlooking something? If so, help me out.

I ask your forgiveness as readers for not applying these rules sooner.

Now to a wider application. I agree with Dr. Jacobs, there is a problem. Could we be proactive with a solution? What do you think about creating some accountability on Blogs. Creating some sort of an organization of professional Christian Bloggers with standards concerning membership: distinguishing professionalism from sensationalism. Could we juror ourselves; where statements and implications (especially of organizations or individuals) in Posts must be FACTUAL? Could we design such an organization that is a witness to all and admired as an example of Christian conversation and conduct?

Such an organization would obviously require representatives from diverse perspectives.

I’m just thinking out loud. What do you think?

BR

Dr. Patterson's Article

2006-07-27T16:22:00.000-05:00

QUOTES AND MORE:
“Resolved that Southern Baptists continue to adhere to and promote vigorously and positively their commitment to abstinence from alcohol” – SBC Resolution, 1979

Notice the dates on the alcohol resolutions I’ve posted. Even before the Conservative Resurgence, the Moderates promoted abstention. This was something Moderates and Conservatives alike agreed upon.

DR. PATTERSON’S BP ARTICLE

CONCERNING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, FERMENTED JUICES
AND THE BELIEVER
Paige Patterson

Introduction

References to wine are frequent in both the Old and New Testaments. The Massoretic text of the Old Testament employs yayin in the vast majority of cases--141 times to be exact. A handful of other words are translated “wine” but not with enough frequency to matter. The term oinos (Gk.) is used predominantly in the New Testament, and coming through Latin is transliterated into English as “wine.” The Greek term gleukos (lit., “sweet wine”) is sometimes used.
The wines varied in kind and strength. However, four basic varieties, all of which are described indiscriminately by oinos, may be distinguished:

(1) Freshly pressed grape juice, which had been stomped out by the, hopefully, clean feet of a local family in their private wine vats or else crushed in grape presses of stone. In the climate of Palestine, fermentation began within 24 hours; so pure grape juice was available only for a brief time.
(2) The initial, violent, foaming fermentation period lasted about one week. The wine was then transferred to new wineskins for 40 days of further fermentation. The heavier matter, “lees” or “dregs,” would settle to the bottom, and then the wine would be drawn off, providing the daily drink.
(3) Sometimes the wine would be left on the lees to ferment still further, making a real knock-out punch, but one evidently imbibed by only a few since it often turned insipid and sometimes unbearable (see Jer. 48:11).
(4) Wine was frequently diluted with water or herbs or both. Jesus was offered on the cross such a concoction of cheap, low-grade wine, which He refused.

The Attitude of Scripture

In strict fairness, one must acknowledge that the ancients, however noble, imbibed without reluctance. Evidently the prophets and the apostles did not view this as wrong so long as it was a small glass of wine (see varieties #1, #2, or #4 mentioned above) taken with the noon or evening meal. These wines, of course, were locally produced.
At this point, however, a significant difference exists in what is permissible and what is best for the child of God. In addition to the constant clear identification of drunkenness as a highly disreputable and debilitating sort of sin, please note the following:

(1) The Nazarite (one who was especially separated unto God) was prohibited from the use of wine altogether (see Num. 6:3; Judg. 13: 4-7, 13-14).
(2) In Jeremiah 35, the Rechabites are highly commended by God and by Jeremiah for their total abstinence (see vv. 1-10).
(3) John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as “the greatest born among men,” was a total abstainer. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of the Nazarite Law and thereby expressing God’s prescription for what is the best for a godly man. In fact, the angelic announcement to Zacharias prohibited the use of any wine by John the Baptist (Luke 1:15). Here also is noted the first specific contrast between the fullness of the Spirit and the use of wine. This contrast occurs again at Pentecost (Acts 2) and is mentioned in Ephesians 5:18.
In the three instances outlined above, the very significant question “why?” must be broached. Apparently of the three categories given—prohibition, acceptability, or God’s ideal—the above situations fall under the ideal of complete abstinence and hence appear to be most acceptable to God.

(4) To this evidence must be added Scripture’s numerous warnings against strong drink. Here are a few:
(a) Strong drink is deceitful. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whosoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).
(b) Strong drink is prohibited for those in leadership. “It is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes intoxicating drink” (Prov. 31:4-5).
(c) Strong drink has a side-effect—weakness in judgment. “But they also have erred through wine, and through intoxicating drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through intoxicating drink, they are swallowed up by wine, they are out of the way through intoxicating drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment” (Is. 28:7).
(d) Strong drink may dull the senses so that embarrassment comes—even indecent exposure. “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness! You are filled with shame instead of glory, you also—drink! And be exposed as uncircumcised! The cup of the Lord’s right hand will be turned against you, and utter shame will be on your glory” (Hab. 2:15-16).
(e) Another result of strong drink is overindulgence. “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may follow intoxicating drink; who continue until night, till wine inflames them!” (Is. 5:11).

Some Texts to be Explained by Abstainers

(1) In Jesus’ miracle at Cana of Galilee (Jn. 2:1-11), one can neither affirm with certainty that Jesus turned the water into a non-intoxicating wine nor that He drank no wine Himself. But the following evidences cannot be easily bypassed:

(a) The text nowhere indicates that Jesus participated. Either way the argument is from silence.
(b) The governor of the feast obviously was able to identify “good wine” by tasting it, indicating that there was no intoxication on his part. On the other hand, by his own testimony participants generally, by the last stages of such a feast, had their senses sufficiently dulled so that they could not differentiate between good and bad wine. Was this feast different? Is this why Jesus agreed to attend?
(c) From a standpoint of logic, the oinos that Jesus produced was more likely pure, rather than fermented, grape juice, since that which comes from the Creator’s hand is inevitably pure. Also, there was no time subsequent to the miracle for fermentation to take place. Furthermore, the ancients always acknowledged that the best oinos was the unferemented oinos, i.e., that which came from the initial mixing of the grapes.
(2) The accusation that Jesus, in contrast to John, was a socialite, a glutton, and a winebibber is manifestly void of foundation (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). Because Jesus enjoyed social contacts and openly mingled with the people, some assumed that He had a propensity for food and drink. If Jesus had been a winebibber, He must have also been guilty of a gluttony, which is clearly identified as a sin. In fact, Jesus was neither, and again there is no evidence that He drank oinos or anything other than the fresh natural fruit of the vine.
(3) Paul advised Timothy to imbibe a little wine for his stomach’s sake (1 Tim. 5:23). Note the following:
(a) The purpose here is clearly medicinal. Timothy was obviously not in full health. In the absence of more advanced medications, this command is certainly understandable. Furthermore, in the case of no superior medication, wine might be justified as medication, but only if, taken as “a little wine.”
(b) Furthermore, the clear case of religious abstinence from wine, i.e., total abstinence, is often overlooked. Timothy is drinking only water. Then Paul said, you need the wine for medical purposes. What is to be said of the reason for Timothy’s abstinence to this point?

Some Added Observations

(1) In the accounts of the Lord’s Supper in the Gospels and in First Corinthians, the word wine (oinos, Gk.) is mysteriously absent. They take “the cup” and drink the “fruit of the vine.” The absence of the term oinos is curious to say the least.
(2) Wine has one unqualified good use in Scripture and that is as a metaphor for the wrath of God. This metaphor is utilized in both Old and New Testaments (see Rev. 19:15). The oinos of God’s wrath is unmixed or undiluted, fresh from the wine press, unhindered by fermentation of any kind. Hence purity of judgment is emphasized.
(3) The bishop (pastor) is to be free from wine (1 Tim. 3:3). One would presume that this admonition, at least part, is for example. If so, again the ideal would be total abstinence for all who make up the body of Christ, i.e., the church.
(4) For the believer to say, “Let me get as close to sin as I can without being guilty” indicates a strange mentality indeed! The object should rather be to stay as far away as one can from even the appearance of evil and as close to Christ as possible (1 Thess. 5:22).

Conclusion

The following conclusions may be safely drawn.

(1) Many of the most excruciating and debilitating events of history are associated with wine. The Bible has almost no good word about it and, in fact, usually associates tragedy and sin with the use of wine. For example, Noah, after a life of exemplary behavior, becomes a stumbling block to his own children, necessitating a curse on his grandson, as a result of wine. This first mention of wine in Scripture is bad.
(2) To whatever extent wine was used by Jesus or others, clearly it was in small quantities and either at meals or for medicinal purposes. Certainly no tragic industry was supported by the selling and buying of wine. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify drinking if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an industry responsible for two thirds of the violent deaths, two fifths of all divorces, one third of all crime, and untold millions in damage to private property. Such would violate all laws in the Bible and especially the Corinthian Principles as outlined below:
(a) The effect of your choices and actions on others. “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13).
(b) The effect of your choices and actions on you yourself. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Cor. 10:23).
(c) The effect of your choices and actions on the kingdom of God. “Therefore, whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).
(3) Let us return to the three categories—the prohibited, the acceptable, and God’s ideal. God originally intended monogamy. For a while He tolerated polygamy, even working mightily through such men as Solomon and Abraham, despite their polygamous marriages. But with the final revelation of God in Christ, polygamy was once again clearly prohibited. The noticeable absence of any mention of wine prior to Noah might indicate that men, in their pristine state, were not drawn to wine. In any case, the fuller revelation in Christ plus the development of superior medications and purer drinking substances render the whole subject passe for the believer.
Even if a Christian wished to demur from the idea that to take a drink is sin, strict biblical evidence establishes that imbibing in strong drink is not God’s ideal for the believer. The question then becomes: Can it be anything less than sin for a believer who is genuinely grateful for the atoning power of Christ in his life to pursue anything other than the highest—God’s ideal— the best that he can be for Christ?

Dr. Akin's Article

2006-07-27T08:18:00.000-05:00

I know the next two articles have been posted on BP, I have had them before then but held them for the study. I post them for those who may have missed them and for the purpose of our study. Check out George Whitefield’s comment below.

QUOTES AND MORE: - George Whitefield

“It is true (as I observed at the beginning of this discourse) our blessed Savior did come eating and drinking; he was present at a wedding, and other entertainments; nay, at one of them worked a miracle to make wine, (you see I have been making some observations on it) but then it is not plain there had been more wine drank than was absolutely necessary for the support of nature; much less does it appear, that something had been indulged to pleasure and cheerfulness.
The governor does indeed say, "When men have well drunken," but it no where appears that they were the men. Is it to be supposed, that the most holy and unspotted Lamb of God, who was manifested to destroy the works of the devil, and who, when at a Pharisee's house, took notice of even the gestures of those with whom he sat at meat; is it to be supposed, that our dear Redeemer, whose constant practice it was to tell people they must deny themselves, and take up their crosses daily; who bid his disciples to take heed, lest at any time their hearts might be over-charged with surfeiting and drunkenness; can it be supposed, that such a self-denying Jesus should now turn six large water-pots of water into the richest wine, to encourage excess and drunkenness in persons, who, according to this writer, had indulged to pleasure and cheerfulness already? Had our Lord sat by, and seen them indulge, without telling them of it, would it not be a sin? But to insinuate he not only did this, but also turned water into wine, to increase that indulgence; this is making Christ a minister of sin indeed. What is this, but using him like the Pharisees of old, who called him a glutton, and a wine-bibber? Alas! how may we expect our dear Lord's enemies will treat him, when he is thus wounded in the house of his seeming friends? Sirs, if you follow such doctrine as this, you will not be righteous, but I am persuaded you will be wicked over-much.” (Whitefield – Marriage at Cana).

Dr. AKIN’S BP ARTICLE

The Case for Alcohol Abstinence
By
Daniel L. Akin

I readily confess to a personal bias when it comes to the issue of alcohol. My wife Charlotte grew up in the Georgia Baptist Children’s Home because her parents were alcoholics. Her father died a lost alcoholic. Her mother, by God’s grace, was saved on her death bed. Her body had been ravaged by the twin killers of alcohol and tobacco. Today her sister and brother are lost alcoholics as is most of the rest of her family. My sister Joy and her husband Kevin King adopted a daughter born with fetal alcohol syndrome. She began life with two strikes against her through no fault of her own. Today there are more than 40 million problem drinkers in America. Alcohol is the number one drug problem among teenagers. One in three American families suspects that one or more family members have a drinking problem. Misuse of alcohol costs our nation $100 billion a year in quantifiable cost. Because of these experiences and many more, I have often said that even if I were not a Christian I would have nothing to do with alcohol. There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to it. Avoiding this devastating drug is simply the wise thing to do.

This year at our Convention we again passed a resolution calling for abstinence from alcohol. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the Convention. Some have accused those supporting the resolution of being pharisaical and legalistic, traditionalist and anti-biblical. It is said that we fail to understand Christian liberty and freedom, and that we even stand against Jesus. These are strong accusations from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, are they correct? Are those like myself who believe abstinence to be the best lifestyle choice really guilty of these charges? Let me respond as graciously and kindly as I possibly can, explaining why I hold the position I do. I share my heart with no malice or ill will toward anyone, but from a desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and to protect others from the evils alcohol has visited on so many.

We should remember from a Baptist perspective that there are historical precedents for affirming abstinence. In 1886 Southern Baptists issued their first resolution on alcohol. Since then there have been almost 60 resolutions that in a united voice have addressed the risk of alcohol and the wisdom of abstinence. For 120 years Southern Baptists have made clear their stand on this issue. Individual Baptists no doubt continue to take a drink as they had before 1886, but the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole has been crystal clear on where it stands for a long time. I am confident that our forefathers understood the issue of Christian liberty as they passed these resolutions. I am grateful for this tradition. I believe we should continue it.

There are moral reasons for affirming abstinence. John Piper teaches the wisdom of abstinence because alcohol can be a mind-altering drug, and it can be addictive. It does not help one in doing the will of God and can genuinely be a hindrance. Further, he notes “the carnage of alcohol abuse” and therefore chooses to boycott such a product. He then adds, “is it really so prudish, or narrow to renounce a highway killer, a home destroyer, and a business wrecker.” Some questions are in order and deserve an answer. Does alcohol make me a better person? Does alcohol draw me closer to God? Does alcohol help me run the race faithfully to the end (Heb. 12:1-2)?

Some respond by saying the issue is not abstinence but moderation. They draw an analogy to both eating and sex. There is however a significant difference. We must eat to live. We must engage in sex to procreate. Alcohol is not a necessity for life or good living.

I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Adrian Rogers who said, “Moderation is not the cure for the liquor problem. Moderation is the cause of the liquor problem. Becoming an alcoholic does not begin with the last drink, it always begins with the first. Just leave it alone.” My friend James Merritt wisely says, “It is impossible to be bitten by a snake that you never play with.” Alcoholism cannot strike unless it is given the opportunity. That happens the moment one takes the first drink.
There are biblical reasons for practicing abstinence. Let me quickly note several. 1) It is consistent with the principle of edification (1 Cor. 6:12). Alcohol does not build you up or make you better for Jesus. Avoiding it ensures you will not harm yourself with it. 2) It is consistent with the principle of refusing that which enslaves (1 Cor. 6:12). Alcohol is a drug that can impair the senses and has a potential addictive element. Like addictive pornography, it should be avoided at all cost. 3) It is consistent with the ethic of love for believers and unbelievers alike (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33). Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for Danny Akin, it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them. 4) I will seek my joy and filling in the Spirit not in alcohol. I love the Phillips translation of Ephesians 5:18 which reads, “Don’t get your stimulus from wine (for there is always the danger of excessive drinking), but let the Spirit stimulate your souls.” Psalm 4:7-8 adds, “You [O Lord] have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound. In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.” 5) It is true Jesus drank wine, and I am sure I would have had I lived in the first century. However, there is no evidence that he ever partook of “strong drink.” As Bob Stein has carefully documented, “The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water… To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine [a fairly common ancient ratio], one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.” It should also be noted that children would have drank this diluted mixture of water and wine. It seems clear that there is no one-to-one correspondence with first century wine and twenty first century distilled liquor. Concerning the latter I believe the Lord Jesus would have no part.
Let me conclude with some practical considerations. Should those who practice abstinence look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no. That is pride and therefore is sin. It is true that alcohol has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful abstainer without Jesus is just as lost as the poor drunkard who is always in search of another drink. Those who believe in abstinence should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient.

As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstinence for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely! The principle of Proverbs 31:4-5 is appropriately applied here, “It is not for Kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to take strong drink, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.”

I agree with John MacArthur. Can I say it is always a sin to take a drink? No. Can I say it is almost always unwise? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness. One of America’s leading pastors is Andy Stanley. He wrote a book entitled The Best Question Ever. That question is this, “What is the wise thing for me to do?” I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of drinking “in moderation,” as opposed to not drinking at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question it is the wise thing to do.

For those intersted I have replied to ConcernedSBCer's latest post in my comments.

Dr. Richard Land's Article on Alcohol - Not His BP Release

2006-07-25T21:09:00.000-05:00

This is Dr. Land's article. It was written by Dr. Land and Barrett Duke. It is not his BP release yesterday. It is different. And typical of these men, they leave no stone unturned. It is thorough.

On Alcohol Use
By Richard Land
President, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
And
Barrett Duke
Vice President for Public Policy, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Southern Baptists have been known historically as total abstainers. Not all Southern Baptists have adhered to this commitment, but if one were to examine the constitution of most Southern Baptist churches, certainly most of those constituted prior to 1960, one would probably find a clause in which the congregation pledged itself to refrain from the use and sale of alcoholic beverages.

While the Bible may be subject to various interpretations concerning alcohol consumption (as well as the nature of the beverage consumed), Southern Baptists’ understanding of the issue has been exceedingly unambiguous. In the Convention’s history, SBC messengers have adopted over forty resolutions on the issue prior to this year—as recently as 1991 and as early as 1886.

Southern Baptists meeting in session have called their brothers and sisters to live “an exemplary Christian lifestyle of abstinence from beverage alcohol and all other harmful drugs” (1984); to recognize alcohol as “America’s number one drug problem” (1982); to “reaffirm our historic position as opposing alcohol as a beverage” (1978); to view “personal abstinence” as the “Christian way” (1957); to express their “unceasing opposition to the manufacture, sale and use of alcoholic beverages” (1955); to realize alcohol is a “habit-forming and destructive poison” (1940) and the “chief source of vice, crime, poverty and degradation” (1936); and to “reassert our truceless and uncompromising hostility to the manufacture, sale, importation and transportation of alcoholic beverages” (1896).

Over the last two decades, the attitude of some Southern Baptists toward alcohol use has moderated, however. This is especially true among younger adult Southern Baptists. No doubt many factors have contributed to this shift. Greater social acceptance of drinking, very little preaching on the “evils of alcohol,” a more secularized church community, and a growing attitude of independence among church members have all contributed in various ways.

The greatest evidence of the recent shift in attitudes toward alcohol consumption occurred at the 2006 annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina. At that meeting, the Resolutions Committee brought a resolution that called on churches to reaffirm their historical attitude toward alcohol consumption. If this resolution had been presented twenty years earlier, it would have been met with yawns, with many present wondering why the Convention needed to spend time on an issue that was so settled among Southern Baptists. However, this meeting revealed a much different attitude. There were certainly no yawns. In fact, that resolution produced more discussion and dissent than any other resolution presented at the meeting. Some messengers were so convinced of their freedom to consume alcoholic beverages that they took to the floor of the convention and urged the body not to adopt the resolution. In the end, according to press reports more than four-fifths approved the resolution, but a small, vocal group voted against it.

When one considers the high cost of alcohol abuse to individuals, families, and society, it is surprising that some Southern Baptists insist on their right to drink. Alcohol problems cost American society more than $184 billion per year in health care, criminal justice, social services, property damage, and loss of productivity expenses. Alcohol is a factor in as many as 105,000 deaths annually in the United States and a primary contributor to a wide array of health problems and human suffering. These include various cancers, liver disease, alcoholism, brain disorders, motor vehicle crashes, violence, crime, spousal and child abuse, drownings, and suicides. Even those who are able to control their drinking should recognize that they are engaged in a behavior that is destroying millions of lives, and choose to abstain rather than encourage by their behavior someone to drink who will not be able to control his drinking.

In modern American society, the human toll taken by alcohol abuse is staggering. According to a recent USA Today/HBO poll, 20 percent of Americans indicated they “had an immediate relative who at some point had been addicted to alcohol or drugs.” The article, “In Tim Ryan's Family, He is the Addict,” in the July 20, 2006 issue of USA Today notes, “That translates into roughly 40 million American adults with a spouse, parent, sibling or child battling addiction.”

When you add the millions of children living with addicted parents, you are talking about a devastating problem that adversely impacts the lives of nearly half the people in our nation—and virtually all users of other drugs start with alcohol, that’s why it’s called the “gateway” drug. The USA Today article quotes Sis Wenger, executive director of the National Association for Children of Alcoholics, as saying, “For every person who’s alcoholic or dependent on other drugs, there are at least four or five people hurt on a regular basis.”

Of course, one must be careful when speaking to the issue of alcohol consumption. After all, many medicines contain alcohol. One can find it in fairly high percentages in cough syrup, for example. Compared to beverage alcohol, some over-the-counter nighttime cold syrups are more than fifty proof. That’s a fairly high alcohol content, higher than beer and wine. As far as we know, no one would consider it sinful or inappropriate if someone drank these medications to help cope with the symptoms of a cold or flu.

What is of concern when it comes to alcohol consumption, however, is its recreational/social use. While about 60 percent of the United States population drinks alcohol recreationally/socially, the historic Southern Baptist attitude has been opposed to this use of alcohol. What the last Southern Baptist Convention meeting revealed, however, is that this is changing, at least among a vocal minority of church pastoral leadership. No one has a firm statistic on just how many Southern Baptists drink alcohol recreationally/socially, but most of those who have been paying attention know that some Southern Baptists drink alcoholic beverages at least occasionally. To date, this attitude has not flowed very far into the ranks of the pastoral staff. Most pastoral staff still do not drink alcoholic beverages.

Because alcohol is such a dangerous substance, and because attitudes toward alcohol use appear to be changing among some Southern Baptists, it is necessary to be reminded of the Scriptural teaching on the issue. Both the Old and New Testaments speak of alcoholic beverages, and they use many words to refer to them. In the Old Testament, one finds at least eight words that refer to the juice of the grape and a couple words that refer to beverages with higher alcohol content, often translated as “strong drink” or “liquor.” Practically all of the uses of these words speak of alcoholic beverages in a negative context. However, it appears that the negative aspect is principally related to the debilitating effects on people, not on the alcoholic beverage in itself. Alcohol as a substance is not evil. For example, Psalm 104:14-15 speaks of wine, “which makes man’s heart glad,” as one of God’s provisions for man. Wine is often mentioned as one of the ingredients used in offerings to God (see Ex. 29:40). Even sweet wine, which is thought by many to be mere grape juice, can debilitate (see Hos. 4:11), yet Joel 3:18, speaking of the day when God restores Judah, says “the mountains will drip with sweet wine.” The same can be said for the Hebrew word translated “strong drink.” While there does not appear to be any positive reference to people drinking “strong drink,” it was used in drink offerings to the Lord, which certainly suggests that it was not an “evil” substance (see Num. 28:7, and Dt. 14:26, where the word is certainly used in the context of purchasing offering items).

The New Testament has a more limited vocabulary to refer to alcoholic beverages. The principal Greek word (“oinos”), translated “wine,” is used more than thirty times. When used in its non-metaphorical sense, it appears to run the full gamut of meanings, from grape juice, usually qualified by the adjective “new,” to the fully fermented alcoholic beverage. While it is common knowledge that people drank beverages containing alcohol in the early days of the church, the New Testament is not nearly as accommodating of the practice. In fact, except for the handful of references in the Gospels that speak of wine, (Jesus’ lesson about new wine and wineskins, Mt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37-38; John the Baptist, Lk. 1:15; 7:33; medicinal use rejected by Jesus, Mr. 15:23; Lk. 10:34; and the wedding feast at Cana, Jn. 2:3, 9, 10; 4:46), and the neutral and metaphorical references in Revelation (wine spared destruction, Rev. 6:6; wine as a metaphor for wrath, Rev. 14:8, 10; 16:19; 17:2; 18:3; and as a commercial product, Rev. 18:13), one encounters only negative statements about the non-medicinal use of alcoholic beverages. In Acts 2:13 the observers supposed that the apostles were full of “sweet wine” because of their behavior when the Holy Spirit had filled them. Except for one reference to its medicinal use (1 Tim. 5:23), all of the remaining references, to the actual fermented juice of the grape are warnings or prohibitions to its use or abuse, (see Rom. 14:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; 2:3). In addition, the New Testament calls Christians to sobriety, which while not alluding solely to the issue of alcohol abuse certainly includes it (1 Thess. 5:1-11), and to lifestyles contrary to those of the debauched culture (Lk. 21:34-36; Rom. 13:12-14; Gal. 5:19-24; 1 Pet. 4:1-6).

While the use by some biblical characters of alcoholic beverages is undeniable, it is important to note that the beverages these men and women consumed were not the kinds of alcoholic beverages people consume today. The alcohol content of beverages referred to in the Bible was considerably lower than many of today’s alcoholic beverages. Additionally, we must keep in mind that sanitary conditions were not what they are today. Alcohol provided an ideal way to maintain the potability of beverages. Without it, people would have suffered even more from common parasites and other health threatening ailments resulting from ingesting contaminated water (see 1 Tim. 5:23).

Even so, one could certainly still overdo it when drinking these beverages, and unfortunately, some biblical characters did on occasion. It is important to note that when they did, the Bible seldom had anything positive to say about it. Indeed, their drunkenness usually resulted in inappropriate behavior, which was subsequently denounced by the biblical writer. Just consider the Bible’s depictions and negative view of the drunken behavior of Noah (Gen. 9:20-27), Lot (Gen. 19:30-38), and Xerxes I (Est. 1:10-11).

When one wants to find a positive picture of alcohol in the Bible, one must look at it from a much different angle—the angle of abstinence. Those among Israel who chose to dedicate themselves in service to the Lord in a special way actually abstained from drinking alcohol as part of their commitment. These people were called Nazirites (Num. 6:1-21), and they were cherished by the Lord for their commitment. While Samson’s life was tragic in many ways, he was a Nazirite. He is the only judge whose birth was announced by the angel of the Lord, who instructed Manoah and his wife to raise Samson as a Nazirite (Jud. 13:1-25). Those who coaxed Nazirites to break their vows by drinking wine were condemned by God (see Amos 2:11-12).

Of course, not everyone who was committed to serving the Lord was a Nazirite, and no doubt, some of these others drank beverages containing alcohol. As we have noted, on many occasions it would have been very difficult not to do so, simply because the means to maintaining a healthy level of hydration required drinking beverages that contained at least trace amounts of alcohol. It certainly appears that Jesus was not a Nazirite, and that there were times when the beverage placed before Him probably contained alcohol. Indeed, Jesus appears to draw attention to this when He distinguished Himself from John the Baptist. In Mathew 11:18-19, He said, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard.’”

Before anyone decides to use Jesus as his excuse to drink alcohol, however, it is crucial to note that the term “drunkard” was used by His enemies in an attempt to discredit Him. He does not admit to ever being drunk in this passage. He does seem, however, to indicate that he did not totally abstain from beverages that had any alcohol content as well as engaging in other activities contrary to John’s practices, like socializing with various groups of “unacceptable” people. Jesus wasn’t engaged in drinking alcoholic beverages because He felt it was His right to do so, He was doing this to make a point—that the unbelieving just looked for excuses not to believe.

People often refer to Jesus’ miracle at the wedding feast at Cana as evidence that he approved of alcohol consumption (Jn. 2:1-11). We must note several important features, however. First, we cannot be positive that what Jesus created had alcoholic content. The headwaiter may have been commenting on how good the wine tasted not about its alcohol content. Second, John tells us that Jesus performed this miracle as a “sign” (Jn. 2:11). He intended that those who witnessed this would see a spiritual significance in the miracle, not focus on the wine. In other words, He created the wine for another purpose, a much more important purpose than merely to provide the wedding guests with something to drink. Third, the text never says that Jesus drank any of this wine. Considering the Bible’s very negative attitude toward drunkenness and Jesus’ dedication to God, it is inconceivable to us that Jesus ever drank alcohol recreationally or that He was ever drunk.

It is obvious that one can find instances in the Bible when people drank alcoholic beverages. While most of these examples are negative, some clearly are not. Nevertheless, when one examines the full counsel of Scripture regarding alcohol use, there is little doubt that it warns against its use and unequivocally condemns its abuse. Some Bible passages warn against drinking any alcoholic beverages because of their debilitating effects (Prov. 23:29-35). Others instruct against the use of alcohol by those in positions of authority (Prov. 31:4-5). They require sobriety of church leadership (1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:6), and drunkenness is always condemned (Isa. 5:11, 22; 28:7). In fact, there appears to be a clear movement in Scripture toward a rejection of alcohol use. We pointed out earlier that the Old Testament had more positive references to alcohol use than the New Testament. This could be evidence that the Bible’s principles were gradually undermining the practice of alcohol consumption, much in the same way that biblical principles eventually undermined the practice of enslaving people.

With this said, the Bible does not condemn all uses of alcohol. It recognizes its medicinal value. Proverbs 31:6-7 instructs the king to “give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his trouble no more.” The Apostle Paul perpetuated the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes. He instructed Timothy to “use a little wine” for his stomach ailments (1 Tim. 5:23). This apostolic advice to Timothy could well indicate that Timothy was a total abstainer and that Paul had to urge his reluctant son in the faith to consume wine with alcohol for health purposes.

In a time when medicines were very rare, alcohol was one of the few medicinal aids available to assist the human condition. Today we have many more effective means for dealing with various physical and mental afflictions, means that do not have the potential to cause the kinds of significant damage alcohol causes. These positive references to alcohol consumption for medical purposes tell us that the mere consumption of alcohol in itself is not a sin. If it were, then these passages would be instructing people to sin. What is clear in these passages, however, is that there is no hint that one can use alcohol for recreational/social purposes.

Of further interest is the way in which the actual beverage used in the Lord’s Supper is referred to in the New Testament. Paul speaks of “the cup” whenever he refers to the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Cor. 10:16, 21; 11:23-28). Even at the inauguration of this event, Jesus spoke of “the fruit of the vine” rather than using the term “wine” (see Matt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:17-20). Scholars are in general agreement that the phrase referred to wine, and we are not claiming that wine was not used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, but we think it is significant that there is no direct reference in Scripture to an alcoholic substance in connection with it.

Those who cannot find chapter and verse to justify consuming alcohol still argue that their freedom in Christ enables them to imbibe. It is certainly true that Christians are no longer under the condemnation of the Law. They no longer must follow rules and regulations in order to please God. But the freedom that Christians enjoy is not the same as license. The Christian must weigh his freedom against his responsibility in order to determine the appropriateness of certain behaviors. When considered from this perspective, it seems very clear that there are overwhelming reasons for abstaining from the consumption of beverage alcohol. Three principal reasons for this self-restraint are witness to the lost, service to the saved, and the appropriate treatment of the body.

As a matter of witness, it is preferable that a Christian not do anything that would hinder his witness to others. While some have argued that they find greater acceptance among a certain subset of the population because they drink with them, this is not the case for the vast majority of people who need to be reached with the Gospel. In fact, many lost people have certain expectations of Christians, and one is that they do not drink. Many of the lost recognize this as a distinguishing feature between Christians who are serious about their faith and those outside of the faith. Furthermore, victims of alcohol-related crimes could be deeply offended by someone who is supposedly concerned about people’s welfare engaging in an activity that has been so harmful to them.

This principle of witness is especially apt in today’s culture. Alcohol abuse is taking a staggering toll on millions of people and their families. It is inconceivable that one’s concept of Christian freedom could include the freedom to engage in any behavior that has become so devastating to millions of those in and outside of the church.

The Christian must also keep in mind how the example of his own lifestyle influences others. This can be understood as the servant principle. The Christian is a servant of all. He should consider how he best serves others by his behavior, not how he can live his own life without regard to others. The controlling principle here is that of the weaker brother. Paul counsels Christians to refrain from any activity, including eating and drinking, that may encourage another to engage in activity that will end up leading to feelings of guilt in the weaker brother (Rom. 14:13-23). He instructs Christians to pursue those things that edify others (1 Cor. 10:23; 14:26).

We disagree with those who say they can drink alcoholic beverages in the privacy of their own homes because they are not influencing anyone to follow their example. Parents, for example, must understand that their children will likely follow their example. It is a fact that the teenage children of parents who drink alcohol are more likely to experiment with alcohol than the teenage children of parents who abstain from alcohol consumption. It is just nearly impossible to engage in this activity unobserved by someone. We believe it would be tragic if someone were encouraged to engage in a behavior that destroyed their lives because of the example of someone they trusted.

In addition, the servant principle should lead those in leadership to abstain from alcohol use. In Proverbs 31:4-5 the king is counseled not to drink alcoholic beverages because it will cloud his judgment. It is also imperative that those responsible for leadership be available at all times for those in need. It would be a terrible disservice if a family had just experienced some tragic loss, and their pastor could not offer the spiritual counsel and support they needed because he had to sober up first.

The third principle applies to the appropriate treatment of the body. God created the human body. That in itself should be sufficient reason to abstain from alcohol use. But the Christian has another important reason for abstaining from alcohol. Paul taught that the Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It houses God Himself (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Consequently, whatever we do to our bodies affects directly the dwelling of God. Out of respect for God the Christian should do all he can to engage only in activity that honors and strengthens his body. His body and mind should be available to the indwelling Holy Spirit at any time and should be under the Spirit’s control, not that of alcohol (Eph. 5:18).

We understand that this argument can be made about many behaviors, overeating, for example. Of course, one cannot stop eating because someone might be encouraged to eat too much or to eat foods that are not healthy for them. People have to eat, but they don’t have to drink alcohol. Alcohol consumption is purely a lifestyle choice. It is not a necessary part of one’s life, like eating. Furthermore, the arguments made by some that they drink wine for their health is not supported by science. The health benefit comes from the grape, not the alcohol. All one must do to get this benefit is drink grape juice.

In conclusion, we offer five general principles that the Christian would do well to follow when he is making a decision about alcohol use or any other activity. First, Christians are not free to do anything they please. They belong to Christ and should make every effort to engage in behavior that honors His Lordship over their lives. Second, selfishness should be shunned. Selfishness is the root of all sin. It leads people to seek their own interests, even to the detriment of others. Third, sacrifice is a Christian virtue. Jesus provides the supreme example of this. He recognized the human need for forgiveness and willingly gave up His rightful place in heaven, took on human flesh, and sacrificed His life on the cross for the sake of others. Fourth, God’s glory is the most important concern for Christians. With every activity, the Christian should ask whether or not God will be glorified. Finally, the Christian must remember that he will be judged for his every deed, both those that affect his own life and those that affect the lives of others. Every Christian should live to hear his Lord declare, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” on the day of judgment.

Can Abstentionists and Moderationists Find Common Ground?

2006-07-25T12:42:00.000-05:00

QUOTES AND MORE:

40% of all vehicle fatalities are alcohol related (MADD).

In Texas alone Alcohol-related accidents cost the taxpayers 10.3 BILLION dollars in 1999. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

The speed in which one drinks increases ones BAC. If just 10 ounces of wine is consumed over an extended period of an HOUR it will increase the average (200 lb) man’s BAC from .00 to .02. If it is 15 ounces it becomes .04. 20 ounces an hour = .06 (Michigan State University).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s study on impairment effects revealed that even at a BAC of .02 “the majority of participants were SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED…on important measures.” (National Highway Safety Administration). IN OTHER WORDS, JUST 10 OUNCES OF WINE CONSUMED IN AN HOUR WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR ONE’S DRIVING!

CAN ABSTENTIONIST AND MODERATIONIST FIND COMMON GROUND?

In 1962 Thomas Kuhn wrote a book, which challenged the concept of absolutes (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). While he reached implications that were erroneous, he nevertheless provided a truth, which is enlightening for our present discussion.

Kuhn, revealed that many who were involved in scientific revolutions spoke past those who held different presuppositions. For example, many of those who believed the world to be flat COULD NOT hear the validity or evidence of it being round; because they knew it was flat.

It is the same conundrum we see in the evolution/creation debate. If one begins with the presupposition that supernatural events cannot occur, then Creation is impossible no matter how much scientific validation it has. It is only when one admits the possibility that creation COULD occur that he is able to search for scientific validity for or against it. Further, it is only when one admits creation could occur that legitimate conversation can take place between Creation scientists and Evolution scientists.

This lack of communication is also evident in the current discussion on alcohol. It centers on the word “oinos.” Until abstentionists admit it could mean intoxicating drink and until moderationists admit it could mean wine diluted with water we will forever be talking past each other. While I am willing to admit that it can mean intoxicating drink, I am UNwilling to admit it can ONLY mean intoxicating drink.

This seems to be the crux. For moderationists to insist that “oinos” can only mean intoxicating drink not only negates its other uses, but it negates its normal use. NT Scholar Robert Stein has shown unambiguously, oinos normally referred to a wine/water mixture. The purpose of such mixture was to purify the water. This mixture was used for survival purposes. They drank this mixture as their normal hydrating substance. It is similar to Sweet Tea in the Old South.

I enjoy working outside in my vegetable garden, but it is work! Usually after two hours in the summer heat I come in and quickly consume two to three large glasses of tea to rehydrate my body. Can you imagine coming in and quickly consuming two to three large glasses of warm wine for rehydration? Talk about a midday drunken stupor.

Inevitably, it will be argued that they drank water. But the water had to either be “living water” (flowing water from springs, which was limited) or purified. Otherwise, it could make one ill, similar to water in third world countries today. The easiest and most inexpensive way to purify water was with alcohol. This mixture was known as "oinos." If wine and strong drink were used to purify water as both Jewish and non-Jewish cultures testify then we must consider it a possibility.

When I go to India I am told, “don’t drink the water.” I do not, but I do brush my teeth with it. On one trip, a student got sick, apparently, from brushing his teeth with it. Some Indians can drink and not get sick; I can have minute amounts without getting sick; while the student could not even place it in his mouth without an effect. I shall assume that germs, genetics and immune systems have not changed significantly in the past 2,000 years and therefore the NT dead water had similar effects. Thus, there were some who were able to survive on the water in Palestine with no problem (John the Baptist), while others would get sick (Timothy).

While many Indians drink the dead water, those who can afford to purchase purified water, do so; this is good hygienic practice, which is testified by science. Should we not assume that biblical cultures understood and desired the same health benefits? Verily, this assumption is confirmed by Stein’s work in ancient cultures.

From my vantage point, it appears that moderationists seem to equate NT culture with 21st Century American Culture. Drawing a comparison between wine-drinking then and wine-drinking now. Thus, there seems to be an assumption that the ancients would drink their tap water for sustenance during the day, and then in the evening sit down with their wife for a relaxing glass of wine in their air-conditioned dining room. In reality, NT culture was much closer to many of our third world cultures, only you could not purchase purified water then, you had to purify it with wine or other strong drink.

Hermeneutics demands that we interpret a word with its common or normal use unless the context demands otherwise.

I concede there are times when the context demands “oinos” be interpreted as intoxicating drink (I Cor. 11), but the abuse of the Lord’s Supper does not imply that oinos must ALWAYS be interpreted as intoxicating drink. Since Justin Martyr makes clear that the oinos served at the Lord’s Supper in the early church was a water/wine mixture we can logically deduce that the Corinthians were getting into the wine before it was mixed. This would explain both the drunkenness as well as the fact they ran out of “oinos.”

I further concede it is possible that the wine at the Wedding at Cana COULD have been intoxicating because of the head-waiters comments. But I believe that this interpretation creates more problems than it solves. Not the least of which is the implication that some were already drunk and Jesus was contributing to their sin. This implication alone renders it unlikely that “oinos” should be understood as something different (intoxicating drink) from its normal use (wine/water mixture).

I am willing to open my mind and consider intoxicating drink a possibility…I am asking moderationists to do the same concerning water/wine mixture, otherwise legitimate discussion cannot take place.

If you think it is POSSIBLE, (not probable, just possible) for oinos to mean a wine/water mixture then read Robert Stein’s work “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times?” If you are unable to access it, then google “John MacArthur Be not Drunk with Wine.” This is a three part series where he quotes Stein heavily.

Finally, if we both concede it is possible for the opposing side to be correct then we can further consider the consequences if our position is wrong.
If I am wrong, I doubt I will be rebuked for not drinking wine or rebuked for encouraging others to abstain. No reputable scholar has ever alleged the Bible’s condemnation of abstinence. But, my friend, if you are wrong, and the Bible does prohibit intoxicating drink for recreational purposes, then there will be an accounting, especially, if you teach others your error (James 3).

We certainly can praise Jesus that all of our sins are covered, but such a sacrifice is not to be taken lightly. Wisdom demands that if it is possible (as scholars attest) for something to be sin then avoid it. The question seems not to be whether it IS sin, but whether it is possible that it is.

Besides the biblical debate…no industry, with the possible exception of pornography, has broken more homes, brought about more abuse, caused more death, and led to more sin then the alcoholic industry. How in the world we can even contemplate supporting it with God’s resources is beyond me.

Daniel’s example of not defiling himself with the king’s wine is a solid example for all to follow.
BR

SBC President Frank Page Addresses Alcohol Use

2006-07-24T11:02:00.000-05:00

QUOTES AND MORE:

"I'm tired of hearing about temperance instead of abstinence, in order to please the cocktail crowd in church congregations." (Vance Havner).

“Of all vices, drinking is the most incompatible with Greatness.” (Sir Walter Scott).

“Resolved, that we reaffirm our historic stance of pointing out the deceptive and destructive nature of beveraged alcohol…” (SBC Resolution, 1976).

SBC PRESIDENT FRANK PAGE ADDESSES ALCOHOL USE

The Issue of Alcohol Use
By Frank S. Page, Ph.D.

The issue of alcohol consumption for social, recreational, and personal use (not medicinal use) is an issue, which has been debated for many years among evangelical believers. While virtually all evangelicals agree in biblical prohibitions against drunkenness, there is much debate among evangelicals and particularly among Southern Baptists as to the permissibility of using alcohol under a more controlled and/or moderate degree of usage. There is great debate as to accurate comparison of modern day strong drink with the strong drink mentioned in the Bible.

There is value in studying Scriptural references to alcohol use and/or abuse. One interesting study revolves around certain groups of persons who were to abstain from wine or strong drink. Such persons were Nazarites, Rechabites, Priests, and the Israelites during the wilderness experience. There are multitudes of instances where shameful drunkenness brought forth horrible consequences. The Apostle Paul gives certain guidelines about drinking for those who are being considered for church offices.

In addition to Scriptural references to the use of strong drink, one also must recognize the current state of our culture and how it has been impacted by alcohol use. Personally, I made a decision as a young child to never be involved with alcohol as I witnessed its absolute destructive force in the lives of several of my extended family members. One does not have to look hard to see the results of alcohol use and/or abuse in our society today. It is devastating millions of lives and families.

In addition to all of this, there is the issue of freedom in Christ. Many believe that Scriptures such as I Corinthians 6:2 point out the fact that the Christian is free to do anything not specifically prohibited by God, as long as it gives glory to God and does not disturb the Christian’s fellowship with God. Some believe that this gives the modern day believer the green light to utilize alcohol as a beverage.

Personally, I believe that alcohol, as a beverage, should be avoided by believers. I particularly believe that those who are in positions of leadership and ministry should refrain from any usage of alcohol as a beverage. The Scripture says in I Timothy 3:3 that an overseer must “not be given to drunkenness.” I believe that the issue goes even deeper. While indeed, we must not be given to drunkenness, I believe there is a Biblical principle that encourages believers to abstain all together from alcohol. In light of our societies self-destructive behavior, I believe that evangelical believers need to rise to a higher plain of conduct and teaching. I believe the overall need for this comes from the issue of witness and influence. For example, I Corinthians 8:9 says, “Be careful, however that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” We must be very careful that our witness is maintained in all settings. While the consumption of alcohol may not be a problem to some, there is the high probability that it would, in some way, hurt ones witness. There is also the issue of influence. I Corinthians 10:23-24 says, “Everything is permissible – but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible – but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” The need is to be one of great, positive, and healthy influence as well as a strong and clear witness for Christ.

As a child, I realized the serious danger in alcohol use. Its addictive power is beyond debate. However, as a modern day, evangelical believer, I feel that it is very important to example and to teach abstinence regarding the use of alcohol.

PS - For those interested I have addressed ConcernedSBCer's latest three post's about me in the comment section of "Dr. Rogers, Dr. Criswell. Studies on Alcohol and More" post.
BR

Dr. Rogers; Dr. Criswell; Studies on Alcohol and More

2006-07-22T21:58:00.000-05:00

“Study: Even one drink can be dangerous
SEATTLE, June 30 (UPI) -- A University of Washington study warns that even a single strong drink can make a person "blind drunk" and impair the drinker's driving abilities.
The study, appearing in Friday's issue of the Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, found that those who were mildly intoxicated -- which is half the legal intoxication limit -- were heavily compromised in their ability to notice an unexpected visual object while being focused on another simple task.
It has been known that the so-called "inattentional blindness" phenomenon causes salient objects appearing in the visual field to go undetected. But the current study seeks to show these visual errors become even more likely under the influence of alcohol.
The research did not directly test driving aptitude but noted implications for driving could be serious.
"We rely on our ability to perceive a multitude of information when we drive (speed limit, road signs, other cars)," said Seema Clifasefi, the study's lead author. "If even a mild dose of alcohol compromises our ability to take in some of this information ... then it seems likely that our driving ability may also be compromised."
UPI - United Press International” (available: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060630-105043-1132r)

“In Australia Dr. L. A. Cala and associates have for many years studied the effects of alcohol and the brain and its ability to function. To determine the point at which alcohol consumption begins brain damage, Cala examined heavy drinkers, using CAT scans, and found brain shrinkage already in progress. Using the same CAT scan procedure, she then examined a group of individuals considered to be moderate to light drinkers. Of thirty-nine drinkers tested, thirty were found to have some brain shrinkage, with frontal lobes bearing the first signs.
The reference to the frontal lobes is significant for it has been proved that decision making and moral value centers of the human character reside in the frontal lobes of the brain.
This confirms what Proverbs 31:4-5 had already told Bible believers, that alcoholic drinks (and as nothing is said of great quantities we may understand small amounts of alcohol) cause forgetfulness of the law and perverse judgments.” (Available: http://www.alcoholandthebible.org/biblical_approach.htm)

“The Israelites thought they had a better idea. They rationalized by saying, "There's no reason to drive these Canaanites out. We can make them pay tribute to us. We can tax them and make slaves out of them. Rather than driving them out, we will domesticate them, and they will be good for us."
Many of us have done that. We have favored certain sins. There are vices that we actually think we can somehow tame and get benefit from. Some people view alcohol and gambling in this way.” (Adrian Rogers)

“Alcohol knocks the blood corpuscles out of business so that it takes eight to ten to do what one ought to do. There's a man who drinks. Here's a fellow who drives a beer wagon. Look how sissy he is. He's full of rotten tissue. He says he's healthy. Smell his breath. You punch your finger in that healthy flesh he talks about and the dent will be there a half an hour afterwards…. I've stood for more sneers and scoffs and insults and had my life threatened from one end of the land to the other by this God-forsaken gang of thugs and cutthroats because I have come out uncompromisingly against them.” (Billy Sunday).

“And Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s wine which he drank and he said: Give me pulse to eat and water to drink.”…Young fella, the world and the devil persuade you that you have to do this. That’s a lie. And a vicious one. At the 8:15 o’clock service this morning, as I was closing, there came to me a man who belongs to this church, and said, “Pastor, I want to reconsecrate and recommit my life to the Lord God.”…Well, I said, “Why have you come?”…And he said, “I had given myself over to moderate drinking. I had just decided that it was all right to be a moderate drinker.” “But,” he said, “After listening to you this morning, I just want to recommit my life to the Lord. I will not do it.”…My brother, it will bless your family, it will bless your home, it will bless your children, it will bless your business, it will bless your life, if you will not drink.” (WA Criswell).

“Be it resolved, that we…call Southern Baptists to an exemplary Christian lifestyle of abstinence from beverage alcohol and all other harmful drugs.” (SBC resolution – 1984).

For those interested, Dr. James Merritt, past president of the SBC, has responded to Ben Cole’s Dallas Morning News article – you can find the response at sbcwitness.com

We will continue our research study Monday.
BR

ALCOHOL - IS IT DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN US?

2006-07-21T22:49:00.000-05:00

QUOTES AND MORE:

“Whereas, Drinking alcoholic beverages continues to be the number one drug problem in America, bringing misery to millions; and…Whereas, The American culture is thoroughly saturated with a take-a-drink mentality; and Whereas the use of the drug alcohol as a chemical crutch is harmful and unnecessary in light of the spiritual resources available to all people through Jesus Christ; be it resolved…that we call on our churches to teach vigorously the danger of the drug alcohol in order to create a climate which will lead people to reject the use of alcoholic beverages." (Resolution - SBC, 1975)

“My experience through life has convinced me that, while moderation and temperance in all things are commendable and beneficial, abstinence from spirituous liquors is the best safeguard of morals and health.” (General Robert E Lee)

“When will the terrific reign of alcohol cease?” (JL Dagg)

ALCOHOL - IS IT DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN US?

A vocal minority of bloggers is claiming that when our leaders speak to the important issue of alcohol they are driving a wedge between fellow conservatives. Yet, it is not our leaders who are using words like “man-made rules,” “conspiracy,” “legalist,” “political games,” and “ultra-Fundamentalist” to describe those who differ. It is this vocal minority.

When confronted with the meaning of legalism they break into a Texas Two-Step. In defending their accusation of political maneuvering (blackballing those who disagree), they become great believers in the “conspiracy theory,” (with as much evidence as those who claim Elvis is alive). When asked if the term “man-made rules” also applies to other barbiturates, and slavery, there is an awkward and eerie silence.

Ironically, a few moderationists claim the leaders want to suppress discussion on important issues, but when there comes a small contingency of abstentionists to discuss THIS issue on Blogs…well…that is just rude, unhealthy, and should cease. “Let us speak against the resolution and Blog about how wrong it is. But don’t respond to our comments through your Blogs,” seems to be the mantra of these few.

Some of them desire that we give the “Holy Spirit the freedom to convict us of our actions,” unless of course, those actions include blogging our position on abstinence. Then, apparently, we are not to listen, for that inner conviction came from the all-powerful leaders of the convention rather than the Holy Spirit.

In fact, that accusation of being a pawn to the powers of the convention has been laid at my feet. Further, I have been accused of trying to force man-made rules on others, of being a legalist, of causing division, and being closed-minded. Goodness. What has caused such outrageous assertions? Have I accused them of being liberal? No. Have I said they were anathema to me? No. Have I asked them to leave the convention? No. It appears the firestorm of accusations have come because I dared to speak for abstinence.

Now, to be fair, I think it is a small number of moderationists who are typing with such shrill fingers (and perhaps some abstentionists too). I have come to believe that one of the problems some of our leaders see in Blogs is: Blogs lack the human touch, and therefore some take a general statement (like I have made above) and personalize it. This has caused moderationists and abstentionists alike to claim they have never heard such unChristlike words and illogical reasoning. I have come to realize that many with whom I disagree are not demons; rather they are brothers in Christ. And their comments may not be hateful language at all. In fact, they may find it difficult to express their thoughts, or they may be having a bad day, or I may be reading in something that was not intended. May we all be better at giving others the benefit of the doubt.

On the matter of abstention, some legitimately believe the Bible is not clear, others believe it is quite clear. I am convinced that the principles in Scripture reveal that the use of mind-altering drugs (including alcohol), slavery, suicide, and cloning are all wrong (although they are not condemned). Why is it so wrong for me to state and defend that? Where was this outcry of man-made rules when the SBC passed a resolution asking forgiveness for our past support of the sin of slavery, or when we decried the use of other mind-altering drugs, or stated our opposition to cloning?

Further, we never heard this outcry against abstention until this year (and that by a 10% minority). It is not the abstentionists creating this stir! We stand where SB have always stood.

Why is this minority not denouncing D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday and George Whitefield (not to mention Adrian Rogers and W.A. Criswell) for holding to man-made rules by preaching abstention? (It is interesting that God used many of these men and their preaching to bring Awakenings to His children.)

Finally, there is a belief by some that the Biblical position of abstinence causes me to look down my nose at those who do not affirm it. How LUDICROUS. Has not Christ said, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” I preach on gluttony, but that does not mean I feel I am superior to those who have weight troubles because of it. In fact, if we were to cast stones, please direct them here…for I am chief of sinners and know it. Were my private sins to be named, the false accusations that have been made would pale in comparison. I certainly fail daily to achieve holiness as Christ is holy, but that does not remove my responsibility from saying “Here is what Scripture teaches.”

My intent has never been to try and divide brethren (God forbid), or to convince those, who will not be convinced of the Bible’s position on abstinence. Rather, my intent is to stand on what I believe the Bible teaches about mind-altering drugs, and to provide those who are questioning the Biblical position on alcohol with an alternate voice to the sheer volume of moderation voices in the Blog world.

It is most interesting, that some moderationists are asking me to silence my voice simply because I show where SB have always stood on this issue, I dare to research how our current leadership stands, I post medical studies, and I give and defend my position. Most Interesting Indeed.

BR

Monday, we will have our next article in our study, posted:)

A Third Seminary President Shares His Views

2006-07-20T22:56:00.000-05:00

QUOTES AND MORE:

“Galen C. Bosley, D.H.Sc., has studied numerous medical reports published in journals in different countries showing that even moderate drinking of alcohol actually destroys brain cells which are never replaced. It is hard to see how anyone can contemplate the destruction of a part of his body with equanimity. When the part of the body first to be destroyed are cells in the brain controlling moral discernment the complacency of mankind about this wholesale destruction of human capacity is astounding.” (Reynolds, S - Available at http://www.alcoholandthebible.org/biblical_approach.htm)

“That we record afresh our deep and unalterable opposition to the liquor traffic in all of its forms and phases; that we urge upon our people the rule of total abstinence in their personal habits as the only sane, sensible and right course for Christian people concerning any recognized evil” (SBC Resolution, 1939).

A THIRD SEMINARY PRESIDENT ADDRESSES MODERATION

Alcohol Consumption: What Would Jesus Do?
By: R. Philip Roberts
7/20/2006

But Jesus drank wine, didn’t he? And, after all, he miraculously reproduced wine at the marriage feast in Cana (cf. Gospel of John, Chapter 2). These two points in and of themselves should suffice for anyone arguing on behalf of moderate alcohol consumption in the 21st-century evangelical context. Or do they?

They are common arguments which, taken at a superficial glance, would seem very convincing. When looked at in the first-century context, however, the resulting opinion about alcohol consumption is quite different. In order to answer the issue of “What would Jesus do?”, we need first to ask the hermeneutically relevant question of “What did Jesus do?” For an answer, I turn to an important, but now little read, resource that more Baptists ought to know about. It’s an article written by now-retired Southern Baptist Theological Seminary New Testament professor Robert H. Stein entitled, “Wine – Drinking in New Testament Times,” published over thirty years ago by Christianity Today , Volume 19 (1975), pp. 923-5. It was referred to in Dan Akin’s Baptist Press commentary of June 30, 2006. In Stein’s article, he adroitly and succinctly reviews the historical evidence for alcohol consumption in the New Testament era. He answers the questions of “Was alcohol consumed in the New Testament Period?” and “Was it similar to alcohol consumption in the modern context?” with a yes–no response.

Yes, alcohol was consumed and no, it was not synonymous with modern day consumption in the form of table wines, cocktails, mixed drinks or even beer.

In essence, the alcohol consumed in the first century was so diluted and moderated that in Stein’s words “one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.” Surprisingly, even in strictly pagan contexts, alcohol was always diluted except in the most raucous and debauched of circumstances. Why? Because the ancients understood the potency of and the problem with alcohol when drunk without careful precautions. It would cause drunkenness often without warning. And drunkenness was a condition viewed by the ancients as undignified. Inebriation was a condition only barbarians tolerated and undiluted alcohol a drink only they would imbibe.

At a very minimum, wine was served by the general public, including the Romans themselves, at a one-to-one ratio, one part wine with one part water. In this mixture it was referred to as “strong wine.” This differentiation is why the writers of the Old Testament make a clear distinction between “strong drink” and “wine.” (Lv. 10:8,9; Nm. 6:3; Dt. 14:26; 29:6; Jdg 13:4,7,14, etc…) See Paige Patterson’s Baptist Press article of July 7, 2006, for further clarification on this matter. Wine mixed with more water in the ratio was “wine.” In Jewish practice and custom, it generally was mixed three parts of water with one of wine. This beverage was still referred to as wine or “oinos.” Even then, Nazarites, Aaron and his sons and others were directed not to drink this form of strongly diluted wine.

In his article, Stein notes that II Maccabees 15:39 comments, “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again to drink water alone…” Obviously in the time of Jesus and later, the alcohol mixed with water served as a means to purify water, as boiling water in the time of Jesus was a tedious and expensive procedure. Post New Testament, a number of early church witnesses confirm the mixing of water and wine for generic use, as well as consumption at the Lord’s Supper. (see Justin Martyr Apology I, 67, 5; Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition XXIII, 1; Cyprian Epistle LXII, 2, 11 and 13.)

So, what would Jesus do when it comes to contemporary alcoholic beverage consumption? Probably he would do what he did. And that is to utilize only beverages that have absolutely zero chance of causing inebriation. In our modern context, in my opinion, where healthy non-alcoholic drinks and water are readily available, it would be very probable that Jesus would be a total abstainer.

Dr. Jerry Vines' Article on Abstinence

2006-07-19T20:34:00.000-05:00

QUOTES AND MORE:
“We declare afresh our unalterable opposition to the whole liquor traffic, whisky, beer, and wine, and to the license system by which this most blighting and corrupting traffic fastened upon our body social and body politic. We stand unalterable for total abstinence on the part of the individual and for prohibition by the government, local, State, and National, and that we declare relentless war upon the liquor traffic, both legal and illegal, until it shall be banished.” (from SBC Resolution, 1938).

O thou invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no name to be known by, let us call thee devil. (William Shakespeare).

DR. JERRY VINES’ ARTICLE ON ABSTINENCE

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SEPARATION?

Messengers at this year’s SBC meeting got quite a wakeup call. I refer to the lengthy discussion of the resolution on alcohol. Now, resolutions with reference to the manufacture, sale and use of alcohol at the SBC meeting aren’t unusual. But, this year, there were several who raised objections to the total abstinence position taken. Although the resolution and the amendment passed overwhelmingly, many messengers were shocked that there would be any opposition or discussion at all. I was not shocked. For some time now I have been aware that there is a small group among us advocating moderation in the use of alcohol rather than total abstinence.

I was not shocked. I was saddened. It is an indication that the line of separation between believers and the lost world is being gradually erased. I was saddened. I was not surprised. We have seen it coming for sometime now. Large numbers of our churches and our pastors seem to have forgotten or have ignored the Bible’s teaching concerning separation. The Bible is very clear that believers are to live lives of separation. Of course, there is a positive aspect to Bible separation. Paul testified he was “separated unto the gospel of God”(Romans 1:1). Bible separation begins with our absolute commitment to Jesus and His Word. It’s first, who you turn to, not what you turn from. But, there is also a negative side of separation. II Corinthians states it clearly, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing..”(II Corinthians 6:17). Love creates the desire for separation. If I truly love my wife, I separate myself from all others.

The neglect of this clear Bible truth has caused rampant worldliness in our churches, and sadly, even in the lives of too many of our leaders. We seldom hear anything in church about what Christians should not do. I know the danger of extremes. Legalism is certainly to be avoided. But, I don’t find many of our Baptist people in danger of that! And we must also avoid isolation. We are not to be isolated from the world; we are to be insulated from it; and we are to infiltrate it with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, I wonder, is anything considered worldly anymore? I John 2:15-17 is still in the Bible.

So what does this have to do with the use of alcohol? The case against the use (not just the abuse) of alcohol is easy to build. Physically, socially, domestically, influentially, and yes, biblically, total abstinence is the only way to go for a Christian who takes Bible separation seriously. As the old saying goes, “alcohol has many defenders, but no defense." In coming weeks I plan to set forth the Bible’s position on the use (not just the abuse) of alcohol. To think that there are now pastors of churches, leaders of youth groups and members of boards of SBC entities who are promoting moderation rather than total abstinence shows just how far down the road to apostasy we have traveled. When I was a student at New Orleans Baptist theological Seminary I preached and witnessed every week in the French Quarter. I heard just about all the standard arguments for moderation from the winos. To hear the same arguments used today by those who are spiritual leaders really saddens me.

I think it would be a good time to call a meeting. Let those among us who are advocating moderation in the use of alcohol gather and issue a call to repentance. To repent of worldliness, in sins of the spirit as well as sins of the flesh. To repent of the sin of encouraging a position on the use of alcohol that will lead thousands to addiction and destruction. And issue a call to return to Bible separation. To see, not how close to the cliff of worldliness they can ride, but how far from it they can stay.

Jerry Vines