I am exploring the nature of Biblical Baptism. I am a Baptist by both birth and conviction, but I have decided to re-examine my doctrine because of the current “Baptist Identity” controversy in the SBC. Read the previous post for the background on this.
Most of the key issues are settled in this discussion among Baptists. We agree about the subject (believers only), mode (immersion only) , meaning (symbolic of salvation, not salvific itself) and formula (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) of Baptism. But we have some disagreements about other, I think lesser, issues. We disagree on whether baptism is into the universal church, into a local body of believers only, or some combination of the two. The Baptist Identity group is arguing for a more institutional purpose of Baptism, more closely related to the local church. We also disagree as to whether there is much significance attached to the administrator of baptism. Does it matter who did the baptism, or that it was done according to biblical guidelines.
This trigger issue of this discussion has been policies adopted by the International Mission Board discounting baptisms of candidates who were baptized in churches that had significantly flawed doctrine, especially those that believed in the possibility of a Christian losing his salvation. Some argue that it shouldn’t matter, as long as the one baptized was a believer, the baptism was by immersion and person understood it was symbolic, not salvific.
So, what does the Bible say? That is the purpose of this study. We will go through the relevant passages of scripture. I am going to state my opinion strongly and hope that people who disagree will feel welcome to do the same – arguing Biblical evidence, not Baptist history or tradition. I am not ashamed of our Baptist heritage, but one of the tenets of our faith is that we are responsible to the scriptures, not to creed or tradition.
As a Baptist, I have to admit that it is a little surprising that the New Testament says so little about Christian Baptism. Most of the references in both the Gospels and Acts refer to John’s baptism.
I have chosen to largely discount all references to John’s baptism. Those passages help with issues like immersion but really have no impact on the focus of this discussion. Since the church was not established until Pentecost, and since John’s baptism is different from Jesus’ baptism, it does not seem like those passages will help us much in dealing with issues of the value of institutionalism and administrator in baptism.
I have found 8 passages in Acts which I believe are useful to look at, and 6 passages in the epistles. In this post, we will review the 8 passages in Acts, which give us some idea of what happened in the early church. Then, next time, we will deal with the more didactic portions of Paul’s and Peter’s instructions to the churches. After that, I will draw my conclusions, and leave you to do the same.
Passage 1: Acts 3:38-41 Pentecost
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 3:38 is one of the baptismal regenerationist’s favorite verses, but that is not our focus here. There are several answers to the false teaching of salvation through baptism which will wait another time. This is a discussion amongst Baptists, so we will focus on that.
In this passage, on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit falls on the church. Then, Peter preaches and 3000 souls are saved. I am not sure this passage has much to say about whether baptism was into the church or not. The church did not exist before that day.
It also does not say who did the baptism. Did only the apostles baptize? I would make one point. It would take a long time to baptize 3000 folks by immersion, if only Peter, or if only the 12 did the baptisms. I conjecture that many people probably got involved in the baptismal process, but that is conjecture – reading between the lines. It is an opinion, not evidence.
But this is a unique passage. Baptism on that day could not have really been into the church, because it was the inauguration of the church. Those who were baptized became the church.
Passage 2: Acts 8:12-13 Philip in Samaria
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
Acts 8 is sometimes called the Samaritan Pentecost and has some of the same issues as the Acts 2 passage. There was no organized church in Samaria prior to Philip’s ministry. They were baptized into Christ, received the Holy Spirit, and the Samaritan church was born.
I would point out two things. There is not here, or in any other Acts passage, any clear reference to the church being the focus of baptism. The message was the “kingdom of God” (a universal thing) and the “name of Christ” (again, universal.) There is no reference here or anywhere else to baptism into a church. Baptism is into Christ.
Passage 3: Acts 8: 37-40 Ethiopian Eunuch
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.
This is the favorite passage for those who argue against the Baptist Identity position. Philip is taken by the Holy Spirit out into the wilderness where he meets a lone man. That man comes to faith in Christ and requests baptism. Philip performs the baptism and the man continues his journey. He is then spirited to Azotus and begins preaching the gospel there.
I have heard the Identity folks deal with this passage, but a couple of things are incontrovertible here. Philip was far from any church when he baptized the Eunuch. And there was no church established here. Yes, I am sure the Ethiopian established a church when he went back home. But he was baptized in almost total separation from any significant involvement with any established local church.
Can too much be made of this? Perhaps. But it is hard to argue that baptism must be attached to a local church in this instance.
Before anyone objects, I know BI folks agree that Baptism is into Christ. But the question at hand is how important the local church is in baptism. They place a much higher priority on that than I do.
Passage 4: Acts 9:18-19 Paul’s Baptism
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.
Very little is gained in this discussion from this passage. Again, there is no mention of the local church, and there is no mention of who baptized him, though I suppose it was Ananias.
Silence is the weakest argument, of course. But I think that those who insist that baptism is into a local fellowship gain the burden of proof to establish that it is consistently true. And it is, in Acts, consistently NOT true, or at least not mentioned.
Passage 5:Acts 10:46-48 Cornelius
For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Again, there was no local church for the people to be baptized into. Some would argue that Peter represented the church in Jerusalem. Fine. But the people being baptized were not being baptized into the church of Jerusalem, were they?
One other trend you see beginning here. Baptism here is “in the name of Jesus Christ.” In other passages, we will see the phrase “into Christ.” It seems to me that baptism in the early church was seen as more into that universal body of Christ than into a local body. They were baptized into Christ, not into the church of Christ.
Passage 6: Acts 16:14-15 Lydia
The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Again, Paul may have operated on the authority of the church in Antioch, but there was no church there to which Lydia was baptized. If formed later (almost immediately after, but after nonetheless.)
Passage 7: Acts 16:30-33 The Philippian Jailer
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
This is the story of the Philippian jailer. It is one of pedobaptists favorite verses. They point out that the jailers whole family was baptized when he believed, and assume that there were children in the household, therefore proving infant baptism. I might point out (cruelly) that if this is one of your best proofs, you might be advocating a teaching without much biblical evidence. But, like baptismal regeneration, pedobaptism is not our focus here.
The point that would be made out of this passage is simple. Acts 16 gives the idea that there was already a small contingent of believers (Lydia’s household and the slave girl) by the time this event took place. But, when the jailer was saved, he was “baptized at once.” There is no evidence that Paul or Silas conferred with the local assembly. They just did the baptism. Once again, baptism seemed to be into Christ more than into a local body of believers.
Passage 8: Acts 19:3-5 Baptism of John’s Disciples
And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The only issue here is that the disciples of John were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” There is again no mention of a local church involved, though we assume one formed.
The study of baptism in the book of Acts is definitive in answering the questions about which we agree. It clearly establishes baptism of believers by immersion as a symbol of salvation. But, it gives little support to the idea that baptism is strictly into a local church and that one key is the administrator of the baptism.
These issues are basically insignificant in Acts. Again, I know that silence is weak evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. And I am convinced that if the baptizer or the administration of the local church was a key issue, it would be established in Acts better than it was here.
I invite comment, even disagreement. Again, if I am satisfied that I have made a mistake (horror of horrors – it happened once in the 80’s!) I will amend and revise my arguments.
Next time, Romans, Corinthians and other New Testament epistles – the authoritative evidence.
(NOTE: When I started this post, I had 8 passages copied over from Logos. As I wrote it out, I had only 7, so I changed the numbers. Then, David Rogers pointed out this passage, which must be the one I missed. So, I edited this to reflect the full 8 verses)
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
What is Biblical Baptism?
Just about every Christian believes in baptism. Just about every Christian believes in “biblical baptism.” The problem comes when we have to define a “biblical baptism.” R.C. Sproul is convinced he practices biblical baptism. I am just as convinced that he does not.
Encapsulation always risks oversimplification. But I see four prominent groupings of opinions on what comprises a biblical baptism.
1) Pedobaptism – baptizing children or infants into the church at a very early age. Generally, they believe that baptism replaced circumcision as the visible sign of our covenant with God. They mostly practice sprinkling or pouring, but do not usually consider the method of baptism to be a big deal. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians – most of the mainline groups practice this form of baptism.
2) Baptismal Regeneration groups – they believe that baptism is essential for a person’s salvation. Among these groups are the Church of Christ, some Apostolic groups and a branch of Pentecostals. Many of them also practice baptism only in the name of Jesus (non-trinitarian, often called “Jesus-only” for obvious reasons).
3) Baptist-Practice groups – they believe in baptism of believers by immersion, and practice it to varying degrees. Some believe this is the best way, but do not require it as the only way. They say it is a non-essential and do not require baptism for church membership. Generally, these groups do see believers’ baptism as the biblical way, and do not practice pedobaptism, and they usually believe in the practice of immersion. Many “Bible Churches” and other evangelical groups fall into this category, as do most charismatic and Pentecostal groups that do not believe in baptismal regeneration. There is also a small but perhaps growing movement of Baptist churches who are treating believer’s baptism by immersion as an option.
4) Baptist groups – we believe that baptism is an important act of obedience to Christ which symbolizes and publicly testifies to our conversion in Christ. We believe that immersion, which symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and testifies that we are “raised to walk a new life in him,” is the only acceptable mode of baptism. We believe that only those who make a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized, so we do not baptize infants. Because we believe this is an important act of obedience to Christ, we require baptism for church membership.
The Problem
I am not writing to argue the pedobaptist or immersion issues. They are settled in my own mind and I have no urgent need to deal with them. Whoever might read this will almost certainly be from a Baptist perspective, so dealing with these issues is moot. The same is true of baptismal regeneration. It is unlikely that any proponents of that doctrine will be reading this. I am also not going to spend a lot of time with the baptistic groups, except as they relate to the issue I will be dealing with. My focus will be on a growing rift between groups that are clearly within the Baptist circle. There is a strong difference of opinion brewing between those who are part of a group loosely called “Baptist Identity” and those who oppose them. For the sake of convenience, I will use the Baptist Identity term or even BI to describe that group. It is not meant as a pejorative, just a descriptive term. If someone would like to suggest another term, I would consider it.
Both groups believe that baptism by immersion of believers is essential. But there are several issues that have become points of contention. This controversy hit the convention when policies that reflected the Baptist Identity position were enacted at the International Mission Board.
The following are the points of contention:
1) Is baptism into the church (local) or into Christ (universal church)? Of course, everyone believes that ultimately, baptism is into Christ, but the BI groups believe that Baptism is strictly a church ordinance. (Their opponents also believe baptism is a church ordinance, but remove the word “strictly.”)
2) Does it matter who does the baptism? This is one of the key issues that came out in the IMB policies. If someone has been baptized in a church that believes you can lose your salvation, they are considered disqualified for missionary service until they have been rebaptized (or scripturally baptized for the first time). They are, therefore, making “man” of baptism on an equal footing with the mode of baptism. It is not enough to be baptized by immersion as a believer. You have to be baptized by immersion as a believer by someone who believes as we do. Others argue that a baptism is biblical as long as it is done by immersion after profession of faith and is understood as symbolic of salvation, not necessary to it.
Dr. Thomas White, in his CTR “White Paper” has identified 6 key issues in valid baptism: subject (believers only), mode (immersion only), meaning (symbolic, not saving or sanctifying), church (connected to a local church), administrator (representative of local church) and formula (traditional formula or at least in the name of Christ).
There seems to be little disagreement among us about subject, mode, meaning and formula. The issues that arise are relative to church (how important is it that baptism be officially connected to a local assembly?) and administrator (how much does the administrator of baptism matter?).
Methodology
I am going to reflect on these issues in several blogs. Again, I never know how many are reading what I write. But, I will follow this pattern.
Step 1: Definition of issues. I would love for people from both sides (all sides?) of these issues to comment on whether I have adequately represented your viewpoints. As I read blogs, one of the biggest problems I see is the constant tendency to misrepresent the viewpoints of those you argue against. So, before I go charging off writing about something no one believes in or cares about, I would ask proponents of all sides of these issues to correct me if I have misrepresented your viewpoint.
Step 2: Dealing with scriptures. I am working on an analysis of scriptural evidence. I am not an expert in Baptist history like Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell or Nathan Finn. I am not going to venture into whether we are descended from the Anabaptists or the English Separatists, or simians. I will leave that to those with more expertise than I. I am just going to look at scriptures about baptism. Ultimately, I think we would all agree that what ultimately matters is biblical truth, not Baptist history.
Step 3: Delineating my ignorance. You will, I hope, tell me how badly I have missed the mark and how I lack insight into the scriptures. I hope you will do it in Christian love and based on scripture. I maintain the power of deletion, and am willing to wield it arbitrarily. But I love a good theological debate. At some point, I intend to answer a critic with “I am rubber and you are glue – whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” I will just wait for the proper time.
It seems clear to me that if we are Baptist, we ought to at least find agreement on what that means, and on what it requires.
One more thing – as people make comments, and if I see the wisdom of those comments, I reserve the right to edit my post to reflect my new understanding and insight. I can’t have myself look stupid on my own blog, can I?
And, if no one reads this, at least I will grow from studying and writing.
Encapsulation always risks oversimplification. But I see four prominent groupings of opinions on what comprises a biblical baptism.
1) Pedobaptism – baptizing children or infants into the church at a very early age. Generally, they believe that baptism replaced circumcision as the visible sign of our covenant with God. They mostly practice sprinkling or pouring, but do not usually consider the method of baptism to be a big deal. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians – most of the mainline groups practice this form of baptism.
2) Baptismal Regeneration groups – they believe that baptism is essential for a person’s salvation. Among these groups are the Church of Christ, some Apostolic groups and a branch of Pentecostals. Many of them also practice baptism only in the name of Jesus (non-trinitarian, often called “Jesus-only” for obvious reasons).
3) Baptist-Practice groups – they believe in baptism of believers by immersion, and practice it to varying degrees. Some believe this is the best way, but do not require it as the only way. They say it is a non-essential and do not require baptism for church membership. Generally, these groups do see believers’ baptism as the biblical way, and do not practice pedobaptism, and they usually believe in the practice of immersion. Many “Bible Churches” and other evangelical groups fall into this category, as do most charismatic and Pentecostal groups that do not believe in baptismal regeneration. There is also a small but perhaps growing movement of Baptist churches who are treating believer’s baptism by immersion as an option.
4) Baptist groups – we believe that baptism is an important act of obedience to Christ which symbolizes and publicly testifies to our conversion in Christ. We believe that immersion, which symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and testifies that we are “raised to walk a new life in him,” is the only acceptable mode of baptism. We believe that only those who make a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized, so we do not baptize infants. Because we believe this is an important act of obedience to Christ, we require baptism for church membership.
The Problem
I am not writing to argue the pedobaptist or immersion issues. They are settled in my own mind and I have no urgent need to deal with them. Whoever might read this will almost certainly be from a Baptist perspective, so dealing with these issues is moot. The same is true of baptismal regeneration. It is unlikely that any proponents of that doctrine will be reading this. I am also not going to spend a lot of time with the baptistic groups, except as they relate to the issue I will be dealing with. My focus will be on a growing rift between groups that are clearly within the Baptist circle. There is a strong difference of opinion brewing between those who are part of a group loosely called “Baptist Identity” and those who oppose them. For the sake of convenience, I will use the Baptist Identity term or even BI to describe that group. It is not meant as a pejorative, just a descriptive term. If someone would like to suggest another term, I would consider it.
Both groups believe that baptism by immersion of believers is essential. But there are several issues that have become points of contention. This controversy hit the convention when policies that reflected the Baptist Identity position were enacted at the International Mission Board.
The following are the points of contention:
1) Is baptism into the church (local) or into Christ (universal church)? Of course, everyone believes that ultimately, baptism is into Christ, but the BI groups believe that Baptism is strictly a church ordinance. (Their opponents also believe baptism is a church ordinance, but remove the word “strictly.”)
2) Does it matter who does the baptism? This is one of the key issues that came out in the IMB policies. If someone has been baptized in a church that believes you can lose your salvation, they are considered disqualified for missionary service until they have been rebaptized (or scripturally baptized for the first time). They are, therefore, making “man” of baptism on an equal footing with the mode of baptism. It is not enough to be baptized by immersion as a believer. You have to be baptized by immersion as a believer by someone who believes as we do. Others argue that a baptism is biblical as long as it is done by immersion after profession of faith and is understood as symbolic of salvation, not necessary to it.
Dr. Thomas White, in his CTR “White Paper” has identified 6 key issues in valid baptism: subject (believers only), mode (immersion only), meaning (symbolic, not saving or sanctifying), church (connected to a local church), administrator (representative of local church) and formula (traditional formula or at least in the name of Christ).
There seems to be little disagreement among us about subject, mode, meaning and formula. The issues that arise are relative to church (how important is it that baptism be officially connected to a local assembly?) and administrator (how much does the administrator of baptism matter?).
Methodology
I am going to reflect on these issues in several blogs. Again, I never know how many are reading what I write. But, I will follow this pattern.
Step 1: Definition of issues. I would love for people from both sides (all sides?) of these issues to comment on whether I have adequately represented your viewpoints. As I read blogs, one of the biggest problems I see is the constant tendency to misrepresent the viewpoints of those you argue against. So, before I go charging off writing about something no one believes in or cares about, I would ask proponents of all sides of these issues to correct me if I have misrepresented your viewpoint.
Step 2: Dealing with scriptures. I am working on an analysis of scriptural evidence. I am not an expert in Baptist history like Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell or Nathan Finn. I am not going to venture into whether we are descended from the Anabaptists or the English Separatists, or simians. I will leave that to those with more expertise than I. I am just going to look at scriptures about baptism. Ultimately, I think we would all agree that what ultimately matters is biblical truth, not Baptist history.
Step 3: Delineating my ignorance. You will, I hope, tell me how badly I have missed the mark and how I lack insight into the scriptures. I hope you will do it in Christian love and based on scripture. I maintain the power of deletion, and am willing to wield it arbitrarily. But I love a good theological debate. At some point, I intend to answer a critic with “I am rubber and you are glue – whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” I will just wait for the proper time.
It seems clear to me that if we are Baptist, we ought to at least find agreement on what that means, and on what it requires.
One more thing – as people make comments, and if I see the wisdom of those comments, I reserve the right to edit my post to reflect my new understanding and insight. I can’t have myself look stupid on my own blog, can I?
And, if no one reads this, at least I will grow from studying and writing.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Read Nathan Finn's Blog - Regularly!
http://nathanafinn.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/unplugged-on-the-imb/
Dr. Nathan Finn, a professor at Southeastern, is blogging a series of answers to key questions being asked by people in the SBC. His first blog, on the IMB policies, is worth reading. If you are smart, you will bookmark his site and read everything he says.
I know, that was an overgeneralization.
His next post, on Calvinism, was equally good. I have been thrilled recently at what I hope is a trend toward more intense dialogue and discussion on some blogs - leaving the Baptist Bluster Brigade behind.
Nathan Finn is one of the best examples of this.
Dr. Nathan Finn, a professor at Southeastern, is blogging a series of answers to key questions being asked by people in the SBC. His first blog, on the IMB policies, is worth reading. If you are smart, you will bookmark his site and read everything he says.
I know, that was an overgeneralization.
His next post, on Calvinism, was equally good. I have been thrilled recently at what I hope is a trend toward more intense dialogue and discussion on some blogs - leaving the Baptist Bluster Brigade behind.
Nathan Finn is one of the best examples of this.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Where is the Statesman?
In 1979, I was a seminary student, and travelled to the Southern Baptist Convention in Houston with my dad, an SBC pastor and former missionary. It was a moment that has defined our convention for nearly 30 years now. I voted for Adrian Rogers for president and stood to my feet when it was announced that he had won. I returned to the convention as often as possible in the 80's and 90's and voted to keep the conservative resurgence alive and well.
I remember the defining moment when Morris Chapman faced Daniel Vestal in 1990. Vestal was an undeniably conservative pastor who would not identify with the SBC conservatives for whateve reasons, and he mounted a strong campaign. As you approached the arena, the Vestal campaign had workers with flyers touting his conservative credentials. He was probably a bigger name in the convention than Dr. Chapman. My dad was in the bookstore when they announced the results. Dr. Chapman got nearly 60% of the vote. My dad wouldn't believe me that the vote was that big. That was the decisive moment, and the moderate groups gave up the fight at the national level and took it to the state level, and then formed the CBF.
I know that Dr. Patterson and Judge Pressler were the architects of the resurgence, but they had something that day that we don't have today. They had Adrian Rogers. He was the face of the SBC. He had a voice like Moses must have heard on the top of Sinai. He was a man of conviction and was unwilling to compromise. He was also a man of grace. Under the most intense scrutiny and heat, he was always gracious, calm, well-spoken. He had that knack for saying things that made you think, "Wow, I wish I'd thought of that."
The SBC is a splintered group today. There are a few "head-in-the-sand" folks who refuse to see that there is a problem, but most will admit that we have issues we need to deal with. We disagree about solutions, but most admit the problems.
What the SBC needs today is a new Adrian Rogers. I know, I know, the SBC is about every one of us and not one man. I agree. But look in scriptures. When God was ready to do a work, He often called and prepared one man. The human race needed to preserved; it was Noah. God determined to save Israel; Moses saw a burning bush. The Philistines were oppressing Israel; David. The Judges. Elijah. When God is going something big, He often raises up a leader, one man to show God's people the way.
We need such a man today. We need a man of God who will come to the forefront and be the SBC statesman. Maybe, without the unifying force of the liberal threat, such a statesman is hard to find. But we need one still.
There are several characteristics that must be found in such a man.
1) He must be raised up by God. This is not a job you volunteer for, or apply for. God raises up the man at the right time.
2) He must be a man of conviction. A finger-in-the-wind leader will never get the job done. This must be a man of deep passion for the Word and for the convention.
3) He must be a man of grace. There were a number of vocal, very aggressive spokesmen for the conservative resurgence. They played their part but they could not be what Adrian was. He was able to gracious in the face of a campaign of insults and attacks. When he moderated a convention, he was firm, but gracious. He responded to personal attacks with grace.
4) He must be a kingdom man. I never got the impression that Adrian was defending himself or advancing his own cause. He was already at the top of the denominational ladder when 1979 rolled around. It never seemed like he was out for himself. He served the Kingdom of God and the Convention. You might disagree with him, but it was hard to cast him as a man of selfish motives. (Some tried, but they seemed, to me, silly in the effort.)
It may not be possible anymore. In 1979, we were united by a common goal - restore biblical orthodoxy to a denomination headed in the wrong direction. We did not have time to quibble about calvinism or PPL. If you believed in inerrancy, that was enough.
And this is certainly not an attempt at hagiography. I am sure Dr. Rogers had his failings and foibles like anyone else. I saw him leaving the Orlando convention after Jim Henry was elected and he looked like you could fry an egg on his forehead. (Don't know why, but I know that look!)
I believe the SBC needs some reforms. I think we need to refocus. The onus is on each of us, each person, each church to do our G0d-given job.
But, I believe we need a leader. "Moses" Rogers led us very well. But, where is Joshua?
I remember the defining moment when Morris Chapman faced Daniel Vestal in 1990. Vestal was an undeniably conservative pastor who would not identify with the SBC conservatives for whateve reasons, and he mounted a strong campaign. As you approached the arena, the Vestal campaign had workers with flyers touting his conservative credentials. He was probably a bigger name in the convention than Dr. Chapman. My dad was in the bookstore when they announced the results. Dr. Chapman got nearly 60% of the vote. My dad wouldn't believe me that the vote was that big. That was the decisive moment, and the moderate groups gave up the fight at the national level and took it to the state level, and then formed the CBF.
I know that Dr. Patterson and Judge Pressler were the architects of the resurgence, but they had something that day that we don't have today. They had Adrian Rogers. He was the face of the SBC. He had a voice like Moses must have heard on the top of Sinai. He was a man of conviction and was unwilling to compromise. He was also a man of grace. Under the most intense scrutiny and heat, he was always gracious, calm, well-spoken. He had that knack for saying things that made you think, "Wow, I wish I'd thought of that."
The SBC is a splintered group today. There are a few "head-in-the-sand" folks who refuse to see that there is a problem, but most will admit that we have issues we need to deal with. We disagree about solutions, but most admit the problems.
What the SBC needs today is a new Adrian Rogers. I know, I know, the SBC is about every one of us and not one man. I agree. But look in scriptures. When God was ready to do a work, He often called and prepared one man. The human race needed to preserved; it was Noah. God determined to save Israel; Moses saw a burning bush. The Philistines were oppressing Israel; David. The Judges. Elijah. When God is going something big, He often raises up a leader, one man to show God's people the way.
We need such a man today. We need a man of God who will come to the forefront and be the SBC statesman. Maybe, without the unifying force of the liberal threat, such a statesman is hard to find. But we need one still.
There are several characteristics that must be found in such a man.
1) He must be raised up by God. This is not a job you volunteer for, or apply for. God raises up the man at the right time.
2) He must be a man of conviction. A finger-in-the-wind leader will never get the job done. This must be a man of deep passion for the Word and for the convention.
3) He must be a man of grace. There were a number of vocal, very aggressive spokesmen for the conservative resurgence. They played their part but they could not be what Adrian was. He was able to gracious in the face of a campaign of insults and attacks. When he moderated a convention, he was firm, but gracious. He responded to personal attacks with grace.
4) He must be a kingdom man. I never got the impression that Adrian was defending himself or advancing his own cause. He was already at the top of the denominational ladder when 1979 rolled around. It never seemed like he was out for himself. He served the Kingdom of God and the Convention. You might disagree with him, but it was hard to cast him as a man of selfish motives. (Some tried, but they seemed, to me, silly in the effort.)
It may not be possible anymore. In 1979, we were united by a common goal - restore biblical orthodoxy to a denomination headed in the wrong direction. We did not have time to quibble about calvinism or PPL. If you believed in inerrancy, that was enough.
And this is certainly not an attempt at hagiography. I am sure Dr. Rogers had his failings and foibles like anyone else. I saw him leaving the Orlando convention after Jim Henry was elected and he looked like you could fry an egg on his forehead. (Don't know why, but I know that look!)
I believe the SBC needs some reforms. I think we need to refocus. The onus is on each of us, each person, each church to do our G0d-given job.
But, I believe we need a leader. "Moses" Rogers led us very well. But, where is Joshua?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Is It All About Wade?
The Southern Baptist Convention has been hit with some bad news in recent days. Our numbers are not encouraging. After a decade or so of plateaued numbers, we have finally had a year in which numbers actually declined - the first ever (or in a long time?). We also have competing versions of resolutions in favor of making sure our churches are filled with the redeemed, not the lost. They are essentially identical, except one calls for repentance over our history of reporting inflated numbers and the other doesn't.
And so the blogosphere is abuzz. About Wade Burleson! We are declining, so lets talk about Wade! That will solve things, won't it?
Wade continually blogs about the so-called "Baptist Identity" movement, casting them in a very negative light. He has engaged in several debates on various blogs recently with Bart Barber or Malcolm Yarnell. The Baptist Identity movement, it seems, is intent on narrowing the parameters of fellowship so severely that anyone who does not bow and kiss Paige Patterson's ring will be excluded from the denomination (I know, I am exaggerating, because I am frustrated).
And the Baptist Identity bloggers have gone to town! It always amusing when bloggers spew angry invective calling someone to repent for their angry invective. One blogger called for the garbage collector to come and carry off all of Wade's garbage. Another wrote a long, angry, hateful blog about Wade, comparing him to Communists and accusing him of the politics of personal destruction. He writes blustering, hate-filled blogs, and the point is confronting Wade's blustery hate. And he is totally incapable of seeing anything but Wade's sin and evil. These guys are totally obsessed with Wade. Everyone is either pro-Enid (where Wade pastors) or anti-Enid. I have been suspected of being a Wade worshipper because I thought some of their accusations were unkind or ungodly.
Recently, I received the stern rebuke of the Baron of the Blogosphere myself. I told a blogger I thought the wording of his attacks on Wade were over the top. Wade confronted me, saying that only he was allowed to respond to a blogger who blogged about him.
Wade Burleson was put in an historical position when he confronted the IMB Board of Trustees about their policies on private prayer language and baptism. He called attention to what I believe was a very bad set of policies. I will always be grateful that he stood and that he brought the narrowing of denominational fellowship to the attention of the denomination.
But, contrary to what several seem to believe, the problems in the SBC are not caused by Wade Burleson, and he is certainly NOT the solution to them. Our problems have nothing to do with him. He may have brought some problems to the forefront.
But we are not going to solve the problems in the SBC by talking about Wade Burleson. (I know, I am writing about him here - love the irony?).
We need to deal with issues that confront us. We do not need to argue about whether Wade is a modern day John the Baptist or another Rasputin.
John Lennon wrote the song, "Imagine," and dared to imagine a world without religions and borders. I imagine an SBC blogosphere that doesn't revolve around what Wade Burleson thinks or says. He can have his say, like anyone else. But it isn't about Wade.
I am going to do my little part. I probably should just leave the blogosphere behind. I am not sure what Kingdom purpose most of it serves. But I am going to keep interacting with Baptists who care about the future of the SBC. I am leaving the Wade-osphere behind (I know - who cares about what I am doing, right?). I may read Wade's blog from time to time to read his latest manifesto on Women in Ministry (should that be womanifesto?) or the evils of Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber. Its entertaining. I will keep reading Bart Barber until the day I get to nominate him for SBC President. But I am leaving the Obsessive Anti-Wade blogs behind. These poor folks bluster like a spring storm about Wade's bluster. They write angrily of his anger. Talking to them is pointless, because they believe that they are the ministers of justice, protecting the SBC from the Antichrist of Enid. They seem to care more about destroying Wade than correcting the Convention.
I have learned something recently. There are some really good blogs out there that don't center and focus on Wade.
Look for me on those.
And so the blogosphere is abuzz. About Wade Burleson! We are declining, so lets talk about Wade! That will solve things, won't it?
Wade continually blogs about the so-called "Baptist Identity" movement, casting them in a very negative light. He has engaged in several debates on various blogs recently with Bart Barber or Malcolm Yarnell. The Baptist Identity movement, it seems, is intent on narrowing the parameters of fellowship so severely that anyone who does not bow and kiss Paige Patterson's ring will be excluded from the denomination (I know, I am exaggerating, because I am frustrated).
And the Baptist Identity bloggers have gone to town! It always amusing when bloggers spew angry invective calling someone to repent for their angry invective. One blogger called for the garbage collector to come and carry off all of Wade's garbage. Another wrote a long, angry, hateful blog about Wade, comparing him to Communists and accusing him of the politics of personal destruction. He writes blustering, hate-filled blogs, and the point is confronting Wade's blustery hate. And he is totally incapable of seeing anything but Wade's sin and evil. These guys are totally obsessed with Wade. Everyone is either pro-Enid (where Wade pastors) or anti-Enid. I have been suspected of being a Wade worshipper because I thought some of their accusations were unkind or ungodly.
Recently, I received the stern rebuke of the Baron of the Blogosphere myself. I told a blogger I thought the wording of his attacks on Wade were over the top. Wade confronted me, saying that only he was allowed to respond to a blogger who blogged about him.
Wade Burleson was put in an historical position when he confronted the IMB Board of Trustees about their policies on private prayer language and baptism. He called attention to what I believe was a very bad set of policies. I will always be grateful that he stood and that he brought the narrowing of denominational fellowship to the attention of the denomination.
But, contrary to what several seem to believe, the problems in the SBC are not caused by Wade Burleson, and he is certainly NOT the solution to them. Our problems have nothing to do with him. He may have brought some problems to the forefront.
But we are not going to solve the problems in the SBC by talking about Wade Burleson. (I know, I am writing about him here - love the irony?).
We need to deal with issues that confront us. We do not need to argue about whether Wade is a modern day John the Baptist or another Rasputin.
John Lennon wrote the song, "Imagine," and dared to imagine a world without religions and borders. I imagine an SBC blogosphere that doesn't revolve around what Wade Burleson thinks or says. He can have his say, like anyone else. But it isn't about Wade.
I am going to do my little part. I probably should just leave the blogosphere behind. I am not sure what Kingdom purpose most of it serves. But I am going to keep interacting with Baptists who care about the future of the SBC. I am leaving the Wade-osphere behind (I know - who cares about what I am doing, right?). I may read Wade's blog from time to time to read his latest manifesto on Women in Ministry (should that be womanifesto?) or the evils of Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber. Its entertaining. I will keep reading Bart Barber until the day I get to nominate him for SBC President. But I am leaving the Obsessive Anti-Wade blogs behind. These poor folks bluster like a spring storm about Wade's bluster. They write angrily of his anger. Talking to them is pointless, because they believe that they are the ministers of justice, protecting the SBC from the Antichrist of Enid. They seem to care more about destroying Wade than correcting the Convention.
I have learned something recently. There are some really good blogs out there that don't center and focus on Wade.
Look for me on those.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
