This Tent's Just Right

Fighting Fire with Diplomacy!

2009-11-10T22:41:00.002-06:00

Thought you might be interested in this credible news report.

Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire

(Be careful - ONN has some links that are not appropriate)

A Question about Race in America

2009-10-15T00:23:00.003-05:00

I just read an AP article (http://news.aol.com/article/edwin-chandler-cleared-in-slaying/716286?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http://news.aol.com/article/edwin-chandler-cleared-in-slaying/716286) on AOL about Edwin Chandler who was exonerated on a 1993 murder after spending 9 years in jail. New evidence proved him to be innocent.

I am a conservative, law-and-order man. I love America and respect our law enforcement system.

But, here is my question: When is the last time you saw an article like this and the person it was about WASN'T black?

How many Edwin Chandlers are there out there in jail and the only crime they are really guilty of is having dark skin (or at least a primary contributing factor)?

I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that every time I read a story about someone being proven innocent after 10 or 15 years in jail, that man is black!

That cannot be a coincidence!

Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate

2009-09-16T10:04:00.005-05:00

Let me say two things at the start of this little tirade.

1) I am not a fan of Barack Obama. Not even a little. I have yet to find a policy area in which he and I agree. I do not believe that my opposition to the president has anything to do with his race.

2) I think Joe Wilson was way out of line to shout "You lie" during the president's recent address. That kind of thing usually causes a backlash and it has in this case. It was wrong and foolish to stray from civility.

But the backlash to Wilson's comments have become startling and open a can of worms I would like to address.

I think there is an attempt on the part of the American left to limit the ability of conservative Americans to dissent from the president's policies by playing the race card. The left wing has been making shrill accusations of their own, intimating that the motive for Wilson's statement and last week's "tea party" in DC was racial in nature.

Maureen Dowd began the foolishness on Sunday in the (surprise) New York Times when she wrote, "I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer ... had much to do with race, but Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president -- no Democrat ever shouted 'liar' at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in

Iraq

-- convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." She also wrote that Wilson "clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."

So, opposition to Obama is rooted in people not wanting to be told what to do by a black man? Does she have any evidence that Wilson is a racist? Does she offer any? In the absence of any evidence to support her claims, I am left with the conclusion that this is an ingenious way to stop people from dissenting from the president's viewpoints - a blatant attempt to intimidate the opposition. Note how she describes the opposition to the president's policy, "shrieking lunacy."

During the runup to Wilson's rebuke on the House floor this week, a Democrat from Georgia, Rep. Hank Johnson, accused Wilson of lending aid and comfort to the KKK. He warned that if Wilson did not receive a rebuke, people would don "white hoods and white uniforms again" and start "riding through the countryside." Here is his full comment. "He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks -- if I were a betting man I would say it instigated more racist sentiment. And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. ... That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it. He's the face of it."

Why is it that so often, calls to "civility" are only directed at one side. Interesting that Wilson was rebuked, but this kind of race-baiting charge is accepted without question.

The capper, of course, was the comment of that great Baptist statesman, held up as the model of virtue and civility, Jimmy Carter. He said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time ... and I think it's bubbled up to the surface, because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."

Again, he offers no evidence to support this harsh accusation. Opposition to the president is racially motivated because Jimmy says so.

Here is my thesis: the American left wants to intimidate the opposition into silence. If you do not support Barack Obama, you are a racist, even if you do not see it. You are supporting the efforts of the KKK and advancing racism in the land.

I say, do not listen. Do not be intimidated. If you do not like the policies of Barack Obama, speak out. Give reasoned, articulate expression to your opposition. Don't get angry and yell and shout - that just feeds into those who would play the race card to intimidate you. Do not let Jimmy Carter stop you from speaking out.

I do not care if Barack Obama is black or white. I care that he is plunging our nation into a debt load from which it may never recover. George W was criticized for driving the nation into huge debts in the order of about 400 billion a year. The debt next year is estimated to be 1.85 TRILLION dollars.

I do not want our nation's healthcare system to be socialized or even some kind of system like that. The government has not run anything well except an army (and sometimes, it has trouble with that).

My opposition to the president has little to do with the color of his skin. I oppose abortion, so I have to oppose Obama. I cannot understand why the government is giving people "cash for clunkers" when we are already drowning in debt. I think "cap and tax" is a bad idea.

If you like Obama, that is your right. I oppose his policies and the direction he wants to take America. And I will not let Jimmy Carter, Hank Johnson and Maureen Dowd intimidate me into silence by accusing me of racism.

It is about bad policies, not skin color.

(All the quotes here were pulled from news reports on the story)

Swine Flu Symptom Check - IMPORTANT

2009-08-29T20:34:00.001-05:00

If you wake up looking like this - get help!

WOW! Words of Wisdom from "Between the Times"

2009-08-19T10:54:00.002-05:00

If you only have time to read one blog (after you finish mine, of course) that blog almost certainly should be "Between the Times." I read something by Bruce Ashford on that blog today that was classic. He was talking about Christian Bookstores (I use the term loosely). Talking about Augustine, he said,

Another reason might be that the local bookstores don’t even have an Augustine section (True, Barnes & Noble and Borders carry books by Augustine, but Christian bookstores rarely do. The Christian stores are up to their necks in sales of Precious Moments figurines, tester tubes of anointing oil, boxes of Test-a-mints, and tee-shirts with inscriptions like “I’m Cross-Eyed.”)

Wow! Christian bookstores sell more Christian junk than they do serious books. Probably says something abou the tastes of modern Christians, right?

Blogging about Something Important: The New York Yankees

2009-08-13T17:03:00.002-05:00

Blogging about the SBC can get old. But blogging about the New York Yankees NEVER gets old. So, I've set up a new blog, for all you Yankee fans out there. We will devote ourselves to talking about the greatest single sports team in all of history, the New York Yankees, and their march to their 27th World Series Championship in 2009.

You are welcome to come and comment, though comments by Red Sox fans (even intelligent ones - if there is such a thing) may be deleted or ridiculed mercilessly by the blog administrator!

NAMB? Whatever.

Baptist Identity? Who Cares?

The New York Yankees - theres something we can rejoice about!

Here's the link: http://iowayankees.blogspot.com

Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC

2009-07-08T15:54:00.005-05:00

I have never been a fan of church splits. I have argued often for bloggers to seek unity rather than division in our discussion (and violated my own rules from time to time). But I think the current discussion and even disagreement among our convention leaders can be a healthy thing.

Press reports recently have showed that while Danny Akin, Al Mohler and most other leaders in the SBC are gung-ho behind the Great Commission Resurgence, Morris Chapman and several other denominational leaders are either opposing it or raising serious questions about it. My own state exec (Jimmy Barrentine - best exec in the USA)sent a letter that was critical of much of the rhetoric surrounding the GCR declaration. I am fully supportive of the GCR, but those who are not should have their say and be heard by all of us.

Put me down as someone who believes this is all healthy. I don't want the executives or denominational servants marching in lock step or having secret discussions behind closed doors. If Danny Akin is for something and Morris Chapman is against it, lets have a healthy debate! If the GCR is of God, as I believe, the Spirit will guide us through the discussion to a healthy and unified conclusion.

The last thing we need to do is stifle dissent in any way, even amongst our leaders.

As long as we keep our conversation godly and our spirits in check, that discussion is healthy. As long as we do not slander, backbite or treat one another disdainfully, the discussion will provoke us to love and good deeds.

I just hope it doesn't become another us against them thing. Jimmy Barrentine and I do not see eye to eye on this, evidently (haven't talked to him about it). But he is an "us" not a "them." Morris Chapman is "us" - even as a Calvinist I can say that.

So, I say, let the debate continue. I think it is healthy for all of us.

The Best Preaching Ever?

2009-05-23T21:04:00.003-05:00

You've probably heard this before, but this is what preaching is supposed to be!

Adam Lambert, Kris Allen, and the Art of Preaching

2009-05-21T21:55:00.003-05:00

My sixteen-year-old daughter got me hooked on American Idol this year. I just used to watch the try-out shows when people who shouldn't sing in the church choir embarrassed themselves for my amusement. But this year, Bethany (and a DVR) got me watching all but a couple of episodes.

Last night, an amazing thing happened. The underdog, Kris Allen, pulled off the upset and beat the heavily favored Adam Lambert. Today, post-mortem examinations are being done. Many are criticizing the choice and are trying to figure out how this could happen.

I have a theory. Adam is an amazing singer. He is a once in a generation talent. But there was always a sense that he was "in character" - acting out a certain role. About the only thing Simon ever criticized him for was being over-dramatic. He's polished, but plastic. He amazed, but did not connect.

Kris is also a talented singer. His church in Conroy was blessed to have him on the worship team. But, he probably was not the talented singer that Adam was. But he connected. You felt like he was real, an average guy with golden pipes. He did not seem to be acting a part, but was just being his own talented self.

That's my armchair analysis. Kris won because he connected with people, because voters sensed his authenticity, integrity, and reality. He was himself and we liked that.

Now, what does that have to do with preaching? I believe that it is important when we proclaim God's Word that we do more than just give an eloquent pulpit performance. We should study and prepare to accurately communicate the Word. But we also need to be real. We need to communicate God's truth with integrity and authenticity.

I've seen a lot of Adam Lamberts in the pulpit - people with amazing homiletic skills, but you didn't sense it was real. We need to strive to preach Kris Allen messages - the simple truths of God's Word from real men with real struggles in real lives.

The Mother Of All Baptists

2009-04-29T10:09:00.007-05:00

Baptists like to trace their history back to New Testament days. The unbroken line of baptistic groups is called “The Trail of Blood.” Recently, as I read my Bible, I discovered the actual origin of Baptists. No, it was not John the Baptist, or the Apostle Paul. I am convinced the roots of Baptist life can be found in Martha, sister of Lazarus and Mary; the Mother of All Baptists.

First, she was more comfortable with working for Him than waiting on Him. While Mary, probably a proto-charismatic, was sitting at the feet of Jesus basking in His presence, Martha was in the kitchen frying the chicken, and getting the Styrofoam plates and plastic forks ready. We have always been an active bunch, we Baptists. We are the worker bees of the Kingdom. Often, like Martha, we are more comfortable working for the Lord than walking with Him. As one denominational leader said, “Get out there and do something for God. Whatever. It doesn’t matter. Just do something.”

But notice something else in John 11:24. Martha’s brother Lazarus was dead and buried four days earlier. Finally, Jesus showed up. Martha thought he was running late, but Jesus was right on time. She gently remonstrated him, “If you had been here, he would not have died.” Then Jesus told her that her brother would rise again. She nodded and said, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

The mother of all Baptists. She believed in Jesus, and in His power to save souls and raise the dead. She just did not believe He would do it today. We believe in the finished work of Christ for the salvation of souls, and in the certainty of heaven, the resurrection, and eternal life. We have charts detailing the end times. We just struggle with believing that God will work His power in our lives today. We are great with the beginning and the ending of the Christian life, but can be a little challenged in between.

But, wonder of wonders, Jesus still loved Martha the Baptist. He told her who He was, and she believed Him. “I believe you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.” The Mother of All Baptists knew the Word, and confessed Jesus without shame or doubt.

But she was still the Mother of All Baptists. When they got to the tomb, Jesus told them to roll the stone away. “But, Lord,” Martha said. “That’s not the way we do things.” As the King James says, “Lo, he stinketh.” It is hard for us to step out of the normal and expected, the proper and respectable, to follow Jesus in a walk of faith. Jesus gave them a strange command. Roll away the stone. Sometimes, Jesus calls us to strange and difficult things. There is always that difficult step of obedience. We want God to open the door, then we will walk through. God calls us to walk through the door, trusting Him that it will open before we run into it. God told Israel to walk into the Jordan and then He would stop the river. We stand on the banks saying, “God, if you will stop this thing, I will walk through it.”

But God still worked. He showed His awesome power to the Mother of All Baptists. Is there any miracle greater than the raising of the dead? God raised Lazarus from death, and showed Martha that His power is still real. May we know His awesome power, and His presence.

Like our Mother, Martha.

Jonathan Merritt is Right! Unfair Attacks from Baptist Bloggers

2009-04-23T14:59:00.002-05:00

It is my opinion that Jonathan Merritt has been the subject of unfair and unwarranted attacks by a few Baptist bloggers. He drew their ire, and subsequently their “friendly fire” because of an article he wrote that was printed in USA Today on April 20, 2009. In that article, he called evangelical Christians to task for their unloving, dismissive and un-Christlike treatment of homosexuals. He was careful to state that he regarded homosexual behavior as sinful and did not support gay marriage. He advocated loving actions to demonstrate to homosexuals the love that we Christians claim to have when we say that we “hate the sin and love the sinner.”

I only read the article after I had read a couple of blogs that had dealt pretty harshly with his article. I was disappointed that the son of a respected SBC leader would write the kind of compromising, unbiblical things that he evidently wrote. Then, I read his article. It is my opinion that what Jonathan Merritt wrote is godly, biblical and true. It is my further assertion that his rebukers (one in particular) have either willfully or negligently misread his statements and have leveled unwarranted and unfair attacks on him. I believe they should honestly and openly reread what Mr. Merritt has written, revise their false statements and apologize to him for misrepresenting what he said.

I do not know Jonathan Merritt and have certainly do not speak for him. I suspect he is well capable of defending himself. However, I have seen the tendency among some bloggers to attack without understanding, to fail to understand doctrinal or ethical subtlety and to level false charges based on their misunderstandings. I believe that such has happened here.

We cannot avoid the subject of homosexuality. We must deal with it biblically – both in our stand for the truth and in our response to those who are tempted by this sin.

One thing I found particularly interesting is that Jonathan Merritt’s view is very similar to Tim Guthrie’s (Welcome to SBC Today) and to Wes Kenney’s (SBC Today) viewpoints. They all expressed essentially the same thing. I share the viewpoints that all three expressed. We believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. We all believe that we must learn to stand for truth clearly and without compromise while demonstrating love to those who struggle with this sin. The only reason that Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Kenney leveled charges against Mr. Merritt is because they misread and misunderstood what he said. They are, essentially, attacking Mr. Merritt for holding the same viewpoint that they have, because they did not read what he wrote carefully, misunderstood, and jump to condemnatory conclusions based on their misunderstandings.

I would like to examine what all three have said. By the time I get this up, perhaps others will have weighed in. But I will deal first of all with what Jonathan Merritt said, then with what Tim and Wes said about his review. Each title will be linked to the original article. I would encourage you to read the originals, to see that I am fairly representing the thought as I make my points.

“An Evangelical’s Plea: Love the Sinner” by Jonathan Merritt

The offending article appeared in the Opinion section of USA Today.com on Monday. Mr. Merritt is described as a faith and culture writer and as a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative. Tim Guthrie rightly states that it would have been helpful if Mr. Merritt had made it clear that he did not represent or speak for Southern Baptists, an impression that his designation as a spokesman for an organization with the words Southern Baptist in the title could falsely give.

He makes the following major points:

1) That older evangelicals leaders engaged in harsh, even unkind rhetoric toward homosexuals. He asserts that evangelical opposition to the homosexual agenda has been “vitriolic and unbalanced by a message of love for our gay neighbors.”

2) He asserts that the rhetoric and behavior of American Christians is in stark contrast to that of Jesus Christ, who was a “friend of sinners.” He states that many Christians “live in opposition to the teachings of our Lord.” He uses 1 Corinthians 13 as a definition of love and claims that our actions toward homosexuals have often not met that standard.

3) He makes it very clear that he does not and will not compromise biblical truth. He believes that homosexual behavior is sin and that he opposes redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexual marriage.

4) He does advocate non-discrimination against homosexuals in legal matters not involving marriage. Should secular workplaces be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians? Should homosexual partners have visitation and inheritance rights? Merritt would say yes.

His point, I think, is that we have put homosexuality into a special class of sin. We would not discriminate on the basis of heterosexual immorality in these things. Why should we make homosexual orientation a special class?

It is this point (and, I believe, the misunderstanding of his point) that opened the door to many of the attacks against his position.

5) He makes the point that younger Christians, more likely to have homosexual friends than older Christians, also demonstrate a greater tendency to show love to homosexuals.

His concluding paragraph includes these words: “Now is the time for those who bear the name of Jesus Christ to stop merely talking about love and start showing love to our gay and lesbian neighbors. It must be concrete and tangible. It must love beyond cheap rhetoric.”

It is clear that he is challenging evangelicals to a new attitude toward the homosexual community, but that he does not advocate changing our basic beliefs about homosexual behavior being a sin.

“SBC Today” Hate the Spin, by Wes Kenney

Wes Kenney wrote an article professing to hate the “spin” that Mr. Merritt put on the issue, while still loving the “spinner.” I always respect a good play on words, but I am afraid that Wes demonstrates a tendency (also seen in Tim’s articles) to misinterpret what was written and to draw false inferences from that misinterpretation, then to criticize Merritt based on his own misunderstanding of Merritt’s points.

Wes writes a forthright criticism, written in a graceful spirit, with one exception. My biggest problem with him is that I think he fails to understand what was written. He just needs to make an effort to read and understand before he criticizes.

I would point out the following about Wes’ article.

1) Again, he affirms the same view of homosexuality as Jonathan Merritt. His criticisms are directed more against his own misunderstandings than against what Merritt wrote.

2) Wes engages in pejorative in an unacceptable way. He describes Merritt’s writing as “spin.” That implies, deceit, false presentation of facts, designed to lead people away from truth. That is a harsh criticism. He also accuses Merritt of a willingness to “compromise biblical definitions of sin and salvation.” That is serious!

3) He criticizes Merritt for the quotes of evangelical luminaries.

4) He bases his second criticism on a factual error. Merritt quotes a Barna statistic that 80% of Christians are confusing. Kenney adds the words, “on this issue” to the statistic, then criticizes on that basis. This is, to me, indicative of his tendency here to jump to conclusions and not to read carefully. His criticism can only be described as spin, on that basis.

5) He insinuates serious and significant heresy (or doctrinal failure, at least) on Merritt’s part because he advocates non-discrimination against homosexuals in employment and other issues. He calls that normalization and implies that Merritt is helping to make the commission of homosexual sin easier by his viewpoint.

I would ask some questions of Wes Kenney. Do you believe that it will help our mission to homosexuals to maintain laws that would discriminate against homosexuals in matters of employment, housing, visitation rights, etc? Should we apply those same principles to heterosexual immorality?

I believe that anyone who reads Merritt and clearly understands him will read Kenney’s criticism and recognize it as unfair.

Again, I state that if you gave a series of questions about homosexuality to Kenney and Merritt, their answers would be very similar. Their viewpoints are remarkably similar. Kenney misunderstandings led to false inferences and unfair accusations.

“Welcome to SBC Today” Merritt and ACLU on the Same Page, by Tim Guthrie

The graceful spirit of Wes Kenney is largely absent in Tim’s post. He grossly misrepresents Merritt’s position and engages in a common tactic, “guilt by association.” It is not a post worthy of a preacher of Tim’s quality. Tim levels four specific charges against Merritt. Again, I make the following points about the article.

1) The whole “Merritt and the ACLU agree” argument is ridiculous, absurd, even shameful. The ACLU would in no way support Jonathan Merritt’s viewpoint that homosexuality is a sin. This is guilt by association at its worst. It is a shameful smear. Enough said. He also tends to engage in pejorative, labeling Merritt’s views as “dangerous” in terms of biblical understanding and application.

2) The first charge, again, is a complete misunderstanding of Merritt on Guthrie’s part. He criticizes Merritt for something he just does not say. He accuses Merritt of advocating that “Love should cause us to defend the normalization of the homosexual agenda.” Merritt doesn’t say that. Again, all he says is that gays and lesbians should receive basic protections under the law, something I imagine that Guthrie would support if he was willing to understand what Merritt was saying.

3) His second criticism is of Merritt’s view of the law. It is another misunderstanding of what Merritt was saying. I suspect that Merritt would agree with Tim’s point about Jesus fulfilling the law, not negating it.

4) Tim’s third criticism is a blatant misquote and factual misrepresentation (I will assume it is based on misunderstanding, not intentional deceit.) Tim says, “He seems to equate our command to love with a mandate to ‘affirm or endorse.’” He leaves the idea that Merritt advocates the affirmation of the gay agenda. That is simply not true. All you have to do is read the quote that follows to see that Tim got it wrong.

Merritt advocates that we “begin looking for ways to affirm, rather than undermine, our claims to love our gay neighbors.” He is not talking about affirming the gay lifestyle, but letting our actions affirm our claim to love gays.

Tim’s criticism therefore is unfair because his analysis is flawed.

5) His last criticism is of the byline I mentioned above, which might give the idea that Merritt represents the SBC in his opinions. I wish that Merritt’s opinion was universally held in the SBC, but Tim is right that the byline might give a false impression. All of us should be careful to make issues like this clear.

Again, I consider Tim’s use of the ACLU article inaccurate and a shameful smear of a brother in Christ, one that cries out for repentance, not critique.

Conclusion

Again, I think if you had Tim Guthrie, Wes Kenney, Jonathan Merritt and Dave Miller in one room and asked us a series of questions about homosexuality, we would give the same answers in unison.

Is homosexual behavior a sin? Four voices answer yes in unison.
Should the church treat homosexuals with love? Four voices answer yes in unison.
Should Christians be mean, demeaning to homosexuals? Four voices answer no in unison.
Should the church uphold truth even in the face of cultural opposition? Four voices answer yes in unison.
Should gays and lesbians be singled out for discrimination in matters of employment and other basic civil rights? Four voices answer no in unison.
Should we redefine marriage to include two men or two women? Four voices answer no in unison.

Why, then, do we have this debate? Because Wes and Tim failed to read carefully and understand what a brother wrote. They jumped to false conclusions and therefore made false accusations.

NOTE: I just noticed another voice chiming in to criticize Merritt (again, for the nomenclature issue). At some point, aren’t we just piling on?

That’s my read. What say you?

Patterson, Burleson and the CR: Answering a Thoughtful Question

2009-04-15T14:34:00.005-05:00

Ron West asked a long and thoughtful question on my last post. Instead of answering it with a lengthy comment, I will respond with a new post. If you are interested in this, you might begin by reading both my previous post and Ron’s question (comment 11). I am going to answer his questions directly. I invite Ron and others to respond – hopefully in the same spirit Ron has exhibited.

First, Ron, thank you for the opportunity to dialogue. I know that you and I have some completely different perspectives on some of the CR issues, but the way you asked questions and responded to what I wrote deserved a response.

I will be as direct as I can be and brutally honest in answer to your question. I suspect that I will have no friends left among those who read this post.

Perspectives on the CR

As to the CR, it is probable that we will never agree on the facts of the CR. History can almost always be interpreted multiple ways. I look at the fall of the Berlin wall and think, “Ronald Reagan was amazing.” Liberals credit Gorbachev or other factors. It’s the nature of historical debate. I would offer the following perspectives.

1) The main difference between us, I think, is that I believe there was a real theological drift in the 70's, and you do not. Therefore, I believe the CR was necessary. You do not. Would you agree?

I went to a Baptist college and seminary. I saw the leftward drift firsthand. The Hebrew prof at my college said that Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed were just “different flags under which God flies his name.” When my school pushed him out, he went to teach at Midwestern. Belief in the substitutionary death of Christ, the existence of Satan, the supernatural nature of the Bible – all these were not just denied, they were ridiculed. I remember one of my profs leaning over my desk shouting at me, “You mean you actually believe that?” (So much for the vaunted “academic freedom.”) He went on to be a leader in founding of moderate seminaries as the CR progressed. My preaching prof at SWBTS’s doctoral thesis was written against the doctrine of inerrancy.

I lived it. I saw liberalism firsthand. I cannot speak for Paige Patterson, but for me, the CR was about doctrine. I did not want what I learned in my Baptist education to continue to spread.

2) I think that moderates have done a fair amount of historical revisionism looking back at the CR.

The “myth of the mean fundamentalists” is a great example. The rhetoric of the moderates, their political acumen, was no different than the conservatives. The only difference is that there were more of us, so they spent the next 20 years painting themselves as the victims of the conspiracy of the power-hungry mean-spirited fundamentalists. I see that as a myth.

Another myth was that Russell Dilday was a conservative. I went to school during his tenure. He was advocating something called “limited inerrancy.” What on earth is that. The Bible is either errant or inerrant. How can there be any such thing as a limited inerrancy? He was not a classic liberal in the general theological world, but he was hardly a conservative either.

3) The biggest flaw I saw in the CR was the tendency to judge people’s theology on the basis of how they voted in the CR. On this one, you and I agree totally.

I think there were three general groups of people. First, there were conservative Southern Baptists who supported the CR. Second there were liberals and true moderates who were undermining the doctrines we have held dear. One conservative leader estimated that at only 5% or less of the denomination. The third group was made up of biblical conservatives who would not support the CR but sided with the moderates politically.

My quarrel with the CR was that we should have reached out to the Winfred Moores, the Dan Vestals, the Richard Jacksons and made a place for them. They were conservative men who for one reason or another did not join the conservative cause. Many in the CR called their THEOLOGY into question because of their denominational POLITICS. I thought that was wrong (and said so then).

You mentioned Dr. Cauthen and Keith Parks. Dr. Cauthen was pretty much out of the way before the CR. Dr. Parks was in charge during the CR. Without saying too much, my father was heavily involved in the FMB at the end of the Parks era. Dr. Parks’ problems with the board were not so much theological as they were practical. It was a power-struggle.

However, he would be a good example of the kind of man I am talking about. Conservative, but politically-aligned moderate.

On the other hand, it is natural for the leaders of the CR to be a little reluctant to work with men like Dilday and Parks and others who said harsh, belittling things about the CR and engaged in what I consider to be character-assassination of its leaders. Should they have been more gracious when they came to power? Yes. But was it natural for them to want leaders in boards and agencies that were supportive of the cause? Yes.

So, on that point, I think we are in complete agreement, except that I would see the problem as two-sided, not just one-sided.

4) God uses flawed people to do his work. If it were not so, his work would never get done. I do not say that Adrian Rogers was perfect. Or Paige Patterson. In fact, I am sure they had their flaws.

I have a theory about megachurch pastors. You can’t be a successful megachurch pastor without some kind of ego, or self-confidence, or messianic complex or whatever. Those men are driven, self-confident, CEO-types. From what heard and read, so were the moderate men I mentioned above.

Throughout the Bible, God used flawed men to do his work and I think that is what he did with the CR. Our denomination needed theological reformation and God accomplished that using men who were there. Not perfect men. Sinful, flawed men.

But, see #2 above. The idea of the godly, innocent, couldn’t-care-less-about power moderate leaders is a myth, in my understanding. They acted to protect their power and crush the CR.

5) All of us need to learn that in Kingdom work, the means is as important as the end.

I said that often at conventions (never publicly, I was a young, nobody, Virginia pastor). I wish that the CR leaders had checked their tongues and been as careful about their means as they were of their ends.

6) The CR got off track when we won. I think that since 1995 or so, Paige Patterson has had an overall detrimental effect on the SBC. I do not like his campaign to rid the SBC of Dr. Rankin or his promotion of what I consider to be extreme doctrines such as Malcolm Yarnell advocates.

7) I view the GCR being advocated now by Danny Akin and others largely associated with the SEBTS to be the corrective, restoring the noble purposes of the CR. Dr. Patterson and some powerful leaders may have gotten off-track, but the GCR is putting us back where we need to be. Too little, too late? I hope and pray not.

Regarding Wade Burleson

It can hardly be argued, Ron, that Wade has not drifted to the left in terms of convention politics. He was a firebrand political conservative at one point. He now spends every blogging moment he has trashing (well, er...defending us against the evil of) SWBTS, Paige Patterson, and anyone else in power in the SBC.

Has he drifted in terms of theology? I don’t know. I would guess there would have been a day when the author of “The Shack” would not have been given his pulpit. I don’t really know Wade’s theology. Wade has spoken of his own evolution on certain issues. I think there is ample evidence to assert that theological shift has occurred.

Here’s the plain fact, Ron. I don’t care. You are thankful for him and see hope in the SBC because of him. I would, of course, disagree. Wade has made himself meaningless in the SBC debate. Outside of the few people who comment anonymously on his blog, I know of no one who really respects him or takes him seriously. He has made himself popular among the remnants of the moderate movement, in the CBF, and among those who feel disenfranchised by the CR.

For a long time, I supported him. I defended him. I wrote letters to John Floyd and Tom Hatley asking that they reverse their policies and their persecution of Wade. But I came to the point where I could no longer support him. I will not give my reasons on a public blog, but suffice it to say I do not believe he has either noble motives nor means in what he is doing.

I tried debating with him on his site. But the champion of “dissent” does not really foster open debate. He questions the spiritual motives and character of those who disagree with him. His gallery of anonymous hit-bloggers attacks anyone who disagrees with Wade. I honestly tried to engage on his site, but reasonable discussion is impossible on that site, if you disagree with Wade.
So, I just disengaged. I do not comment there and deleted his blog from my Google reader. It is amazing how much more enjoyable blogging is when you just leave “Grace and Truth to You” behind. By the way, I did the same thing with the anti-Wade BI sites. I see no difference between the moral quality of what Wade is doing and what they do. Its all the same blogging mud-slinging to me. And blogging is so much more fun when you just ignore both sides in that nonsense.

Is he conservative? I do not know and really don’t care anymore. I am trying to move into a Wade-free blogging world. I only gave this response because you asked about previous comments I had made.

Honestly, there was a time two years ago when Wade was a key figure. Had he chosen a different course and tactic, I think he could have substantially and positively impacted the SBC. But now, I think he is essentially irrelevant to any discussion of the future of the SBC.

Again, Ron, thank you for your questions and comments. I look forward to an honest dialogue with you. I have been as brutally honest as I could be. I encourage you to do the same. I will enjoy the dialogue.

I would love to meet you. I think you and I would probably agree on far more things than we disagree on.

New Leaders for a Resurgent SBC

2009-04-02T12:39:00.004-05:00

I got involved in blogging several years ago because I was concerned about what was happening with some of our SBC leaders. I am a big fan of Jerry Rankin and I did not like what I perceived to be an orchestrated move to push him out with the new (and silly) policies that were adopted there. There was a momentum for change among some of the young pastors and leaders in the convention. I do not qualify as young but I supported the need for reform in the SBC and the need to oppose the wrong direction many were forging - what has come to be known as Baptist Identity. There are noble proponents of that philosophy (as well as some stinkers) but I am convinced their direction is wrong for our convention.

The problem is that the "reform" movement didn't really have a noble leader. When it was time for the Conservative Resurgence, God raised up Adrian Rogers to lead us. He was neither perfect nor divine, but he was a statesman, a leader who seemed to have more than building a name for himself at heart, a leader who inspired others to follow, a leader who remained relentlessly gracious in the face of opposition. The reform movement had no such leader. It fractured and dwindled.

The biggest problem with the reform movement was that some of its leaders quickly subverted the conservative resurgence. I (and I think many others) wanted to reform the conservative SBC. However, many of the reform leaders have rejected the CR and denigrated its purposes and effects.

I will always be thankful for the leadership of Dr. Patterson in the CR. I think his leadership at SWBTS has been questionable at best. I think there are a lot of us who have this nuanced view - that we appreciate the CR but are suspect of the extremist views of some BI proponents. We want a conservative, but not rigid, legalistic, landmark or extremist denomination.

The reform movement floundered because there was no inspirational, motivational leader to rally us.

But, in recent months, there has been a new awakening. I read Alvin Reid's article "Tipping Point" on Between the Times. I can only hope and pray that the vision he articulates will win the day in the SBC. It seems that Southeastern Seminary is being raised up as a place for those of us who do not want to reject the CR but also do not want to buy into the BI movement. Instead of railing against each other about Calvinist/non-Calvinist idealogy, they did something unique. Nathan Finn and Alvin Reid wrote a series of articles on how a committed Calvinist and a committed non-Calvinist could co-exist. Southeastern is living that. They do not have a hard-core Calvinist Abstract, nor the militant anti-Calvinism that Dr. Patterson sometimes seems to exhibit. They are living together, modeling how it can be done.

Dr. Akin has spearheaded the "Great Commission Resurgence" movement which is providing some direction for our denomination as it faces the future.

My hope is that this movement to reform the SBC along committed conservative lines will continue to gather steam. They are committed to building up the SBC, not tearing it down as some blogs seem committed to doing. They are committed to focusing on reaching the lost, not on replicating one view of Baptist Identity.

I wish I was younger and could attend SEBTS. What a blessing that would be. I am so encouraged that God is raising up men such as these I have mentioned, and several others, who may be putting the SBC back on track to being the noble Great Commission denomination that it can be.

I am more hopeful about the future of the SBC than I have been in a long time.

The Blogging Gulag: Addition by Subtraction

2009-03-18T23:36:00.003-05:00

I used to spend most of my blogging time on about 4 or 5 blog sites. I got into blogging because of the IMB controversy, and most of the sites I visited dealt with those SBC issues. I am passionate about the issues, but I would get so disgusted at the level of conversation and frustrated at the lack of real conversation. I wrongly assumed this was the sum total of Baptist blogging.

It has been an eye-opening experience and a blessing to find that those strife-producing, name-calling, anger-inducing sites are not all there is out there. There are real sites where people deal with real topics; where there is intelligent discussion of difficult issues with grace and kindness.

Of course, I think SBC Impact is the best of those sites. I'm probably a little prejudiced. But there are several others. SBC Voices not only has some great articles, it has the links to so many good blogs (and the stinkers as well). Bart Barber always makes me think, and only rarely makes me mad. Timmy Brister is also thought-provoking and there have been some really good comment exchanges there. Ed Stetzer has loads of stuff for me to learn and everyone ought to read "Between the Times" - even if they make me crazy by not allowing comments. There is a whole world of good blogs I didn't know existed. (I know, its my stupidity, but lets ignore that).

So, I have created my own blogging gulag. I have banished the petty arguers to Gulag Millerpeligo. I just stopped going there. I deleted them from my feed. And now, my blood pressure has dropped 20 points and I no longer see red as often. It is a liberating experience.

I don't have to read every wild accusation lodged against Dr. Patterson or those with traditional views of gender roles. I don't have to read the insulters who respond to the insults of Dr. P by insulting the original insulter. I am surviving without my daily dose of anti-SBC vitriol. Neither do I have to live in a Mad, Mad, Mad world or watch anyone Splat! Splat! anyone else. All I had to do was walk away.

Here's the thing I realized. These sites accomplish nothing. They insult each other and others. they harp and rail - and NOTHING changes.

I'm so glad there are better blogs. It has been a blessing to find them.

I wonder why I didn't figure this out sooner? After all, my IQ is well above 80.

Thorns on a Rose: An Analysis of Dr. Yarnell’s Sermon

2009-02-27T10:55:00.002-06:00

On SBC Tomorrow, Peter Lumpkins wrote a strong rebuke to Tom Ascol’s review of Dr. Malcolm Yarnell’s sermons at SWBTS on October 31, 2008. Peter had sharp criticism for the Founders’ position that the viewpoint presented by Dr. Yarnell was “dangerous to biblical Christianity.”

There is no doubt that this was a strong criticism. To say, “I disagree” is one thing. To challenge a view as “dangerous to biblical Christianity” is a weighty accusation. Tom Ascol thinks that it is a justified rebuke. Peter does not.

As I read the quotes, I was a little bit concerned. The things that Dr. Yarnell said in the quotes bothered me, but I know that a quote pulled from a 41 minute sermon may not represent that sermon accurately at all. So, I decided to listen to the sermon and make sure what Dr. Yarnell actually said.

The title above is a summary of what I think about this sermon. It is an amazing exposition of the Lordship of Christ, one which every Christian would do well to hear and heed. However, there are a couple of quotes, one at the beginning and one near the end that present, to me, some thorny problems.

The Rose

The sermon is 41 minutes long and is an exposition of Matthew 7:21-23. In that passage, people at the judgment claim to have served the Lord but are cast away because, “I never knew you.”

Dr. Yarnell draws three points, essentials of Christianity. It is essential to confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This section is fantastic. He explains the simple statement “Jesus Lord” – the confession of early Christianity. Jesus is the human Lord, the divine Lord, the universal Lord and the unique Lord.

He then goes on to talk about the essential of doing the will of God. Those of the reformed persuasion might not like everything in here, but all will agree with the essentials of what he says. He says that confession must lead to obedience. “Creeds without deeds” he says are empty and pointless. He tends to present the reformers (and those who follow them today) as more interested in confession than obedience, and presents the free, congregational churches as the more obedient. That will, of course, not please the Founders. But, the truth is clear. True faith in Christ will produce a walk of obedience to the will of God revealed in the Word of God.

He then, briefly deals with the third essential. Confessing and doing are not enough. We must be “known” by God. It is a personal relationship, not just doctrine or duty that is required.

I do not think anyone could be anything but blessed by the truths he presents here. Obviously, Calvinists will quarrel with his depiction of the reformers as confessors only and the Baptists as confessors and doers. But the point he made there still stands.

The Thorns

There were two quotes that cause me some difficulty in this powerful sermon. The first took place about 3:38 into the message. I have a minor disagreement with some things he said in that quote. The second was in the conclusion to the sermon, starting at about 34:11. This one contains the statement that Tom Ascol found dangerous. It is deeply troubling to me as well.

I will give each section completely. I listened a couple of times through after I transcribed the quotes and I think they are pretty accurate. I edited nothing out (at least not on purpose). I will present each quote and my concerns about it.

First Quote (3:38)

Dr. Yarnell said, “Baptizing, free churches are unique in that their understanding of reformation chooses as the ideal as the form, not something out of post-biblical history, but the New Testament itself. As a New Testament Christian, I reject all but the ideal form of the church commanded by Jesus Christ in the NT revelation. Why? Because the Lordship of Jesus Christ is the essential basis of Christianity. Some of these other reformations bring us to perhaps penultimate forms of Christianity, but only the New Testament, the very Word of God brings us to the ultimate form of Christianity. In comparison to the goal of the baptizing free churches the other reformations are inevitably bound for failure for they have adopted the wrong form of the church”

In the introduction, he makes the point that Reformers have tended to use the church of the 16th Century, or the Synod of Dort, or the Puritans as the gold standard for the church. He distinguishes the “baptizing free churches” as the only ones who appeal to the New Testament as the standard for the church. He later makes this statement, “New Testament congregationalism (which) is the only biblical form of Church governance.

I am Baptist by conviction, but I guess I have not come to the place of being quite as convinced that we are the only representation of the New Testament church or that congregationalism is the only acceptable form of church government as he has.

His confidence may reflect that he understands the Bible and theology better than I do (something on which there is probably little doubt) or that he is (in my opinion) making a universal pronouncement on an issue in which the biblical evidence does not support such dogmatism.

But, this section forms the basis of the second, more controversial statement that he will make. He is so utterly convinced that “free, baptizing congregationalism” is the only biblical form of government, and that baptism by immersion is essential to Christian living that anyone who disagrees with these is not walking in obedience to Christ. Since his sermon is about Christ’s Lordship, such disobedience cannot be overlooked. How can one walk in obedience to Christ and reject this crystal clear vision of the church?

Second Quote (34:11)

This is the one that has fanned the flames.

“Christ commanded believers to be baptized after they become disciples. Those who change the Lord’s order disobey him. They work against his will. The one who knowingly works against his will will be judged by him. In other words, baptism, true Christian baptism, not the invention of baby baptism, baptism is for believers to obey. That’s why he included it in the Great Commission. You can’t separate the making of a disciple from proper baptism. If confessing Jesus as Lord, is essential, if knowing Jesus is Lord is essential, if doing the will of the Lord is essential, then NT obedience to Jesus Christ as he reveals himself here – that’s essential too.

You cannot perform theological triage on the Lordship of Jesus Christ without severing his will into pieces and picking and choosing what you want to do. You will find out what he says and you will do it all because you know your life is totally dependent on him. NT Christianity has no secondary doctrines when it comes to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That’s why I say baptism is not secondary nor is it tertiary, it is essential.

Now, does that mean that baptism saves you? NO. But if you are saved, you will obey and you will be baptized according to Christian baptism, not according to something of your own invention.”

The key statement is question here is in the last paragraph. “But if you are saved, you will obey and you will be baptized according to Christian baptism (Baptist).” Dr. Ascol read this as a statement questioning the salvation of those who have not received Baptist baptism, and called the statement dangerous on that basis.

My opinion will probably please no one. I cannot imagine that Dr. Yarnell really questions the salvation of those who have not received Baptist baptism. However, his statement certainly does lead one to believe that.

We can all, in a sermon, say something that will be misread and misinterpreted. I hope that is what is happening here. Does he really believe what is seems this statement implies? I hope not.

He anticipates one question: does baptism save? He answers that forcefully. But he does not answer the more pressing question. “Are you saying that there is something fundamentally flawed in the salvation of someone who does not receive Baptist baptism?” (By the way, I am using Baptist baptism to refer to baptism of believers by immersion, not to mean baptism in a certain denominational church – just to clarify.)

He says, “If you are saved, you will…” Not should, or ought to, but will! This clearly implies that if you do not do what is expected – Baptist baptism – then you have not been saved.

I think that is a fair interpretation of Yarnell’s statement. Is it what he intended? I have to believe it is not. Is it a logical inference from his words? I think it is.

So, to the Founders’ criticism of Dr. Yarnell, I would say two things. First, they are right. The concept that is presented by Dr. Yarnell’s words would be dangerous to biblical Christianity. However, I think that it is also clear that he did not intend to say that those who are not biblically baptized are not saved.

I could only hope that Dr. Yarnell would clarify his meaning. Then, we could know whether Ascol’s criticism is valid.

Conclusion

The ultimate point of the Founders’ article is beyond assail, though, in my opinion. There can be little doubt that Dr. Yarnell’s approach is vastly different than Dr. Mohler’s theological triage idea. There are, in fact, two visions competing for the attention of Southern Baptists.

Dr. Mohler classifies doctrine germaine to salvation as primary, that which is essential to the denomination as secondary, and other doctrines as tertiary. Dr. Yarnell rejects this and claims that all doctrine related to ecclesiology and polity is a manifestation of the Lordship of Christ, therefore primary.

I have picked my side in this conflict long ago. But, while I disagree with Dr. Yarnell’s vision, I do not think he meant to say that unbaptized people are not really believers. I could wish that he would clarify the statement, but I do not know if that will happen.

I encourage everyone to listen to the sermon. Overall, it is a beautiful rose, though I would warn you of a couple of thorns on the stem.

A Baptist Blogging Conflagration

2009-02-07T12:04:00.003-06:00

Let's face it folks, we have reached a new Baptist blogging low in the last week. First, Wade posted information (without any sources or proof) which reflects badly on Dr. Patterson (are you shocked? I am!)

Then, thing really heated up. Liar! Wild-Eyed Liberal! Fundamentalist! The name-calling got pretty intense.

But that was just the start. First, Wade was accused of altering his comments (which he did, by his own admission). Originally, his post referrred to conversations that had taken place "yesterday" (Monday), and that word was removed. He also, as I understand it, changed the word "said" to "implied" when speaking of Dr. Patterson's comments.

Thats when something really hit the fan. SBC Today is accused of altering time stamps on its comments to deceive the blog world. I, to be honest, don't really understand the thing much. An anonymous blogger named John 3:16 asked them to shut off comments. Wes Kenney agreed less than a minute later. Then, the time stamps of these comments were evidently changed to reflect a 10 hour or so time differential.

Wade has responded and explained his editing, which has satisfied his supporters, but not his critics (again, duh!). To my knowledge, SBC Today has not made any attempt to explain their altered time stamps. That may be forthcoming.

I have ever seen the kind of name calling that is taking place now. One blogger has taken to calling Wade, "Slick." Nice, huh? On Wade's site, commenters are engaging in a barrage of comment questioning the integrity of SBC Today.

Here's my take. Folks, we can do better!

We can disagree without name-calling or character assassination.

We can operate in the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, kindness, patience, self-control) and still speak the plain truth.

We can "love our enemies" and "bless those who persecute us."

(On a wholly inappropriate note, if I see one more person end a comment filled with bitter criticism of another with a smug and condescending "brother, I'm praying for you" I might throw up.)

Instead of smug condescension, we can honor one another and demonstrate grace as we pursue truth.

I am not sure I am going to glad of all my words when we stand before God and every idle word we speak is judged by the Savior.

I keep looking for a hero in this. It seems we have all accepted the motto, "If your brother disagrees with you about SBC issues, consign him to perdition."

Brothers (and sistern) WE CAN DO BETTER!!!!

Yellow Journalism and the SBC

2009-02-03T15:28:00.001-06:00

NOTE: in the following post, I am and will be very critical of recent posts by Wade Burleson. However, I want to disassociate myself from some of the name-calling (liar, liberal) that is going around. I think the name-calling and character assassination is just as bad as Wade's post. )

First, since I have advocated regularly against the use of pejorative and derogation, let me define the specific use of this term here. Yellow journalism describes a very specific kind of writing.

Thinkquest.com defines yellow journalism as “biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion.” This definition seems to be pretty much in line with the general understanding of the term.

At its core, yellow journalism is biased reporting for sensationalistic purposes. I am afraid that yellow journalism is alive and well in the SBC. Today, Wade Burleson has posted a story that is a primer in yellow journalism.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me tell you my general view of Wade Burleson. I am not a part of the “blame-Wade for everything” branch of blogging. I have argued forcefully that his ouster at the IMB was unjust. In the old days, Wade quoted me on his site in a positive way.

I am not, however, a fan of Wade’s blogging today. I think he has “jumped the shark” and has lost credibility by engaging in a constant barrage of attacks against the leaders of the SBC, especially Dr. Patterson. Again, I have said publicly that I wish that Paige Patterson would ride off into the sunset. I appreciate his work in the CR, but not much he has done since. But the attacks on him have gotten increasingly personal, hysterical and shrill to this man’s ears. And, in my view, Wade has abandoned sound hermeneutics as he has embarked on his recent crusade advocating for women in ministry.

My point is honest disclosure – I was a “supporter” of Wade’s in the beginning, but I think he has gone off the rails in the last couple of years. When I have confronted him recently, he has accused me of “questioning motives.” He has taken to deleting my comments, because he thinks I am “mean-spirited” toward him and his motives. Perspectives, I guess...

I consider myself neither a “Burleson Boy” nor a “Wade-hater.” I appreciated and supported him in the early days and have lost respect for him since.

But the post today was pretty close to yellow journalism, by the definition above. We all know that Wade has a problem with Paige Patterson. He has been relentless in his criticism of the man and his ministry. Today, he reports that Paige is going to fire all the Calvinist professors at SWBTS in a cost-cutting move, and claims this was all revealed at a meeting with professors. A SWBTS professor, who is known as a 5-point Calvinist wrote and said that Wade was totally wrong – no meeting had taken place and no firing of Calvinists was anticipated.

Wade responded that he had been right before and that maybe his sources knew more than Dr. Welty did. He also said conveniently that if this did not take place, it might be because Wade had brought it into the light and embarrassed the administration, preventing the action from taking place.

I would make the following observations:

1) Yellow Journalism is sensationalistic. This post hits a couple of the hot-button issues in the SBC – Paige Patterson and Calvinism.

2) Yellow Journalism is opinion masquerading as fact. This post never says, “I’ve heard a rumor,” or “I was told.” It states this as established fact. But there are no sources, no foot-notes, no references. Just Wade’s opinion presented as established fact. In fact, when his facts were challenged, he indicated that he might know more than the professor who was there.

3) Yellow Journalism is biased. I will let the reader decide if Wade might have a biased opinion and a tendency to believe the worst about Dr. Patterson.

4) Yellow Journalism is based on the attempt to up readership and sell newspapers. This is one which I really don't know. Why would Wade publish unsubstantiated rumor as fact? If he has a reason, other than distaste for Paige Patterson, I don't know it.

Here is what I think. Wade would not publish something he knew to be a lie. However, because of his dislike for Paige Patterson, he might easily be susceptible to believe anything someone tells him about Paige, whether true or not. He might well have been fed some unsubstantiated gossip which he then reported, in his zeal to expose Dr. Patterson, as established fact.

However, I agree with several commenters. The time in which any of us believe what Wade says about SBC issues just because he says it is long past. He should prove the post or retract it, delete it and repent of it.

Dr. Welty asked him to repent of his lies. Others have done the same. Wade either needs to prove that he is not lying or do what they have asked.

A New Opportunity

2009-01-24T00:15:00.000-06:00

If anyone is still checking this site, I would refer you to the two places I will be writing in the days ahead.

First, I am now a regular contributor at SBC Impact and would encourage you to read at that site. It is a great site and I am honored to be writing there. The whole team is worth reading.

I will also be writing at my devotional site, "Word Processing." Check that. I hope to write regularly there.

In (Moderate) Praise of Labels

2008-12-12T11:17:00.000-06:00

Don’t label me! Sound familiar? If you have been blogging amongst us Baptists recently, you have read a lot about labels. It seems to be a growth industry – assigning labels. Charges have abounded. Legalist. Fundamentalist. Liberal. Hyper-Calvinist. Semi-Pelagian. Baptist Identity. Neo-Landmark. And the response is almost always the same. Don’t label me!

It is an understandable complaint. Often, we use the labels pejoratively, to caricature, even to insult. No one likes to see his views reduced to a simple word, especially one with negative connotations.

But I would assert that labels can have positive value, if used properly. Can you imagine how cumbersome debate would be if we had to define every term or doctrine every time we spoke? If I say, Bob is a Five-Point Calvinist, that’s a label. It is much easier than saying, “Bob believes in the Total Depravity of humanity, our Uncondition Election to salvation through the atonement of Christ (Limited to believers) which becomes ours through Irresistible Grace and produces an unwavering Perseverence of the Saints, following the doctrines of the reformer John Calvin and the Reformed creeds and confessions.” Three words become shorthand for a volume of systematic theology.

I can tell you that I am a conservative, a 4-point Calvinist, a premillennial pretribulationist with slight dispensationalist predilections, and a Baptist. Now, in one sentence, you have a fairly good skeleton of my beliefs. Each of these labels describes me in a simple, straightforward way. They save time and without labels, carrying on the simplest theological discussions would become brutally complicated.

On the other hand, those pesky labels can also become problematic. No one likes to be called Hyper-Calvinist. I have been labeled a liberal by multiple bloggers because I don’t think everything Paige Patterson has done was right. It was a bizarre experience to be called a liberal and about as true as calling my beloved Yankees a small-market, frugal team.

We seem to like to label others, but don’t much appreciate when labels are applied to us. Since I am convinced that there is no way to do away with labels, and that, in fact, it would be counter-productive to do so, I would like to suggest a few guidelines, rules for using labels. The following list is obviously not exhaustive.

Rule #1 – Use Clearly Defined Labels

Make sure when you use a label, it has a generally accepted or reasonably well-defined meaning.

Evidently, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. Or, maybe not. One prominent professor at a recent conference used that label. The blog world lit up over this one – lots of passion. The problem is, no one really knows what the term means. What is a hyper-Calvinist? The best definition I have heard is “anyone more Calvinist that I am.”

The good doctor gave a clear definition of hyper-Calvinism and demonstrated clearly that according to that definition, Dr. White is undoubtedly one of the dreaded “hypers.” But others question the validity of the definition and therefore the label itself.

So, the whole discussion is pointless. We have devoted vast efforts in cyberspace to prove or disprove a label which cannot be proven or disproven. We have given offense, not clarification by the use of this label.

Shouldn’t the argument be whether Dr. White’s views are biblical, not whether they earn him a particular label? Debating James White’s views would be a productive discussion. Fighting about whether he is hyper-calvinist accomplishes nothing.

Rule #2 – Use the Common Definition

If there is a standard, commonly agreed to definition of a term, use it.

I can say, “Blogger Jones is a liberal.” Rev. Jones believes in inerrancy, accepting every word of the Bible as true. But he does not support the current leadership of the SBC and has views about women in ministry and other issues that are out of the SBC mainstream.

While “liberal” may be much like hyper-Calvinist in its usage, there is a generally-accepted Southern Baptist definition. If you believe that the scriptures have errors, mistakes, or inadequacies of any kind, within the SBC, you are liberal. That definition may not apply beyond the boundaries of the SBC, but it works pretty well within our little world.

By the common definition, Blogger Jones is not liberal. So, all I do is make my own, new definition. “If you oppose the conservative leadership of the SBC and do not go along with the majority view of women-in-ministry, you are liberal.” By that, I justify my use of the term.

But I think that is unfair and unproductive. If there is a generally agreed to definition of a term, stick with it.

Rule #3 – Label for Explanation, Not Insult

I call myself a Four-Point Calvinist because it reasonably explains my beliefs. I believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation. I understand the logic of Limited Atonement within the Calvinist system, but I see too much biblical evidence that cuts the other way, so I have not completely bought into TULIP.

If someone calls me a four-point Calvinist, it is accurate. If someone calls me a “Wimpy Calvinist” (I just made that up) because I don’t go all the way with the system, that is an insult and by definition, inappropriate.

Has anyone ever called himself a hyper-Calvinist? Of course not. I would suggest that it is a term that should be retired, since its only use is for insult. Dispensationalist is a useful label. “Darbyite” tends to imply an insult. There are a few people that embrace the Landmark label, but most of us view it as an insult. It is a label that seems to provide more insult than it does explanation.

It seems to me to be a work of the flesh, not a fruit of the Spirit to use labels as insults. It never leads to productive discussion, only to shameful blogging brouhahas.

Rule #4 – Don’t Force a Label

Many of the blog arguments have focused on a kind of petty, “Yes, you are,” “No, I’m not” bickering. Dr. Nathan Finn categorized Southern Baptist Calvinists and non-Calvinists into four groups (cooperative Calvinists, non-cooperative Calvinists, cooperative non-Calvinists, non-cooperative non-Calvinists). It seemed a useful categorization.

Another blogger came along, using this categorization and plugged names into each category. He named names, forcing people into the categories as he saw them. Strangely, this vocal Calvinist had a long list of non-cooperating non-Calvinists, but could not name a single non-cooperative Calvinist. Obviously, a few people didn’t like being forced into this man’s categories.

If someone says, “I’m not Landmark,” don’t waste bytes trying to make the charge stick. What good is it? When someone says, “I’m not hyper-Calvinist,” what value is there is trying to prosecute to make the label stick? Deal with issues; ignore the pejorative labels.

So, labels can be useful and valuable, if they are used reasonably. We must use them to explain and describe, not to accuse or insult.

Is Jesus Disgusted with Baptist Bloggers?

2008-12-08T15:50:00.001-06:00

I have been involved in the blog world for several years; much of that time way more than I should have been. I am ready to give it up. Many have come to this point before me.

Here's my problem: I have become disgusted with the level of conversation among Southern Baptists. What is more, I think our Lord may be more disgusted than I am.

If you have read anything recently, you have seen the brouhahas brewing as a result of the John 3:16 conference and the subject of Calvinism. It has been a brutal discussion -charges and counter-charges flying and hurt feelings abounding.

Think about it, folks. We are discussing issues related to the saving grace of Jesus Christ, and we are treating one another with cold brutality. James said, "out of the same mouth comes blessing and cursing. My brothers, this should not be." We seem to think we can skewer a brother or sister in Christ, then put a smiley-face emoticon on the end of the comment and make everything okay.

I honestly believe that Jesus Christ cannot be very happy with us Baptist Bloggers. We have brought more shame to his name that light to the world.

In Galatians 5, Paul distinguishes the "works of the flesh" and the "fruit of the Spirit." The works of the flesh are described as "evident" - things like enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, and envy. The fruit of the Spirit is described as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Here's my question: How much do you see in the blogs of strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions and envy? How much do you see of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control?

In my opinion, the works of the flesh abound and the fruit of the Spirit is rare. Interesting that we are horrified by sexual immorality and drunkenness, both listed as works of the flesh, but we engage in strife, rivalries and dissension, which appear on the same list, with seeming impunity.

I do not count myself innocent in this. I have worked from the first list instead of the second all too often. We all have. But the problem is that the "works of the flesh" are not an infrequent problem in blogging - they define Baptist blogging. A pox on all our houses.

Or, maybe, repentance.

But, those few who read this will tend to say the same thing. I can hear some say, "You are right! Wade has really done a lot of evil." Others will agree that those evil, black-hatted "Baptist Identity Movement" folks have certainly been guilty. We are all too quick to condemn the evil on the other side of the argument. But we will continue to justify our own fleshly acts, ungodly attitudes, and damaging words. After all, the other side started it, right? I'm just responding to what he said!

For me, enough is enough. I may still read a blog from time t0 time, and comment from here to there. But I don't want to be involved in something that I have come to believe damages the cause of Christ more than it helps.

My NEW Plan: I have written a few books, and shopped for someone to publish them. I got a real nice note from a publisher who said what I wrote was worth publishing, but he couldn't do it. Big Help! So, I'm going to stop waiting and start publishing. I'm going to start publishing my writings - Proverbs, "Victory" (A Primer on Winning the War on Sin), The Names of God, "Brick Walls and Picket Fences" and other books. I'll just put my stuff out there, and if it helps someone, fine. The royalties won't really pour in, but who cares, right?

I will be writing mostly on my other site - WORD Processing.

Divorced Men CAN Serve as Pastors, Elders and Deacons

2008-09-11T13:31:00.000-05:00

(This post is based on the exegesis that has gone on in previous posts. Reading those might help in completely understanding this one. There might be one more post on this subject in the near future, dealing with some specific situations and issues.)

What About Ministry?

The genesis of this tome was a discussion that took place with my church leaders a couple of months ago. It is one I have had for several years in several churches. Should divorced men serve as deacons? In my last association, several of the pastors were divorced and it was a hot topic there – can divorced men be pastors?

I should make it clear that this is not some sort of personal defense or justification. I just celebrated my thirtieth wedding anniversary to the “wife of my youth” I am not arguing for myself, but for those whom I feel have been excluded from Christian service within the church without biblical justification.

The question of whether divorced men can serve as deacons, elders, or pastors is based almost exclusively on one small phrase that appears twice in 1 Timothy 3 and once in Titus 1. In verse 2, overseers (elders, pastors) were required to be “the husband of one wife.” In verse 12, the same phrase is set as a requirement for being a deacon. Titus 1:6 repeats the requirement for elders. What does that phrase mean? Many have assumed that it is a blanket prohibition of divorced men serving in church leadership positions. Others have explained it as a condemnation of polygamy. But all would agree that the proper interpretation of this passage is determinative on this issue. Figure out what that passage means and you have answered this question.

A word of warning is appropriate here. To compromise the Word of God is a serious sin. In Revelation 2, Jesus rebuked both the Pergamum and Thyatira churches for tolerating evil and false doctrine. If God’s Word prohibits divorced men from serving as deacons, we should not ignore that prohibition. However, we sometimes forget that there is another side to this warning. In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul warned the people not to “go beyond what is written.” In Revelation 22:18-19, John gives this warning about the prophecies he has written. “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” Note that severe penalties attach to either adding to or taking away from the words of the prophecy. It seems clear that the warning is specific to Revelation, but the principle is instructive for us.

It would be deeply damaging to the Body of Christ to allow divorced men to serve in leadership positions if the Scriptures prohibit it. But it would be just as serious a sin to prevent men from serving without biblical warrant. It is not acceptable to either take away from the teachings of scripture or to add to them.

I would suggest that the burden of proof is on those who would restrict the divorced from serving. If any redeemed person is eliminated from positions of service, it must be on the strongest of biblical evidence. If it cannot be clearly proven that Paul had divorce in mind when he set this standard, then divorced men should not be restricted from service. Advocates of the prohibition must clearly prove their point.

One more thing; it seems that since the same prohibition is directed at deacons and overseers, there should be no distinction between these positions in regards to divorce. If divorced men are allowed to serve as deacons, they are also eligible for the role of elder or pastor. There is no difference, on this point, between the requirements. Either divorced men can serve in all of these roles, or none of them.

There are other issues of scripture that we will deal with, but the crux of the issue is the phrase mentioned above. We will look at that phrase in depth. It is clear that three little words that Paul used make all the difference in this debate.

Husband of One Wife

There have been two majority opinions on the meaning of this verse. First, many commentators, at one time most, saw this as an absolute prohibition of divorced men serving in ministry positions at churches. Since Jesus prohibited divorce and said that remarriage was adultery, it seemed pretty clear. A divorced and remarried man is seen in the eyes of God as an adulterer and has two wives; the one he is currently married to and the one he divorced. If this interpretation is correct, the discussion is over.

There are a couple of major variations within this group. Some prohibit all divorcees from serving. Others only restrict those whose divorce happened after their conversion. How, they would say, can we hold someone accountable for their sins before they met the Savior? If the divorce occurred before salvation, they do not restrict that person from service.

The second major view holds this passage as a condemnation of polygamy, not divorce. This seems likely from the English phrasing. “Husband of one wife” seems to naturally stand in opposition to “husband of more than one wife.” Cased closed, right?

But there are glaring problems with this view. First, it is generally agreed that while polygamy was at times prevalent in Jewish society, it was not commonly practiced in the Roman Empire. If this had been written to Jewish congregations, the argument would hold more weight. But if polygamy was not a huge problem in Roman culture, it seems unlikely that Paul was focusing on it in a letter to establish leadership parameters for a Gentile church.

Polygamy, by definition, means a husband has more than one wife. Polyandry – a woman with multiple husbands – has not been practiced widely in any culture. It was certainly not a practice in either Jewish or Roman cultures. But in 1 Timothy 5:9, Paul reversed the requirement for deacons and elders and applied it to women who were going on the list of widows who were to be supported by the church. (Actually, there are various suggestions about this list, but what the list was for is not germane to the point.) 1 Timothy 5:9 requires that these women have been “the wife of one husband.” The phrase is identical to the ones we are studying except that the genders are reversed. So, in an identical construction to ours, it is absolutely clear that polygamy cannot be in view. If “wife of one husband” does not reference polygamy, then “husband of one wife” probably does not either.

Exegesis

It is my contention that neither divorce nor polygamy is the primary focus of this passage. I believe that Paul is requiring that a man must demonstrate himself as a faithful and devoted husband before he is ready to lead God’s church.

The translation “husband of one wife” may not be the best translation of the passage. The Greek phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (mias gunaikos andra), could be literally translated “one-woman man” or “a man of one woman.” The last word, man, appears in a slightly different form in each of the three passages, but the meaning is the same. An overseer or elder, and a deacon, are to demonstrate themselves to the church as a “one-woman man.”

That accurate translation seems to almost explain itself. What is in view here is the man’s heart. It involves much more than just being sexually faithful to his wife. A one-woman man is faithful in body, yes, but also in soul and spirit. He is devoted to his wife. His relationship with his wife demonstrates that he knows how to be a servant leader. If he is not faithful and devoted to his wife, it is unlikely he will be faithful and devoted to his church duties.

This is a much higher burden than some other interpretations require. Since we do not have polygamy (at least officially) in our nation, it would be an empty requirement if that meaning is accepted. If the command is simply a prohibition that a man never has been divorced, all that is required is that a man has avoided divorce. But this command is more significant than that. I have known men who have never been divorced and have never cheated on their wives, but show little devotion to their wives. They may be technically “the husband of one wife” but cannot by any means be called a “one-woman man.”

It is my belief that this kind of character is what is in view in this command. If Paul had wanted to say that a man who had ever been divorced was not qualified to serve as an elder or deacon, there are ways he could have said that in Greek. Paul spoke clearly and it is clear what he meant in this passage. He was saying that men who lead the church should be men who have demonstrated their abilities to lead their homes and demonstrate faithful servant leadership to their wives.

Conclusion

The meaning of Paul’s phrase here will always be open to discussion and interpretation. It seems highly likely he was not speaking of polygamy. Since polygamy was not a common practice in Roman culture, and since the same construction is reversed as a requirement for a woman, polygamy is almost certainly not the primary focus. Certainly, polygamy would be inappropriate for church leaders, but it is not the chief intent of this verse.
In reality, those who use this as a prohibition of divorce are also assuming the passage refers to a form of polygamy. They believe that the first marriage was not ended and so, by the second marriage, the man has become a kind of polygamist, married in God’s eyes to both his former wife and his current one.

My quarrel with this view is two-fold. First of all, I think it makes a blanket generalization about the teachings of Jesus on divorce that is, in many cases, not warranted. A man who is divorced on biblical grounds is freed from his marriage covenant and is free to remarry. When he remarries, he is the husband of one wife and one wife only – his new wife. The former marriage is over. We will examine this in more detail later.

My second problem with this view is that if Paul was intending to prohibit divorced men from serving as deacons or elders, there are ways he could have stated that more plainly. “An overseer must never have divorced a wife and remarried.” He could have given words that would clearly and unequivocally say what he meant. Paul was never one for veiling his words. He said what he meant. If he had meant divorce here, he would have said it.

The obvious meaning of the phrase is a reference to fidelity and commitment. A husband must demonstrate to all that he knows what it is to be a servant leader by being a good husband who loves his wife and devotes himself to her. Context, linguistics and logic all seem to support this viewpoint.

It is an unwarranted stretch to use this phrase as a blanket condemnation of divorced men as serving as deacons, elders, pastors, or in other leadership positions. There is no biblical grounds on which to deny all divorced people from serving. To do so, in my mind, is to violate the clear teachings of Scriptures.

Divorce and Remarriage

God’s intent was that a marriage would last until one of the parties died. Sin’s effect on human behavior and relationships shattered the ideal. Permanent and fulfilling marriage is still possible if a couple is well-matched and if they rely on the power of God to see them through. But a marriage depends on both parties fulfilling their vows, and that sometimes does not happen. And so, divorce has become an unfortunate reality in this world. Jesus told his disciples that God permitted it because of the sin, the “hardness” of human hearts.

In all of the discussions on divorce in scripture, there is not a single prohibition against remarriage when a divorce is granted on approved grounds. Deuteronomy prohibited a man from remarrying a woman after he had remarried another wife. But there was no restriction on remarriage in general. Jesus restricted remarriage except when the divorce was because of adultery. But the implication was that when there were biblical grounds, remarriage was not adulterous and was acceptable. Paul set forth a new solution for women whose husbands were cruel or abusive of their authority. They could separate (not divorce) and live single or return to their husbands. The assumption is that remarriage is the intended result of divorce. Paul clarifies in 1 Corinthians 7 that when believers remarry, they should remarry only other believers. Remarriage was assumed, but limited to those who shared faith in Christ.

We previously looked at the certificate of divorce that was historically granted in Hebrew culture. It sent a woman away to remarry whomever she wishes. That concept – that remarriage was assumed when a divorce too place – was never corrected in any of the prophets who called Israel to repentance for sin. Remarriage after divorce was widely practiced and would have certainly been confronted if it was offensive to God.

The necessary conclusion is that if a divorce is granted on approved grounds, the divorcee has the right to remarry. A biblically acceptable divorce ends the marriage just as death does. God’s intent and purpose was to have marriages end one way – death. But He graciously allowed marriages to end by divorce, if the circumstances were right and certain conditions were met.

So, if a man has been divorced on biblical grounds (as I have defined it; adultery by his spouse (as Jesus taught) or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (as Paul added), he is free to remarry. His first marriage is over in the eyes of God; the marriage covenant having been broken by the sinful actions of another. When he remarries, he is the husband of one wife and one wife only. So, even if the prohibitionist position on the “husband of one wife” phrase is correct, he is still qualified to serve.

New Creatures in Christ?

I have never understood how someone could believe 2 Corinthians 5:17, “If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come,” and still advocate eliminating people who were divorced prior to salvation from service. Do not misunderstand. I am not accusing my opponents on this issue of willfully denying scripture. I just believe that their position on divorce is in conflict with this verse.

When a man comes to Christ, he becomes a new creature. His sins are washed away and God sets out to conform him to the image of Christ. Yet, some would restrict that man from serving as a church leader because of something that happened before he was saved. How can we hold a man accountable for those things which took place prior to his conversion? A redeemed man held liable for what he did before his redemption? That is inimical to our concept of transformational grace.

There is no other sin we do that with. Should we only allow those who remained virgins until their wedding night to be church leaders? Those few of us who meet that standard might find ourselves worn out with leadership duties. When an ex-con comes to Christ, we rejoice in his growth and have no compunction when he demonstrates transformation to put him in leadership positions. The divorced? That is a different matter. Regardless of the time or circumstances of the divorce, we ask them to sit on the sidelines and stay there.

But even if the divorce happened after salvation, it seems contrary to the ways of Christ to make that a permanent death mark for service. Mark had a gross ministry failure (not moral, but serious nonetheless) that caused Paul not to want to work with him in Acts 15. But later, he lavishes praise on Mark’s service for the gospel. He was restored. David fell and was restored. Peter denied Christ then proclaimed him boldly. God specializes in taking failures and guiding them to success.

Again, why would we distinguish divorce from other sins and declared it unredeemable? In fact, even if someone is divorced on biblical grounds (and is therefore not guilty of sin), we eliminate that person from service? A person who is the victim of another’s sin is held liable for that sin in perpetuity? Can anyone else see the logic in that? I cannot.

It seems to me to be contrary to the whole thrust of the gospel to tell people that a sin that happened in the past will forever eliminate them from service in the church.

What about Our Testimony?

One of the common arguments used to eliminate divorced men from leadership positions is the need to “uphold standards” in the church. We need to uphold the highest standards of godly behavior in the church and our leaders need to serve as examples to others. What kind of example does it set if we allow divorced men to lead? Does not that tacitly endorse divorce?

If a pastor had premarital sex 25 years ago, and you make him a pastor today, does that promote premarital sex? One of the best deacons I ever had was the town drunk before God got hold of him. Did allowing him to be a deacon mean that we were promoting drunkenness? Does a redeemed drug dealer advocate drug dealing with his service to the church?. The idea that divorced men in leadership positions advocates divorce does not make sense to me. What they do is demonstrate that God can rebuild a broken life. What better testimony is there than that?

If a man in the middle of a divorce were serving, that would be one thing. If we failed to discipline a man who divorced his wife for unbiblical reasons, that would be a bad testimony. But a man who was divorced several years ago, has remarried, and is an exemplary husband and father; there is no shame in that.

What is the church? Is it the society of the spiritually superior? Is it the domain of those who have never failed or done anything wrong? No! The church is the gathering of the redeemed; sinners whose lives were broken by sin and put back together by the grace of God. We are the cleansed, not the unsullied.

What better testimony could there be than a man whose life was shattered by sin, who walked through the brokenness of divorce, and whose life has been redeemed and put back into order by Christ? Does he not tell the sin-broken people who come into a church that there is power in the blood?

Paul told Timothy that he was “the worst of sinners.” But he said that God had granted him grace so that he might display “his unlimited patience” to others. Paul saw himself not as a superior, but as a trophy of God’s grace. At the risk of offending, those who advocate that we must uphold standards by not allowing those divorced in the past to serve are in danger of being more like the Pharisee than the publican whom Jesus approved. We are broken people, rebuilt by Jesus Christ.

So, am I saying that it doesn’t matter how leaders live? To the contrary, I think church leaders should be people of the highest character and spiritual passion. Our lives should be examples of godly behavior. What I am saying is that what matters to God is what we ARE, not what we once were. Leadership is based on character and reputation. God specializes in taking the depraved and infusing his righteousness into them, transforming them to be like Christ. It is maturity in the process of sanctification that matters.

If the church is a “Society of Superior Saints” then by all mean, eliminate from service those who have made mistakes in the past. If the church is a hospital for sinners, where people come to find the redemption and remission of sins and have their lives rebuilt by Christ, then we cannot hold peoples’ pasts against them. We cannot eliminate people from service on the basis of who they were ten or twenty years ago. We promote to leadership in the church on the basis of who we have become – our present character and reputation in the church.

My experience tells me that divorced men and women can become shiny testimonies of the life-changing power of Christ.

Conclusion

Leadership in the church is based on character and Christlikeness. It is incompatible with that to eliminate someone from service because they were divorced in years gone by. If someone is currently going through a divorce, or has been recently divorced, that person should not serve. Even if I am the “innocent” party in a divorce, I must take responsibility for my failings in the marriage that contributed to that divorce. Divorce seldom is totally the fault of one person, even if only one breaks the covenant. I need to time to heal and rebuild my life. But a man who has been divorced and remarried, who has rebuilt a new life and is genuinely the “husband of one wife” and who has demonstrated that over time, is biblically qualified to serve in leadership roles. He is a great testimony of the life-changing power of our Savior.

There is no biblical basis on which a general prohibition against divorce men serving as church leaders can be made. It is, to me, an act of “adding to what is written” to do so. Those who want to follow Christ and His Word, and not cultural traditions would do well to exclude only those the Bible excludes.

Palin, Politics, and Hypocrisy: A Suspicion

2008-09-09T20:44:00.000-05:00

Before I say what I am going to say (and duck) let me make something clear. I am planning to vote for Sarah Palin and her running mate (name escapes me). I thought her speech was brilliant. It was the first time I have been excited about politics in a long time. So I am not some closet Obama guy.

I also have no problem with a woman being VP - or President, for that matter. If I were British, I would have voted for Maggie enthusiastically. Hillary - not so much.

So, having established that, here's my thesis: our reaction to particular events and people is clouded by our politic views.

More specifically, conservatives in the blogosphere and in the political world have been very quick to show their support for Sarah Palin and to justify her place on the ticket. We have given her a pass on her daughter's pregnancy, absolving her of all blame in the matter.

But I have a deep suspicion that if the tables were reverse and Sarah Palin was a pro-choice member of Obama's tickets, our views on her personal life might be a little different.

I can imagine a blogger or two wondering why, if she was such a good person and mother, her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. I wonder if leaders like James Dobson would be questioning why the mother of 5, including a special needs kid, would be leaving the home to run for an incredibly family-unfriendly job. I am afraid that conservatives might be taking a very different stand on the "Palin issue" if she were not one of us.

Imagine what we would have been saying if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant at age 17. Come on, now. Be honest!

Maybe I am wrong. I don't think so.

I have seen it too often. A blogger is outraged because someone ridicules on of his friends, but laughs along when the same thing is applied to someone he doesn't agree with (or like). Too often, our view of issues and events is colored by our beliefs. We who champion inerrancy are sometimes practical relativists as we deal with real-life and political issues. Remember, right is right regardless of who is doing it. And wrong is wrong even if it is done by someone we like.

Look, again, I am a Palin-guy all the way. This is purely a theoretical exercise. The next time a democratic politician's child does something similar (or a theological opponent for that matter) I hope we will be as gracious to that person as we have been to Sarah Palin.

Again, maybe I'm wrong.

Paul and Divorce

2008-09-05T20:41:00.000-05:00

(We continue to wander through the biblical evidence concerning divorce, to eventually answer the question whether divorced men can serve as deacons, elders, pastors, or in other church leadership positions.)

The New Testament epistles have a lot to say about marriage and family relationships, but there is very little focus on divorce. There are several passages, all from Paul’s letters, that we must deal with. Paul uses divorce as an illustration in Romans 7:1-6. He then discusses divorce at length in 1 Corinthians 7:10-24, his most significant teaching. The other significant passages are those in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 that discuss the qualifications of elder and deacon. Paul said that these church leaders should be “the husband of one wife.” That is the heart of the question here. Does that prohibition mean that anyone who has been divorced is disqualified from these levels of service within the church?

Is Paul’s Teaching Scripture or Opinion?

There is a significant issue that must be dealt with before we look at what Paul taught. Much has been made of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 about some of his statements coming from the Lord and others coming from him and not the Lord. “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.”

Paul gives a charge to the married to stay in their marriages and make them work. He states that this command comes not from him, but from the Lord. Then, in verse 12, he states that the rest of the teaching comes from him, and not from the Lord. Some have indicated that this was Paul’s way of saying that his advice on this issue was just personal opinion and not a direct command from God. The teachings in this passage, then, would be Paul’s suggestion and would not have the force of inspired Scripture.

That view must be rejected by anyone who believes that “all Scriptures are breathed by God and used for teaching…” There is a very simple way to understand this statement. Paul is not saying that some of this is inspired and some of it is not, but that some of it was addressed directly by Jesus in his earthly ministry and some of what Paul teaches goes beyond what Jesus taught. He is not saying that this is just his opinion, but that he is adding these teachings to what Jesus said in addressing the subject.

Here is a fact that many people fail to realize. The inspired words of Paul are just as true, just as authoritative and just as inerrant as the words of Jesus himself. The Spirit that worked in Jesus was the same Spirit who guided Paul’s thoughts and words. It would be a mistake to assume that the words in red letters in your Bible are somehow more important than the other words. All Scripture is inspired. Old Testament. Jesus’ words. Paul’s words. Every verse is as much God’s Word as every other verse.

So, Paul’s teachings here are founded on what Jesus said, but they go beyond and add new teachings to what Jesus taught when he was on earth. Paul’s teachings are inerrant and authoritative, and what he says in this passage is binding on all believers.

Paul’s Teachings

Paul made it clear in the passage mentioned above that his teachings were based on Jesus’ and in line with them. He is going to add some new teachings to what Jesus said, but they were meant to augment what Jesus said, not contradict it. He affirms the permanence of marriage. Christians should make their marriages work and not seek an easy out when problems arise.
We will now examine Paul’s teachings on divorce in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. We will then summarize the biblical teaching on divorce. After that, we will address whether a divorced man can serve as a deacon and deal with what Paul said in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus requiring elders to be “the husband of one wife.”

Romans 7:1-6

This passage is not about divorce, but uses it as an illustration. The passage is actually about how those who have come to Christ have died with Him and have been released from their slavery to the law. He affirms that a marriage only ends when one of the partners dies and that when one partner dies, the other is free from the marriage vow and can remarry.

He uses this to illustrate to us that once Christians have died with Christ to the law they are no longer under obligation to it. Having died to the law, we are free to join with Christ and live in His freedom and joy.

It is interesting that some have seen this as Paul’s definitive statement on divorce and used it to nullify what he said in 1 Corinthians 7. This is a statement of the ideal of a permanent marriage broken only by death, used as an illustration. It deals with marriage and does not address whether there is ever a biblically acceptable cause for divorce. It is easy to make too much of this passage in the discussion of divorce.

I Corinthians 7:10-24

This is the most complete teaching in Scripture on the subject of divorce and remarriage, even more complete than Jesus’ statement. It is authoritative, inspired and true.

The spread of the gospel brought a new phenomenon not dealt with in Jesus’ teachings. When the gospel spread into the pagan world, marriages were often strained. An idol-worshiping husband might suddenly find his wife wanting to burn the idols and serve only a new God named Jesus. A wife, happy in her pagan beliefs, suddenly has a husband evangelizing her and asking her to change her beliefs. Also, passionate Christians began to wonder if it was offensive to God for them to share their lives and beds with people who served other gods. They may have heard passages like the one we discussed from Ezra which tells God’s people to divorce their foreign, idolatrous wives and assumed that the way to honor God was to divorce unbelieving husbands or wives. So, Paul needed to address the concept of Christian marriage and how new Christians should deal with unbelieving spouses.

There is also a radical new teaching here. Paul not only talks about husbands divorcing their wives, but also the concept of wives initiating divorce. This is a marked departure from the Old Testament teaching which only dealt with a husband divorcing a wife.

The orientation of this passage is in line with what Jesus taught. The New Testament is full of passages that extol marriage and explain how marriage can honor God. From that, we can make a couple of generalizations. First, God’s desire is that every marriage last a lifetime. That is why He gave us so much good advice on home and family in Scripture. Secondly, it is clear that through dependence on Christ and his Word, any marriage can be saved. It is only blatant sin, rebelliously held on to that sometimes necessitates divorce. ‘‘Incompatibility’’ is not a marriage problem, it is a spiritual problem. Its cure is repentance and persistent love, not divorce.

The General Rule-v.10-11.

Paul first gives a general rule that is simply an interpretation of Jesus’ earthly teaching. Christians should not initiate divorce because they are unbelievers. This prohibition is absolute for the man; under no circumstances may he separate from his wife. The wife is allowed to separate from her husband if she finds it unbearable to live with him, but her only options are to either reconcile with him, or to remain unmarried. He is assuring Christians that God is not displeased with a believer who is married to an unbeliever. To the opposite, a spouse has a unique opportunity to be a force for the evangelism of the spouse.

There is a clear distinction made here between what a husband is allowed to do and what a wife can do. The husband must always stay with his wife and never initiate divorce. The wife may not divorce her husband, but if he abuses his authority over her, she can separate from him. This recognizes that the husband has authority in the home and has the ability to set the moral and spiritual tone of a home. The wife is under her husband’s authority and he might use that cruelly or abusively. If she cannot live to honor God while living under her husband’s authority, she has the right to separate from him. If she does that, she has two options; be reconciled to him or live single. If she leaves him without clear biblical grounds, she is not freed from her marriage covenant and must not remarry. In reality, what we are dealing with in this passage is not divorce, but separation. The marriage is not over, but suspended while the wife tries to reconcile or while she waits for God to change her husband’s heart.

One note must be made here. Many pastors have told women in cruel and abusive relationships that they must submit to their husband’s cruelty and remain in the marriage. That is a teaching in direct conflict with what Paul says here. If a man abuses his authority, a wife may separate for the sake of herself or her children.

It is interesting here that Paul specifically says that in this case of a wife leaving her husband without biblical grounds, remarriage is prohibited. The implication is that the right of remarriage is assumed when the divorce is on biblical grounds. Remarriage here and in Jesus’ words is only prohibited when the divorce takes place without biblical grounds.

Difficult Situations

Paul then turns his attentions to several difficult situations that a believer might face in applying these truths. He makes it clear with his statement in verse 12 that this is new ground, not covered by Jesus in the gospels. The situations did not exist when Jesus was speaking to his disciples. There are three situations which Paul addresses that we need to look at here. The first two address problems that arise when a person becomes a believer and is married to an unbeliever. The last situation deals with divorce that takes place before a person is saved.

Situation #1: The Unbeliever Stays-v.12-14

As mentioned above, some of the believers may have been wondering if it was necessary for them to divorce their unsaved spouses as an act of faithfulness to God. It is possible they had Ezra 9-10 in mind. Paul says that if the lost spouse wants to stay, let him (or her). In a very special way, the presence of one Christian in a family sets the whole family apart for God. One saved person in a family becomes a beachhead through which God can invade the entire family.

My dad was saved out of a very religious but largely unsaved family. Over the years, many others in his family came to Christ. He was the agent of God who “sanctified” his family. The use of that word here is a little strange. The word usually refers to making someone holy, but is also used to refer to something being set apart for God. That is probably the main meaning here. When one member of a family, or one partner in a marriage is saved, it sets apart the whole family for the activity of God.

The teaching here is clear. The believer should not initiate the divorce. As we discussed above, the wife may separate for the purpose of reconciliation, but is not free from her marriage vows. God does not vitiate the marriage vow.

Situation #2: The Unbeliever Goes-v.15-16

The believer might not initiate divorce, but if the unbeliever leaves, the believer is freed from the marriage vow and may marry another. Some unbelievers will simply not accept the spiritual changes that have gone on their believing spouse’s life and insist on leaving.

God has called us to live in peace, Paul says, if the unbeliever walks out of the marriage, the believer is free. A saved wife does not guarantee that the husband will come to Christ. As Christ unites believers, he separates believers from unbelievers. There is no guarantee that an unsaved spouse will come to Christ.

When the unbeliever leaves the marriage, the believer is not “bound” according to verse 16. Literally, the word means ‘‘not enslaved’’. Romans 7 talks about how a woman is ‘‘bound’’ by the law of marriage. It compares this to being bound by the law, enslaved to sin. When we die to the law, we are free from that which bound us, free to serve the new way of the Spirit. Just so, a believer is not bound to a marriage that the unbeliever leaves. The believer is freed from the marriage just as if the spouse had died. Though every attempt ought to be made toward reconciliation, it is clear that the believer may not be able to save the marriage.

Several points must be made here. First of all, Paul adds a second exception to the biblical law of permanent marriage. Jesus allowed divorce on the grounds of adultery. Paul, inspired of God, established a second exception. If a believer is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse, the believer is freed from the marriage vow.

Secondly, and perhaps fundamentally, a biblically permissible divorce is a release from the marriage vow. The believer is no longer bound by those vows. This will be a significant point when we examine the phrase “husband of one wife.” If a man is divorced on biblical grounds and remarries, he is the husband of one wife, and one wife only. He is not bound to the first marriage covenant, because it was broken by the other. Therefore, while he may have been married twice, in God’s eyes he is only the husband of one wife.

It is clear in this passage that remarriage is the right of those who are divorced on biblical grounds. They may only marry believers, but the teaching is clear. Biblical grounds for divorce nullify the marriage covenant and free the innocent party to remarry.

One more thing is implied here. The church tries to make blanket divorce policies, but that is a biblical mistake. A biblical view of divorce requires a situation by situation review of the circumstances of each divorce. If I left my wife for another woman, I am still bound in God’s eyes to my first wife and my new marriage would be adulterous in God’s eyes. If my wife left me for another man, or if she was an unbeliever who refused to stay married to me, I am free from my marriage covenant and also free to remarry. You cannot fashion a “one size fits all” divorce policy and remain biblical.

There is one more possibility I would mention. The situation dealt with here involves a believer being abandoned by an unbeliever. Is it possible that the principle used here might be transferable to other life situations? For instance, if a believer were abandoned by someone who was a professing believer, would the principles applied here carry over? I cannot speak with biblical certainty, since I am extrapolating from a clear teaching to a situation not dealt with by Paul. Still, I think it is possible that the principle would apply in such a situation. Was this passage directed only at a very narrow situation, or do the principles that are at work here have a broader application. I would suggest that they do, while realizing that many will argue just as strongly that they do not.

Marriage is a covenant between two people and God in heaven. It is meant to be permanent and anyone who wishes to honor God will seek to make it so. But, Scripture recognizes that man is sinful and hard-hearted. Because of this, God provides exceptions to the rule of permanent marriage. Jesus spelled one out – adultery. Paul spells another out – abandonment. In both of these situations, one partner has broken the marriage covenant. A marriage is a joining of two people into one. When one of the two people sins and breaks the covenant, God in His grace releases the other person from the broken covenant. We know that this is true in the event of adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever. I am holding out the possibility that the principle might have a more general application. When one party breaks the marriage covenant and refuses to be reconciled or to work to preserve the marriage, God will grant release to the other party.

In every situation, a Christian who honors and wants to please God will do everything he or she can to preserve the marriage. A godly person never looks for an excuse or justification for divorce, but looks for ways to show love and seek the transforming power of God. Such a person would only take the divorce exceptions as a last resort, never as an easy way out.

Situation #3: Divorce before Salvation-v.17-24

These verses establish an important principle. A person should remain in the marital position he or she was in at the point of salvation. In other words, salvation is a washing away of the past and implies a new, fresh start. All past sin is forgiven and the person is given a second (or third, or fourth) chance by God.

Paul tells believers that “In whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.” Were you married? Seek to make the marriage work? Divorced and remarried? Accept God’s forgiveness and the fresh start of grace. This principle probably also applies to polygamy, though that is not a significant issue in America.

The key point that Paul seems to be making here is that what happens prior to salvation should not be held against that person after salvation. How can someone who is enslaved to sin he held liable for sinning? Divorce that occurs pre-conversion should not be held against a person once they have been redeemed.

Summary of Paul's Teachings

1. Divorce is restricted heavily by Paul. He affirms Jesus’ teaching which only permits divorce on the basis of adultery. To that exception, he adds another. If an unbeliever abandons a believer, the believer is not bound by the marriage and is free to remarry.

As always, if a divorce is granted on these biblical grounds, the right to remarry after is clearly affirmed.

2. Husbands, given authority in their homes, are never allowed to initiate divorce or separation. They are to mimic the unconditional love of God and seek to rebuild the marriage.

3. Wives, living under their husbands’ authority, are permitted to separate from unbelieving husbands who abused them or treat them cruelly. If the wife cannot live under her husband’s authority, she is allowed to separate from him. She is not released in this circumstance, from her marriage vows. She must either reconcile to her husband or live singly without remarriage. The husband is not given this option. Unless there is infidelity or abandonment, he must stay in the marriage and attempt to change it with God’s power.

4. Paul addressed new situations that arose in the life of the church that did not exist when Jesus was teaching. He applied the principles Jesus taught to this situation and came up with a new application. Marriage is a covenant between two people and both must participate to make the marriage work. Both the adultery and abandonment exceptions recognize that if one party leaves a marriage, the other cannot be bound to that marriage. When one partner breaks the marriage bond, the other is free from it as well.

We sometimes find ourselves counseling people whose life situations do not fit easily into the categories described above. Our job is to follow the principles here and apply God’s standards to every situation. There may be situations in which people disagree on the application of these principles. It would be a serious thing to remarry wrongly; the Bible calls it adultery. It would also be a serious sin to tell someone who has God’s blessings on their remarriage that they are sinning. Each person must be fully persuaded, after careful searching of God’s Word, prayer and Godly counsel, that what he or she does is in God’s will.

Summary of Biblical Teachings on Divorce

1. The Divine Ideal - From the beginning of time God’s standard has been a marriage between a man and woman that is lifelong and is a blessing to both. Moses held to that standard, though making several allowances because of the hardness of heart of sinful man. Jesus reasserted that standard clearly in his teachings, raising the bar considerably from the teachings of the law. Paul, while expanding on Jesus’ teachings, held to the same ideal standard.

The ideal of permanent marriage is still possible today, though the original ideal of perfect marriage is not. Permanent marriage can only be accomplished by a commitment to Christ and the principles of the Word.

2. The Human Reality - While God’s ideal remains a possibility, man’s sin has ruined many marriages, and is now gnawing at the very structure of the institution itself. Sin ruins marriages when it is not confessed; when there is no repentance. God, in His love and mercy has made allowances for the presence of human sin in marriage.

Divorce is not commanded by God today, but is permitted in certain circumstances when one partner has broken the marriage covenant.

3. The Grounds for Divorce - Divorce is granted in the New Testament on two specific grounds. Moses tightened the standards of his culture by requiring that men have some grounds for divorce and give their wives an official certificate. Jesus raised the bar when he declared that there is only one grounds for divorce. Paul added another exception; similar in nature to the one Jesus gave but based on a circumstance that did not exist among Jesus’ hearers.

First, Jesus allowed divorce on the grounds of (a lifestyle of) sexual immorality. Unless the divorce took place on this ground, the divorce was not divinely approved and remarriage would be an act of immorality.

Then, Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, established another exception – abandonment. He allowed divorce when an unbelieving spouse abandons the believer. In this case, the believer is not bound to the marriage covenant and is free to remarry a Christian.

4. The Grounds for Separation - Paul also adds the right for a believing wife to separate from an unbelieving husband if he makes living with him unbearable. She must either reconcile or live single, but she does not have to live under the abusive authority of a cruel man. This same right is not granted to a husband, who has the authority to demonstrate the love of God and lead his home in the right ways.

5. Divorce vs. Separation - There is a critical difference between divorce and separation. Divorce is the ending of the marriage bond, separation is its suspension. A divorce on biblical grounds ends a marriage contract just as death does. Separation does not. Therefore, a divorce brings the right to remarry, while separation does not. It is important to note that in the two biblical grounds for divorce, fornication and desertion, the offending party has essentially ended its participation in the marriage. The divorce is simply a recognition of what the spouse has already done. In the separation, the problem is compatibility. Paul recognizes that separation may be necessary for a time to restore the marriage, but the marriage is by no means over.

6. Forgiveness and Restoration – The Bible message is one of forgiveness and restoration, even to those who have sinned in terrible ways. Christians assume the role of the Pharisees and Sadducees when we make divorced persons feel unwelcome in our fellowship, or somehow imply to them that they are of a secondary status in the fellowship.

7. Biblical Standards – The Church must avoid the twin dangers described earlier. We must not lessen the biblical commands and forget that it is God’s desire that every marriage last a lifetime. Just as serious is the tendency of Christians to add to the Bible’s commands, making them harsher than God himself makes them. Once again, this was Satan’s tactic in the Garden of Eden, and this attitude, often thought heroically faithful and uncompromising, is still more pleasing to Satan than it is to God. We must neither compromise biblical principles nor enforce that which is not biblical.

Jesus' Radical Teachings on Divorce

2008-09-03T15:59:00.000-05:00

The Words of Jesus

If anyone doubts that Jesus’ teaching on divorce was shocking and new, look at the response of the men who listened to him give it. In Matthew 19:10, the disciples heard Jesus’ teaching and responded that if that is right, “it is better not to marry.” They had trouble conceiving of a marriage in which the husband did not have the right to send away a wife who no longer met his expectations.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce built upon, but was also a radical departure from the Deuteronomy passage. Prior to the law, divorce was based on the whims and desires of the husband, unrestrained by any stricture. The standard of divorce was subjective, based on the will of the man. Deuteronomy limited that capricious standard. The man was required to find “something indecent” in his wife – some moral flaw that justified the divorce. Divorce was still a matter of the husband’s will, as all he had to do was give his wife a writ and send her away, but now he was required to have some grounds for the action.

How was Jesus’ teaching different? He took divorce out of the whimsical subjective control of the man and gave an absolute standard. Christian men were only allowed to divorce a wife on the grounds of marital infidelity. Adultery broke the bonds of marriage and was the only exception Jesus gave to the standard of marriage.

There are four passages in which Jesus refers to divorce, and all carry the same basic prohibition against divorce and remarriage. This is Jesus’ first radical teaching – he reestablished the original intent of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and woman. We will examine each passage, and then draw conclusions for our study.

Why the Differences?

The first question to address is why only Matthew records the divorce exception. In Matthew 5:31-32 (part of the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus lays down the standard that divorce is not permissible, except on the grounds of infidelity. Then, in Matthew 19:1-12 we see a lengthy exchange between Jesus and some Pharisees in which they discuss the Deuteronomy passage. Again, Jesus includes the adultery exception to the law of permanent marriage. Mark 10:1-12 is a separate account of what is clearly the same discussion. The two accounts are nearly identical, except that no divorce exception is granted, even on the grounds of adultery. Luke 16:18 repeats the teaching of Mark 10:11-12 but does not include the context of the discussions, simply including the teaching in a series of statements that confront the Pharisees. Our question is why there is an adultery exception only in Matthew.

We can dismiss some of the more common solutions, if we accept the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. We cannot accept that either Matthew nor Mark or Luke got the teaching of Jesus wrong. Any solution we have must take seriously the truth of each passage.

One solution has been to say that the adultery exception was a textual error. It was not part of the original text and was added later by a scribe to “clarify” the text. The problem is that the textual evidence is pretty clear that Matthew did, in fact, include it in the original manuscript. The textual evidence does not support a textually-based explanation.

The simplest explanation is probably the best one. Matthew and Mark both recorded accurately the teaching of Jesus, but neither was attempting to give a full transcript of the message. Jesus gave the adultery exception in his teachings. Matthew recorded it. Mark did not. Mark was not trying to correct Matthew’s teaching. Both texts are correct. Jesus said the words recorded in both. Matthew just records more what Jesus said.

The conclusion of all this is clear. Jesus did, in fact, include the adultery exception as a part of his teaching on divorce.

The Words of Jesus

We now turn our attention to the four passages in which Jesus teaches about divorce.

Passage 1: Matthew 5:31-32

This passage occurs in a series on how Jesus Christ has both fulfilled and surpassed the Law of Moses. He raised the standard on murder and adultery. The law prohibited murder; Jesus said hatred in the heart was just like murder, and just as sinful in God’s eyes. The law prohibited adultery; Jesus prohibited lust in the heart. He was raising a higher standard than the Mosaic Law had; a standard of the heart not just the outward behavior.

In the passages that follow, Jesus deals with Old Testament and traditional Jewish teachings on making oaths and on retaliation. He replaced the Lex Talionis (eye for eye) with the “turn the other cheek” and “go the second mile” standard. He then gave the teaching on loving your enemies. All of these are explicitly raising the bar on the teachings of the law.

That is precisely what Jesus has done in Matthew 5:31-32. He has taken the teaching of Deuteronomy 24 and substantially raised the bar. His ways are higher than the way Israel lived under the law.

He mentions the certificate of divorce; then promptly does away with it. A follower of Christ could no longer just give his wife a piece of paper. Unless the bond of marriage had been broken with infidelity, he must remain married to his wife. Jesus did not outlaw divorce, but he severely limited it.

Passage 2: Matthew 12:1-10

We will look in depth at the passage in Matthew, and then briefly mention Mark 10:1-12. They cover almost exactly the same ground and put forward the same teachings. We will not give special mention to Luke, since it only repeats the teachings of Matthew and Mark and gives no new perspective on the discussion. The most significant difference, as we have already established, it that Mark did not choose to include Jesus’ adultery exception as part of the teaching.

Jesus has left Galilee and gone down to the region of Judea, across the Jordan River. Large crowds followed him and he healed many. The Pharisees, always looking to undermine Jesus or trap him in some misspoken word, posed a question to him. “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any reason?” They were, essentially, asking him if the Shammai or Hillel schools were correct in their teachings. Jesus responded much like the angel did when Joshua asked him whose side he was on. The angel said, “I’m not on either side, I’m in charge.” Jesus said that he was not on the side of either group, but was establishing a new teaching that would render the discussion pointless. Rather than argue over what “some indecency” means in Deuteronomy 24, he established a new and clear standard.

His first response was to take them back to Genesis 2:24 and reestablish the divine intent of marriage. Divorce was not normal to God’s plan. He intended a man and woman to join together and stay married as long as they both lived. God takes this man and woman and joins them together as one. They are not two separate people anymore but one. That is when Jesus lays down his fundamental, revolutionary, shocking teaching. “Do not divide what God has joined together.” God joins two people in marriage. We should not divide them. As a Christian I should not seek to or initiate the breaking of my marriage bond. It should be sacred to me. Again, this was a radical departure from anything that was being taught in any branch of Judaism.

The Pharisees responded by going back to Deuteronomy 24. They realized that Jesus was teaching something very different from what that passage taught. Look carefully at how they worded their question. “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” To them, this was a command of God, an expression of the way that things should be. Jesus corrected that very quickly. Moses gave that teaching “because of the hardness of your hearts.” Moses did not “command” divorce, but “permitted” it in special circumstances because of the effect of sin on human life.

He then makes a very clear point. “From the beginning it was not so.” Moses and the law may have permitted a man some freedom in seeking a divorce, but that was not the original intent of God when He created us male and female and ordained marriage on this earth. Divorce never pleases God, but is permitted in cases in which sin has destroyed a marriage covenant.

Then, Jesus lays out his radical new teaching. If you divorce and remarry except on the grounds of adultery, you become an adulterer yourself. Mark adds that if your wife remarries, she will become an adulterer as well.

It should be noted here that since Israel was no longer a sovereign nation, the Old Testament requirement of execution for adultery was no longer widely in place. The Jews could not execute without the permission of the Romans, though what is today called “honor killing” may well have taken place from time to time.

The disciples understood what Jesus was saying, but they did not like it. Jesus was saying that no matter how annoying, or undesirable, or bossy a wife becomes, marriage is ended only by death, except in the case of adultery. If a man married, it was a permanent decision and they did not much like that.

Jesus responds with a very strange discussion of being a eunuch. A eunuch, here, is one who chooses not to marry. Jesus seems to be laying the groundwork for the teaching on marriage that Paul later laid down in full. Marriage is blessed by God, but singleness has its advantages as well. Jesus also makes it clear that this teaching is meant to be understood and applied by “those for whom it is intended” – the people of God, those who have the Holy Spirit’s power to make marriage work.

As mentioned earlier, Mark’s discussion is nearly identical to Matthew’s, though he leaves out a few details, most notably the adultery exception. Luke uses the words of Jesus in Mark, but leaves out all the details.

What Constitutes “Adultery”?

If Jesus permitted divorce only on the grounds of adultery, what constitutes adultery? That is more difficult than it might seem at first. Is an “emotional affair” adultery? Is “making out” adultery? What about some of the practices that are so common today but do not involved sexual intercourse? Our nation was consumed in the later 1990’s about the question of whether the president had committed adultery with “that woman” or whether the things he did with her constituted sex. Did he cheat on his wife?

The word in Matthew 19:9 is “porneia” and is a general and very broad word used to describe all illicit sexual activity. Various attempts have been made to give this word a more specific meaning (some say it only refers to immorality during the formal betrothal period, or the discovery that the wife was too close a relative to continue the marriage). The fact is that porneia is used in both those ways, but there is no evidence here to limit the meaning to a particular branch of illicit sex. Porneia included premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and a host of sexual practices too deviant to mention. It is a broad word, not a specific word.

Porneia is used to describe a life of wanton immorality, prostitution and general moral impurity. The sense here seems to be a continual lifestyle of infidelity, which breaks the marriage bond and covenant. It is not that a single act of adultery is not a significant issue, but it may not reach the standard that is in view here. A Christian couple can rebuild a marriage after an affair, and should certainly try. Porneia would imply a lifestyle of immorality. If one partner in a marriage refuses to be bound by the marriage covenant and engages in a lifestyle of immorality, the marriage covenant is effectively broken.

Marital fidelity requires much more than just abstaining from intercourse with others. It involves a mind and heart of fidelity and commitment to the marriage. When someone engages in an emotional affair, it is certainly a violation of the marriage covenant, though it may fall short of the standard for divorce. The use of pornography is certainly a violation of the marriage covenant, but also probably does not justify divorce. But acts of sexual expression other than intercourse would clearly classify as adulterous and immoral under this word. A man is permitted to hold and kiss and touch only one woman, his wife, and she is bound by the same. Any form of sexual expression or fulfillment is forbidden with anyone except one’s spouse. The continual and unrepentant lifestyle of immorality is the only biblical justification for divorce that Jesus gives.

Even if Jesus permitted divorce, the Christian must realize that the greatest expression of divine nature is to forgive sinners and restore what sin breaks. If a spouse cheats, divorce may be permissible, but that does not make it always the best option. It is best to forgive and let God rebuild the marriage, if that is possible.

Perspectives

1. Jesus left no doubt that the original intent of God was marriage that lasted a lifetime. One man, one woman; joined together by God for as long as life lasts. Jesus left no doubt that while the Law permitted a man to divorce his wife with a certificate, that was what God permitted, but not what He intended.

2. Immorality is the only grounds upon which Jesus permitted divorce. Immorality implies a lifestyle of sexual immorality which effectively breaks the marriage covenant. The innocent party is not bound to a covenant which the other party refuses to honor.

3. If a divorce takes place on any grounds other than that of “porneia” it is not valid in the eyes of God. If the parties of that invalid divorce remarry, their marriage is adulterous, because God sees them as still married to the previous spouse.

4. Jesus made it clear that exceptions to divorce are permitted by God, but divorce is not something that brings pleasure to God. Since our goal is to bring pleasure to God, not just to do what God permits, it is incumbent on the Christian to do whatever he or she possible can to preserve a marriage, to forgive sin and sinners and to make marriage permanent. A Christian should only seek divorce, even in the event of immorality, as a last resort when every attempt at reconciliation has been rebuffed.
I have heard Christians say, “one time is all it would take. If he tries it I will throw the bum out.” That is an understandable human sentiment. But God is not pleased with “one strike and you’re out” ethics. Sin is sin and it is always serious. Even a brief moment of infidelity breaks trust and works to destroy a marriage. But redemption brings forgiveness and Christians work to rebuild what sin breaks, not to throw it away.

5. It is important to note that the teaching of Jesus limits the right of remarriage. If divorce is not on biblical grounds, remarriage is prohibited. On the other hand, if a divorce is granted on biblical grounds, the presumption is that remarriage is then permitted. A divorce on biblical grounds is the ending of marriage covenant and implies the right of the innocent party to remarry.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce is shocking and revolutionary. He held up the original intent of marriage clearly and uncompromisingly. He also made a single exception to his rule of permanent marriage, adultery. In that case, divorce was permissible in God’s eyes.

In the epistles, Paul builds on Jesus’ teaching and adds some new perspectives, revealed to him by God.

Indecency and Divorce: Deuteronomy 24:1-4

2008-08-29T22:26:00.000-05:00

(This is part 3 of a series studying the biblical teachings of divorce and remarriage. The key question I intend to deal with is whether divorced men should be allowed to serve as pastors, elders or deacons. Before we deal with that issue, we must look at all the biblical evidence.)

Old Testament Teachings on Divorce

Women did not have high standing in ancient Semitic cultures. They were treated as property, regarded as servile – put on earth to provide pleasure and comfort for men. The thrust of the law was to prohibit men from treating women cruelly or arbitrarily.

Genesis 2 reveals God’s perfect purpose for marriage – one man, one woman, one lifetime. When a man and woman marry, the two become one in God’s eyes. Divorce is a violent separation of what God has joined together. Divorce was not part of God’s original plan. In Malachi, God expresses his displeasure with Israelites who divorce their wives for pagan women. The Ezra passage tells us that there are circumstances in which divorce is permissible, even commanded by God.

Now, we turn our attention to the key Old Testament passage on divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This passage is the only clear Old Testament instruction on divorce, and it is foundational to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

While this passage is the clearest Old Testament divorce teaching, its primary subject is not divorce, but remarriage. It is a prohibition against capricious divorce and remarriage. In the culture to which this command was given, men had an almost unlimited right to divorce their wives. Women, of course, had no such right. This passage prohibits a man from remarrying a woman he has divorced who has married another man after the divorce.

Grounds for Divorce

There are several key teachings in this passage that have application to our current discussion. First of all, this passage establishes something that generally did not exist in that culture – the necessity of a proper grounds for divorce. Divorce could not be done capriciously, but the husband had to find “some indecency” in his wife.

The meaning of the word “indecency” is not easy to establish in this context. The word normally means “to expose the genitals” and is usually translated “nakedness.” In Genesis 9:22, Ham found his drunken father and “saw the nakedness of his father.” There was shame attached to exposing the genitals. That meaning is clear in almost every use of the word.

But here, the meaning is almost certainly figurative – a unique use of the word. It doesn’t seem likely that divorce was only permitted if a women exposed herself in public. The natural deduction would be that divorce would only be granted on the ground of immorality, as Jesus later taught. However, there is a problem with that deduction. There was a penalty in place for sexual immorality, whether premarital or extramarital – death. Deuteronomy 22:20-22 had just established that clearly. So, it seems unlikely that sexual immorality is in view here.

So, what does “some indecency” mean? First, it is a limit on capricious divorce. A man could not divorce his wife because she gained a few pounds or because someone new came along. A man needed to find some moral flaw in his wife’s character that brought shame to him and his family. Unfortunately, there is nothing more specific here. Did it refer to a rebellious spirit, a sinful heart, a mean disposition? We do not know.

Fortunately, Jesus spelled out the grounds for divorce more clearly in the New Testament. But there are two key deductions that I would draw here. First, divorce may only be sought for serious moral reasons. It can never be done lightly or frivolously. The Shammai and Hillel rabbinic schools argued over the meaning of this phrase. The Shammai school took a very narrow view and the Hillel school a very broad view. Those in the Hillel school maintained that a man could divorce his wife for burning his food. If there was anything he did not like about his wife, that qualified as “something indecent.” But it is clear here that a man was required to find serious moral fault in his wife before he could divorce her.

Second, this passage in God’s laws establish that there are grounds upon which a divorce is biblically acceptable. Whatever “some indecency” means, it establishes that there are divinely acceptable reasons to end a marriage. Jesus said that this law was given permissively, because of human hardheartedness. Divorce may not have been a part of God’s original ideal, but in a sinful world, He makes allowances. The sinful behavior of human beings can make divorce an acceptable if not desirable option.

Process of Divorce

Prior to this law, men would just send their wives away and publicly declare themselves divorced. The law mandated a “certificate of divorce” be given to the woman. The purpose of this seems to be two-fold. First, it formalizes the process and may make a man think twice about it if he is acting out of uncontrolled emotion. Also, it gives the woman a document which establishes that she has been freed from her marriage commitment and responsibilities and is free to remarry.

The Mishnah gives us the wording of this certificate that was used among the Hebrews. “Let this be from me your write of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that you may marry whatsoever man you will.”

This establishes an important fact. A divorce done under proper grounds and in a proper fashion is the ending of the marriage relationship. The person properly divorced is free to and expected to remarry. Divorce is the severing of the marriage relationship and frees the person to remarry.

Summary of Old Testament Teachings

The Old Testament makes several points very clear. First, God’s ideal was a marriage that united two people as one “as long as they both should live.” It is still God’s desire today that marriages be permanent and give joy and fulfillment to both parties. Second, human sin has sometimes made the divine ideal impossible. In view of man’s sinfulness, God gave certain reasonable instances in which divorce was an acceptable alternative to a broken marriage. Third, God severely limited the rights of men to capriciously or arbitrarily seek divorce. They needed a legitimate grounds for divorce if it was to be acceptable. Finally, it is clear that remarriage is part and parcel with divorce – it is assumed that those who divorce will remarry. Divorce did not free someone just to live single, but to seek another spouse.

The Old Testament teachings lay the foundation on which Jesus’ teachings and those of the Apostle Paul are built. The New Testament expands and clarifies these teachings, but does not negate them. .

Divorce: The Old Testament Evidence

2008-08-14T12:08:00.000-05:00

When we look at the OT, we must remember what the place of women was in Ancient Near Eastern society. Women were essentially glorified slaves, property bought from the father, and replaced at the whim of the husband. Divorce was generally very easy for the man to get on any grounds. A well-known Jewish tradition permitted a man to divorce his wife for burning his food. The woman had no right to divorce, any more than a slave could sell his master. Men were free to use or abuse their wives in just about any way they desired. God’s Law protected women from gross mistreatment by their husbands.

One note on methodology is needed. We are going to look at the Old Testament evidence on divorce, but not in chronological or biblical order. We are looking at them in an order that seems logical to me in laying down the fundamental Old Testament teachings on divorce.

God’s Original Intent: A Blessed Partnership – Genesis 2:24

In Genesis 2:24, we see the clearest revelation of the original intent of God in marriage. No matter how far mankind has strayed from that intent, it remains God’s perfect design. A man was to separate from his parents to partner with his wife and become one with each other. In God’s paradise, marriage would have been a satisfying and pleasurable partnership and divorce would have been unthinkable.

Unfortunately, sin entered God’s world and messed up God’s perfect plan. The world became corrupt with sin. There is no record of the first divorce, but it is clear that divorce is a result of the fall of man into sin. Sin cursed the physical world with all sorts of disasters; it cursed men with fruitless toil, women with pain in labor; it cursed the spirit of man with death; and it cursed marriage with the specter of failure and divorce.

Several things are clear in this passage. First of all, monogamy was the intent of God. A man was to leave home and marry “his wife.” There is no hint that polygamy was what God intended. Why was it permitted during biblical times? That is a complicated issue, not in the scope of this study. My theory is that after sin marred God’s intent for marriage, He brought His people back to the original standard progressively. By the New Testament era, monogamy was clearly once again the biblical ethic.

It is also clear here that marriage is intended to involve a man and a woman. While this study is not about homosexuality, it cannot be argued that God’s intent in creation was for homosexuality to be an option. Homosexuality is a result of the fall not of God’s creation. We should minister to homosexuals with compassion, but we cannot approve a lifestyle contrary to the will of God.

Perhaps the clearest teaching here is that marriage was intended to be a blessed partnership, not open warfare. God meant for a man and woman to become one – united in body, in soul and in spirit. I noticed a trend in recent years at weddings. Now, when people do the unity candle, they leave the original candles lit. In days gone by, they were usually extinguished. The symbolism is clear. People today want to have independent, separate lives and then come together a share a small part with their husband or wife. Biblical marriage was a complete joining of the two into one.

This is the hopeful word in all this. We will be discussing divorce. It is a brutal act, severing two people meant to be one as long as they live. It is depressing to talk about it. But, when I have counseled couples considering divorce, I have been able to give them this advice. God is on the side of lifelong, blessed, contented, fulfilling marriage. If two people will both give themselves to God and to each other, God becomes your ally in making the marriage work. I have seen God work in marvelous ways when people gave Him the opportunity by looking to Him. Marriage in this world is not easy. But we are not alone in the world. We have the power of Almighty God at work in us to sustain us and help us.

Marriage in a fallen world may not be perfect, but God will work to rebuild what sin has broken. Marriage is still God’s will and He blesses those who seek Him in it.

God’s Attitude toward Divorce

What does God think about divorce? Most would start and finish their study in Malachi 2:10-16, where God says “I hate divorce.” But there is other scripture that must be balanced here.

God Hates Divorce – Malachi 2:10-16

For many, this verse is formative, a clear denunciation of divorce from the mouth of God. He states unequivocally, ‘‘I hate divorce’’. And He does. When there is a divorce, it is clear evidence that someone has violated His revealed will and it is a tearing apart of two people that God has made one. Divorce brings brokenness and pain. All of this grieves the heart of God. He hates sin and all its effects. God hates divorce.

The divorce in this passage was a particularly heinous form of divorce. Men were leaving their Israelites wives and marrying Canaanite women. Not only were they leaving the wives of their youth, but they were joining to women who would lead them into idolatry. It was the pattern Israel had followed in the period of the Judges and Kings and God did not want that to happen again. Israelite men were not only divorcing their wives, but were flirting again with the idolatry that brought such destruction on the people.

But this verse is not the only word on divorce. In fact, there are some significant issues with the common interpretation of the verse. First of all, the divorce in question here is an odious form of divorce, as stated above. God was not making a blanket statement here, but was addressing a specific situation. Men were leaving their wives for pagan women. God hates that. But it may not be the blanket statement it has often been taken to be.

Here’s the kicker. The quote, “I hate Divorce” is probably a bad translation. Newer translations have given what is probably a better rendering of the verse. God is probably not the subject of the verb “hate.” It is not God who hates divorce in this passage, but a man who hates and subsequently divorces his wife. Let us examine this verse in brief detail.

After the opening conjunction, the verse throws three verbs together in a row. Literally, it says “For he hates to divorce, says the Lord.” The verbs “hate” and “divorce” mostly likely identify the man who is the subject of the main clause later in the verse, “covers his garment with violence.” In the context, it probably means, “For he who hates (his wife) to (the point that) he divorces (her), says the Lord, covers his garment with violence…”

The first verb, “hates” is a different verb than was used in Malachi 1:3 (Esau I hated). This verb is more visceral. It speaks to someone having an emotional disgust. In this context, it refers to a man who treats his wife as if she were refuse, throwing her away in divorce to marry a Canaanite woman.

It is a third person verb, “he hates.” This is key to the understanding of the verse. If God is the subject of the verb, and God is speaking, why does He not say, “I hate divorce.” God is not the subject of the verb. The subject is “he.” Who is “he?” The person who despises his wife to whom he committed himself, divorces her and finds a pagan, foreign wife is the subject of this verse.

That does not change the fact that God hates the kind of divorce that is going on in this situation, a man leaving his wife for another woman (or vice-versa, I assume). But there is no blanket statement in this verse that governs all our discussions on divorce.

So, to summarize, this verse makes it clear that God was angered by Israelite men leaving their wives for pagan, Canaanite women. This buttresses the original intent of marriage: one man and one woman, sharing a lifetime together. But, this verse is not the authoritative, blanket condemnation of all divorce that some have made it out to be.

God Commands Divorce – Ezra 9-10

This verse, addressing a situation very similar to the one in Malachi 2:16, is a strange verse and is hard for some people to swallow. In this passage, God commands Israelite men to divorce their pagan wives and return to their Israelite wives. Through Ezra, the leader of Israel, God commanded divorce. If the men were going to be right with God, they would have to divorce the foreign women they had married.

I know this is a special and unique situation. My only point in bringing this up is that it proves that divorce is not ALWAYS a sin. Here, to stay married was the sin; the sin was NOT to divorce. In a sinful world, the ideal of God is not always possible. In this situation, the will of God was that men divorce their wives.

If all divorce is always wrong in every situation, then why did God command the people to get divorces? Would not that make it necessary to say that God told the people to sin? It is absurd to say that God commanded sin. It is equally absurd then to say that God opposes all divorce. Here, He clearly approved of it.

Why did God authorize divorce here? Because the marriages were founded on sin and could not be made righteous. There is no such thing in God’s eyes as a “no-fault divorce.” But sometimes, man’s sin causes situations in which the best option, perhaps the only option is divorce. Divorce is never God’s ideal and no man or woman of God should seek a divorce except in the most extreme and impossible of circumstances. But, at least in one situation in this passage, and I believe in other situations, human sin makes divorce a viable option. Jesus even mentioned this when he said that Moses made divorce exceptions “because of the hardness of man’s heart.”

On the other hand, if two people will confess their sin and accept God’s forgiveness, no marriage is beyond repair. Divorce may be an option only when the heart of one or both of the marriage partners is so hardened in sin that no reconciliation is possible.

I would make one other observation here. The intent of the command was that these men would divorce their foreign wives and return to Israelite women. When God authorizes divorce, remarriage is also authorized. It was God’s will that they not only divorce, but remarry as well.

There is no doubt that this is a unique situation and it would be a mistake to make this passage a formative teaching on divorce and remarriage. However, it does establish some truths beyond contestation. First, there is at least one time in which divorce was the will of God. I am going to argue that there are other times when divorce is God’s will as well. But this passage is clear that there was at least one time when God commanded divorce. I would also point out something that will become more significant in later discussions. A divinely-approved divorce seems to imply the right to remarry.

God Divorced Israel – Jeremiah 3, Isaiah 50:1

In several prophetic passages, God refers to the destruction of Israel and Judah as if it were a divorce. God is the aggrieved husband who has put up with his wife’s infidelity, then finally divorces her.

While this is another anomalous passage, and cannot be used definitively in this debate, it does lead to a poignant question. Why, if divorce is always a sin, does God describe Himself as divorcing Israel? If divorce is a sin 100% of the time, this seems to be a strange choice of figures of speech.

Summary

In these verses, we catch a glimpse into God’s heart about divorce. It is certainly contrary to His intent. When a divorce takes place, one party or both have committed grievous sin. Without sin there is no divorce.

But that does not mean that all divorce is sin. The Ezra verse, and to a lesser extent the prophetic divorce of Israel, illustrate the principle that sometimes, in a sinful world, divorce may be an acceptable alternative.

BTOS Syndrome: A Raging Baptist Disease

2008-08-11T23:37:00.000-05:00

I have been a Southern Baptist all my life, a graduate of a Baptist college and of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. My dad is a Southern Baptist pastor and missionary. My grandpa was a Southern Baptist pastor, seminary professor and denominational servant. I have been on staff at 4 Baptist churches – one in Florida, one in Virginia and two in Iowa in a 26 year ministry. I have served as the president of my state convention, as associational moderator, and in many other denominational positions. I say all this to make one point – I have some level of expertise on the ways of Southern Baptists.

I think many Southern Baptists are infected with BTOS Syndrome. BTOS: Baptist Tradition over Scripture Syndrome. Some have a tendency to let ourselves be guided more by Baptist tradition than by the clear teaching of scripture.

Exhibit A: I can confess publicly to several sins and keep my job as a pastor. I can admit to lust, greed or pride, I can gossip or slander (where would the blogs be without this?) and violate many other scriptures without issues of job security. But if I have a glass of wine, or play a hand of money poker, smoke a cigar, or go out dancing with my wife, I could be working my resume. You have a hard time finding scriptures that call any of those a sin. (For the record, I don’t drink, smoke cuss or chew. I play a little poker, but only for fun. And the only time I have danced is at my son’s wedding – that’s a coordination issue, not a moral one.)

Baptists sometimes put a higher emphasis on traditional sins than on biblical sins.

Exhibit B: Blogs have buzzed in the last couple of years over the baptism policies of the IMB. There is little scriptural support for “BI” (near-landmark) baptismal policies, but nonetheless, they have been advocated on the basis of denominational history and policy. Advocates promote this view without support from the Bible, but that does not stop them.

Some Baptists even put a higher emphasis on tradition in the study of baptism than on what the Bible says.

Exhibit C: It was recent discussion of the divorce issue in my own church that started me thinking about the BTOS Syndrome. A man (good friend-great guy) said with absolute dogmatism and certainty “the Bible says divorced men cannot be deacons.” Where? What verse is that? “A deacon must be the husband of one wife,” right? But that verse does not say anything about divorce. It is an interpretation and application of the verse. It is one possible interpretation, but there are several other valid interpretations. There is no verse that says, “divorced men cannot be deacons.” But yet we state that as if it is established biblical fact.

I have an invitation every Sunday morning. Why? In Acts 2, Peter “exhorted the people with many words to save themselves.” He didn’t sing “Just As I Am” or have people come forward, but he invited them to respond. But there are people in my church who feel like a church isn’t a church unless it gives an invitation. Even though the church existed for 1800 years without invitations, now, they are seen as biblical imperatives. There is no verse commanding invitations. I do it, but it is not a biblical command.

Try suggesting that your church do away with Sunday School. Again, Sunday School has only been around a couple hundred years. But now, we would question the salvation of someone who suggested doing away with it. I am not advocating that. My point is that we tend to put things like Sunday School on the level of a biblical mandate.

These are just examples. It is my observation that we tend to be led by “the way we’ve always done it” or “the Baptist Way” as much as what the sacred text says. Baptists have called ourselves “People of the Book.” We have said we have “no creed but Christ.” Yet, on so many issues, we rely more on majority opinion and denominational tradition than on what the Bible teaches.

Why did we fight the “Battle for the Bible” if we are going to let ourselves be infected by BTOS and let denominational tradition guide us instead of scripture? Why not just let the Bible guide us? We need to fight BTOS with all our hearts!

The Bible and Divorce

2008-08-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

(Note: this will be the first part in a series on Christians and divorce. It will be posted at both this blog and my devotional blog)

Once, the evangelical church spoke with a united voice on issues related to divorce. Those who divorced were sinners and were largely marginalized, sometimes shunned. They were certainly not permitted roles of influence in the church. Divorcees were not pastors, elders or deacons. Then, a (not so) funny thing happened. Divorce swept through our nation and churches were filled with people who had been divorced. In addition to that, Christianity in America developed a man-centered, therapeutic attitude. Gradually, divorced people took more and more significant places in the church. And now, we have much bigger issues. Denominations today are fighting over whether to allow unrepentant homosexuals into pulpits. Divorce seems like a much less crucial issue.

American Christians have often been led more by their culture than by the scriptures. When Southern culture approved and defended slavery, so did Southern Christians. As the feminist agenda took hold of our national mindset, women in pulpits became more common. As homosexuality has become more acceptable in culture, it has become more acceptable to Christians.

We are called to be biblical and our first responsibility is to God and His Word. If what the scripture teaches is offensive to culture, we must offend. But as we must let scripture confront what is culturally popular, we must also allow scripture to confront our personal and denominational traditions. We like to assume that our traditions are firmly based on scripture, but many may not be. So our goal is to look at the biblical evidence and live by that, even if we find ourselves in conflict with cultural norms or church traditions.

You will have to continue reading to get my full view on divorce. But this I will say now. I believe that many Christians have wrongly let our cultural norms dictate biblical interpretation. But I also believe that the traditional church teaching on divorce was also based on cultural norms and church traditions more than it was based on the Bible.

So, in this study, we will set forth some preliminary concerns, then we will look at every passage in the Bible that deals with the subject of divorce. We will look for answers to several questions. Is divorce always a sin? Can a divorced person remarry? What positions of service can a divorced person hold in the church?

We will seek biblical answers. I know that some who read this will certainly disagree with my position. I will argue that my position is soundly based in the proper interpretation of scripture and that it is the view that is most faithful to the intent of the Word of God. I will argue that those who disagree are misinterpreting scripture and arguing more from traditional bias than from biblical truth. I believe that the position I am advocating here is the one that bests fits all the scriptural pieces together.

But I do not question the faith, biblical integrity or love for our Lord of those who disagree. I can disagree with someone’s position on this issue without calling their love for Jesus or for the Word into question. I can say I think your position is wrong without saying I think you are wrong. So, I am going to argue forcefully for the position I believe, but do not break faith with those who hold to a different position.

In fact, the church I serve as pastor has an official position opposite mine. I have told them what I believe and why I believe it. Several men thought my position was a signal of compromise and could not accept it. Several stated unequivocally that they would leave the church if my position was adopted. I think the official position of my church is wrong. Yet, I still serve that church with joy. I will continue to try to convince them that my position is biblical and I assume they will continue to advocate for their position. But, as we study this, we can have uninterrupted fellowship and I can abide by a church policy I don’t agree with.

Defining the Sides

There are just about as many positions on divorce as there are teachers on the subject. I am going to try to categorize the views, but it is actually more of a continuum. Each of the major positions has subtle variants. The danger of simplifying is always over-simplifying. I believe that there are three major positions on divorce that modern evangelicals have fallen into.

The “Compassionate” View

Divorce is traumatic – it rips apart homes and families, devastates lives and brings heartache to all. There is really no such thing as an easy divorce. You hear celebrities sometimes talk about a “friendly” divorce. In reality, those are very rare.

The advocates of this position are primarily concerned with ministering to the divorced and helping them. Of course, all of us must do that. Advocates of every position believe in ministering to divorced people and their families.

What is unique about this position is that the church refuses to hold divorced people to any standard at all. One of the most prominent pastors in my denomination, a man with a national television ministry, was divorced by his wife. There have been no allegations of adultery on either side. This man had advocated for years that divorced men should not serve as pastors. When he was divorced, evidently his position changed. He continues to serve as pastor of that megachurch

Churches do not want to seem judgmental or exclusionary. That is a heinous sin in our culture. So, these churches welcome the divorced without judgment. They are permitted to serve in any and every position in the church without distinction. Biblical mandates have taken a back seat to therapeutic concerns. We don’t want to harm people’s self-esteem by confronting them with sin.

The positive side of this view is its compassion for those whom life has damaged. Every viewpoint should include the desire to minister to and make welcome those who have gone through the trauma of divorce. The doors of the church must be wide open to the divorced.

But we who love the Word cannot so easily dismiss its teachings. We cannot just pretend the Bible does not hold up the standard of “till-death-do-us-part” marriage. We cannot ignore the warnings of our Savior that those who divorce and remarry contrary to scripture are adulterers. Those commands have not been abrogated and we have no right to act as if they are not in God’s Word. Our position must be biblical. It must uphold scripture, not compromise it.

The “Prohibitionist” View

“We have to uphold the biblical standard of marriage.” That is what I have heard almost every time I have advocated my position. I agree with that. But the assumption behind this statement is that the Bible advocates a strict prohibition on divorce, on remarriage after divorce and on service in the church.

To the proponents of this position, the clear teaching of scripture is that all divorce is sin. Most make an exception for adultery, but some do not even grant that. Because all divorce is sin, remarriage after divorce is adultery. Since adultery is sin, those living in adulterous relationships are not eligible to serve in positions of responsibility in the church. Pastor, elder, deacon; these and other leadership positions would not available to those who have been divorced. Some make exceptions for those who were divorced before they were saved, figuring that what a person did before salvation should not be held against them afterward. Those who hold this position are often still reluctant to allow the divorced to serve in key church positions.

On the positive side, proponents of this view have a high view of scripture and are willing to stand by scripture even if it offends culture. This is admirable. If their position is biblical then their stand is noble.

My problem, though, is that I do not believe that the Bible teaches the position they are advocating. I think that position is based on church and cultural traditions. So, if the proponents of this position are not upholding the standard of scripture, they are enforcing a legalistic, extra-biblical position on divorced people. They are excluding them contrary to the revealed will of God. If their position is biblical, it is noble. If it is not biblical, it is cruel. So, the question is simple: is the prohibitionist position biblical or not? That is the focus of this study.

The “Redemptive” View

This is the position that I will advocate. I reject the Compassionate view because it does not uphold biblical standards. I reject the Prohibitionist view because I think it enforces a standard that goes beyond that which is taught in scripture. It is legalistic and cruel. In fact, I believe that the Prohibitionist view is a denial of the redemptive power of Christ. I know that such is not the intent of anyone who advocates that view, but I believe that it is the effect.

The redemptive view is based on the transforming power of Jesus Christ and the Cross. This view upholds the biblical standard of lifelong marriage and recognizes that divorce is the result of sin on the part of one or both partners. What this view refuses to do is put divorcees into a special category of sin.

Jesus came to forgive sin and redeem sinners. A murderer can be forgiven and redeemed. An adulterer can have his sin washed white as snow. So can a thief, a drug addict, a prostitute, even a homosexual. In the same way, those who are divorced are forgiven and redeemed by the power of Christ.

Leadership in the church is a matter of character and integrity. Those who lead the church must have spiritual integrity in their walk with Christ and must have demonstrated character to the church and community in their public walk. We are all sinners, though that sin takes different forms. God is working to conform us to the image of Christ. Those who lead the church are those who are farthest in the process of Christlikeness.

What matters is not what I did 20 years ago, but what I am today. Maybe, 20 years ago I was a drug dealer. But today I am walking with Christ and people can see what I am. Maybe, 20 years ago I robbed a bank. I did my time, got right with God and began to grow. If I have demonstrated that I am a new man in Christ, and have reliable character, I can be a leader in God’s church.

Why is divorce any different? If I am in the middle of a divorce, I am probably not ready to be a pastor, elder or deacon in the church, even if I am the “innocent” party in the divorce. But if I was divorced 25 years ago, remarried, and have been a faithful husband to my wife for all these years, should that divorce forever eliminate me from service.

I believe that blanket elimination of a person who has been divorced from service in the church is a denial of the redemptive power of Christ. Jesus came to redeem sinners and to make them like Christ. To continually throw a sin of the past in the face of someone who has repented and has been renewed in Christ is, to me, a heinous thing.

Once again, if the biblical evidence supports the Prohibitionist viewpoint, then my view is weak and compromising. If Paul, when he told Timothy that leaders must be “the husband of one wife” meant “never divorced”, then my view is wrong. That is why we need to inductively study scripture.

Toward a Biblical View

The Biblical position strikes a balance between the opposing sides of prohibitionism and compassion. We must take into account both God’s terrible holiness, and His gracious forgiveness in view of the sinfulness of man. It must stress both the sanctity of marriage in God’s eyes, and the harsh reality of life in a sinful, fallen world. It must stress forgiveness and restoration to divorced people, just as is true for people guilty of other sins. To find the biblical position on divorce and remarriage issues, we must:

1. Approach the scriptures open-mindedly. We all have the tendency to believe what we’ve always been taught, without looking at our views critically, to see if they are consistent with scripture. The person who desires to know God’s mind must always come to the word with a pure heart and an open mind, leaving prejudices and preconceived ideas behind. WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT WE FIND OUT WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT DIVORCE, NOT THAT WE PROVE THAT WHAT WE SAY IS RIGHT.

2. Look at all the scriptural evidence. We cannot just rely on those verses which support our cherished positions. That is how we so often argue scripture. I marshal several texts which support my position, then deny or ignore the texts you have marshaled to support yours. For a view to be biblical, it must fit every scriptural text into the view without denying or doing hermeneutical violence to any position.

3. Look at each scripture in its context. The context of a passage will never change the meaning of a verse, but it will clarify the meaning. Each text must be studies on its own, faithfully understanding it in context. Then, we seek to put all the verses together into a unified and consistent whole. If the Bible is God’s Word, then every verse’s clear meaning will fit together into a totality that is logical and consistent.

Methodology of This Study

In this study, we will look at the biblical evidence on divorce in its entirety. We will look at the Old Testament evidence, then the words of Jesus himself, and then the evidence from the New Testament Epistles. Each section will have summary statements, and at the end, there will be an overall summary. The issue of remarriage will be dealt with in a separate summary at the end of the stud, though it will also be mentioned in dealing with the separate verses.

Ding, Dong, the Blogs Are Dead

2008-07-08T00:08:00.001-05:00

I am feeling betrayed and abandoned. I was introduced into the blog world reading Wade Burleson's screeds against the IMB Bot's. After a long time, I got tired of that mess, and went on a quest to find some other blogs to read.

I stumbled across a small group of bloggers sometimes called the "Baptist Identity" bloggers. I dubbed them the Baptist Bluster Brigade. They march in lock step, always blogging about the same subjects, always agreeing with one another and affirming the brilliance of each other's posts, and ALWAYS attacking anyone who disagreed as a closet liberal or an agent of "Enid." It didn't take me long to decide that wasn't my cup of tea.

So, I went searching again, and I found some intelligent, intriguing blogs. I found Bart Barber, who agrees with the BI folks in some things, but does so with intelligence and insight. He also engages in discussion when someone disagrees. He has written some great junk. Unfortunately, he has not been blogging. He thinks it is okay for him to DO MINISTRY instead of writing stuff for me to read. Imagine that!

I also found Nathan Finn and his blog, "The Fullness of Times." It was, in my opinion, the best I found. He has a unique insight into SBC issues. His series on the questions students ask him was powerful. He has convinced me to steer my son toward Southeastern Seminary. And now he has had the nerve to put his teaching duties ahead of his blogging duties. AAARRGGHH!

It seems like the good bloggers have better things to do. The purveyors of insipidity and drivel seem to have plenty of time to blog, but those who have something to say either have a better place to say it or don't have the time to write.

I can't believe these guys are putting their ministries ahead of my blog-reading. Very selfish. What is a guy to do to waste time?

The Yankees aren't playing that well. I need some blogs!!!

Where Southern Baptists Shine!

2008-06-30T14:45:00.000-05:00

When you read SBC blogs, you hear relentless stream of negativism about the future of the SBC. Some cynics say we need to develop an "exit strategy." One mega-commenter relentlessly bashes the SBC and questions the intelligence of anyone who does not share her viewpoint. Statistics have shown that we are declining numerically and a cursory examination of blogs shows that we are severely divided.

But in New Orleans and Cedar Rapids, Southern Baptists shine. Our disaster relief efforts are amazing. In my hometown, Cedar Rapids, the flood wreaked devastation. Now, Southern Baptists are there helping to rebuild the city. The church I grew up in, and the other SBC church, the one I pastored for over 14 years, are housing disaster relief teams which are involved in mud-out and will be replaced by rebuilding teams.

Last week, I was in New Orleans working with "Operation Noah" an SBC-led program to rebuild that devastated city. Operation Noah is doing what the government and social agencies could not do - put people back in their homes. It is an amazing ministry.

Yes, we Southern Baptists have our problems. There are some things I don't like. But I am glad to be a part of an organization that is there when people need us.

What in God's Name are We Doing to Our Children?

2008-06-19T11:33:00.000-05:00

(If you read this and comment, please don't think I am ignoring you. I am headed to New Orleans for a week of disaster relief. I don't know how much internet access I will have.)

(I was reading Bart Barber's current post on biblical literacy, and it put me in mind of this, my very first blog ever. So, I pulled it out of the mothballs and edited it.)

Everyone is concerned about the effect that our culture is having on children. Violence, immorality and perversion fill the airwaves. The family is breaking down, our schools are a mess; the moral foundations of our nation are crumbling. What is going to happen to our children and grandchildren as they grow up in this moral cesspool?

But I have a more serious concern today. I am bothered by the effects of a pagan society on the next generation, but I am more concerned about what the church of Jesus Christ is doing to our children. A prominent church developed a children’s ministry center. The designer had worked for Disney and built a visual wonderland to amaze and attract. In the hopes that many children would come to Christ, the church put in a baptistery; one especially designed for children. It was shaped like a fire truck and equipped with a confetti canon that would fire every time a child was baptized. I need to clarify something here.

The preceding paragraph is NOT fiction. I have talked to people who have been there. The facts are verified and undenied. What that church did may be extreme, but it is indicative of what is going on in children’s ministries across America. Children’s ministries are competing with fast-paced children’s television programs and exciting video games. So, we compete. If Disney can entertain our children, we will do it better. We will out-Hollywood Hollywood and out-rock-and-roll the music industry.

This is all done with the most noble of motives. The bright lights of our culture attract children, so we use the bright lights to attract them to Christ. If the kids watch TV, let’s give them VeggieTales. If they are going to play games, they might as well have a Christian theme. Their music might as well have vaguely Christian words. Whatever we have to do to get them into the church and keep them there, we will do.

But there may be a problem with all this. I am afraid that in our noble desire to make the church more palatable and entertaining, we are in danger of raising a generation which has no concept of what Christianity really is. My generation is narcissistic and self-indulgent. What will this generation of entertainment-jaded youth be when it is all grown up?

Jesus described the very nature of Christianity. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” Paul told the Philippians, “It has been granted to you on behalf of Jesus not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.” Jesus promised his disciples that in this world, they would have tribulation.

We work very hard to make the church experience fun, exciting and entertaining. We cater to children. But following Jesus is self-denial, not entertainment. We are called to serve him; not just to enjoy him. How are kids going to learn this lesson if children spend their lives being catered to and entertained? When is the last time an American child was asked to sacrifice for cause of Christ?

For several years I led a ministry at my former church called Bible Drill. It is hard work. Every week I had a dozen or so wonderful Christian fourth through sixth graders in my office whining about Bible Drill. “This isn’t fun. Can we go outside?” Every week I gave them the same response. “Nothing of real value in life is fun. The things that really matter require hard work, sacrifice and faithfulness.” The message never seemed to get through. These kids were not juvenile delinquents. These were good kids – church kids. In fact, one of them went home with me at the end of the evening. But they had an idea ingrained into their pre-adolescent minds. Church is supposed to be fun. If it isn’t fun, they shouldn’t have to do it. Where would they have gotten such an idea?

I am raising an issue for which I do not have an answer. I do not want to make church dull. Howard Hendricks said that it is a sin to bore people with the Word of God. I agree. I see no real problem with using technology to create interest. But I do think that we have to be careful not to let kids grow up in the church enjoying the show without being challenged to sacrifice for the cause. Jesus did not say, “If anyone – except the children – would come after me...” We cannot give children a watered down gospel or ignore the call of Christ to sacrificial living.

In our effort to keep kids coming to church, have we compromised the reason why they should come? Is the goal to get them into the church or to see them passionately devoted to the Savior?

Anyone remember Pinocchio? Wasn’t it the carnival that led him into bondage?

Challenging Dr. Yarnell's BI Baptism viewpoint

2008-06-06T14:22:00.000-05:00

Part 3: Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Yarnell’s Position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

2008-06-02T21:16:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passage 1: Romans 6:1-4

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

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

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

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

Passage 2: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passage 3: 1 Corinthians 12:12

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

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

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

Passage 4: Galatians 3:27

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

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

Passage 5: Ephesians 4:5

One Lord, one faith, one baptism

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

Passage 6: 1 Peter 3:21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

Baptism in Acts: Into Christ or into the Church?

2008-05-27T20:40:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passage 1: Acts 3:38-41 Pentecost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passage 3: Acts 8: 37-40 Ethiopian Eunuch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passage 5:Acts 10:46-48 Cornelius

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

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

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

Passage 6: Acts 16:14-15 Lydia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Biblical Baptism?

2008-05-22T13:56:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem

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

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

The following are the points of contention:

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

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Nathan Finn's Blog - Regularly!

2008-05-20T21:56:00.001-05:00

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

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

I know, that was an overgeneralization.

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

Nathan Finn is one of the best examples of this.

Where is the Statesman?

2008-05-14T12:38:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is It All About Wade?

2008-05-03T09:12:00.000-05:00

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.

An OId (Dumb) Joke - That Makes a Point

2008-04-29T08:25:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

The SBC is in Decline

2008-04-24T10:46:00.000-05:00

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

A couple of observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there are other, less noble reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dissent, the Holy Spirit, and the SBC

2008-04-13T13:05:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Art of Misdirection

2008-04-09T13:46:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Klouda Conclusion

2008-03-21T12:07:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

The convention should decide issues like this, not individuals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satan's on Vacation

2008-03-06T12:36:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

A Proposal for Conservative Bloggers

2008-03-04T19:52:00.000-06:00

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

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

Here is what I propose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that seem like a good idea to anyone else?

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

Is It Possible?

2008-03-01T22:20:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to Despair?

2008-02-27T00:35:00.000-06:00

I find myself hoping that the blogosphere does not represent the spiritual temperature of our denomination. If so, we are in big trouble. I hope our denomination is better than the level of spiritual maturity and compassion demonstrated there.

There seem to be two "demons" in the blogosphere. First, there is Dr. Paige Patterson. In post after post at SBC Outpost, in comment after comment on Wade Burleson's site and in other places, Paige Patterson is demonized as a man of overweening pride and arrogance, a man who is only out to build his own kingdom. One lady on another site said that, because he fired Sherri Klouda, he is not a good man. HE IS NOT A GOOD MAN! We cannot see him as a good man who perhaps has made some mistakes. No, he is the focus of evil in the SBC world.

Second, there is Wade Burleson. To those who support Dr. Patterson, Wade Burleson is the focus of all evil in the modern world. Every word he says is ascribed an evil intent. Every action taken against him by the IMB Board of Trustees is justified because he is an arrogant, self-important schemer. They cannot see him as a man who, even with his flaws, may have made a good point or two about the SBC. No, he is only evil all the time.

When I confront Patterson bashers about their Patterson-bashing, they justify it because he has done so much wrong that needs to be dealt with. When I talk to Wade-haters, they can only spread rumors about Wade doing this or that - which, of course, justifies their Wade-hating. Besides, they both say, the other side did it first, or worse.

I read a post today by one of the chief Wade-haters, who has left many mean-spirited comments on Wade's site. His post decries the mean-spiritedness in the blogosphere. Of course, he only means those who are mean to Dr. Patterson. Being mean to Wade, or Ben Cole, or others, that is okay. They are evil. Ben Cole intimated that he had every good reason for his hatred of Paige. Evil people do evil things and they need to be treated this way.

When did God say that "love your enemies" no longer applied to the Southern Baptist Convenion? When did "bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse" pass into oblivion?

Honestly, I am fed up. Does my frustration come through? Why won't those of us who believe the Bible do what it says?

Is Turn About Fair Play?

2008-02-25T15:41:00.000-06:00

I am at the point of despair about the inability of good Baptist preachers and others to maintain civil discourse according to biblical standards. Yes, I have gone over the edge a time or two myself, and have said something unkind. I work hard to state my beliefs directly without slander or insult, but sometimes, I fail. We all do.

But I am seeing one tactic over and over again that bothers me. It is a basic principle of Christian ethics that I am responsible for my own behavior regardless of what someone else does. Another's sin does not justify my own.

But that does not seem to be the ethic driving bloggers. When confronted with the practice of using innuendo or slander to belittle their enemies, they respond, "Well, that's what Wade does." Whether that is true or not is not at issue. Let's say Wade did that; that the accusation is true. Does Wade's sin justify my sinful response?

Both sides in this current dispute are using this tactic, justifying their own rhetoric because others "did it first."

Show me one place in scripture where one person's sin justfiies mine.

Show me where the "return good for evil" and "bless those who persecute you" principles were abrogated.

Does "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you" not apply to the blogosphere?

It is time for this nonsense to end.

An Issue of Authority

2008-02-21T00:40:00.000-06:00

There was an entry on another blog chastising the SBC reformers for not submitting to the authority of the SBC leaders and the boards of trustees.

I agree that the problem in the SBC may be rooted in rebellion and the refusal to yield to authority. I just think a lot of people do not understand lines of authority in our convention and in Baptist polity.

The final authority in the SBC is the convention in annual session. Last year, the convention adopted a motion which identified the Baptist Faith and Message as our common doctrinal statement. This motion was offered to counter the policies of the IMB Board of Trustees and other actions.

After the motion, several key leaders in the convention stood to say they would refuse to follow the intent of the motion. The IMB BoT has not submitted to the authority of the SBC. The rebellion I see is among the leaders of the SBC. They seem to believe they are not accountable to the convention or anyone in it.

But, the convention is not under the authority of Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, John Floyd or Tom Hatley. I have been told my many folks who know them that Patterson, Mohler and Floyd are fine men of God who deserve to be honored for their fidelity to the gospel. But that does not change my opinion that they have displayed hubris in dealing with the authority of the SBC over them.

There has been plenty of inflated rhetoric and sinful behavior on all sides of the issues of the SBC. But the key issue to me is authority. Will the leaders we have put in power be accountable to the SBC, or will they refuse to submit to the established authority of the convention in session.

A Battle Not Worth Fighting

2008-02-18T11:18:00.000-06:00

I wish I had written down the details, and if there is someone more an expert on WWII history than I, I would love to hear the details. I was watching a program on the War on the History Channel. It described the ground war after D-Day as the Allies pushed the Nazi army back across Europe. The show focused for a few minutes on a battle that took place in a forest, I think it was in France. An Allied general determined that the Nazis had to be chased from this forest on the path to Berlin. A fierce battle ensued that cost many troops their lives.

The problem was, the battle did not need to be fought. The Allies could have just gone around the forest, let the Germans have it and pushed on. They could have just posted some troops to guard the forest and pushed on. The expenditure of time and lives wasted in that forest was a great blunder by that general.

Here's my point. Some battles need to be fought and others are a waste of time and resources. The Nazis needed to be dealt with. That war was just. But that particular forest battle did not need to be fought. It was a mistake.

I think the battle for the SBC conservative resurgence needed to be waged. There were mistakes in the campaign and some folks got their hands bloody, but it was something that needed to be done for the kingdom of God. We could not allow the SBC to continue its drift toward liberalism.

But now, I think we are waging some wars for forests that don't need to be won. The so-called "Baptist Identity" movement is an example of that. They have waged war to win the Private Prayer Language, and decent Baptists have been excluded from service as SBC missionaries. Why? I have no idea. Who cares how a person prays privately? Why would anyone care if in my quiet moments of prayer, I speak English, French, Hebrew or spiritual gibberish.

We waged war to prevent people who were baptized by churches that don't believe exactly as we do from serving as missionaries? Why? I don't know. As long as someone was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit by a church that believes the Gospel of grace, who cares if they have all their doctrinal ducks in a row?

We waged war to prevent a woman from teaching Hebrew to men. In the process, her family has suffered and that seminary is facing a lawsuit that could cost our Cooperative Program a lot of bucks. Why? I don't know. I don't believe women should pastor, or even teach adult men, but where does the Bible restrict women from teaching in an academic setting.

I think the Conservative Resurgence was a just war (with a few war crimes on both sides). I think some of our current battles are just bloody fights for forests that do not need to be conquered.

That's my opinion.

What Is SBC Identity?

2008-02-11T18:37:00.000-06:00

For several years, there has been a growing controversy among SBC conservatives over the identity and direction of the convention. It has come to be described in many ways. Some have argued that the SBC leaders are now trying to narrow the parameters of fellowship too far and are trying to bring "reform." But others have affirmed the leaders of the conservative movement in their attempt to narrow those parameters and define the SBC more carefully. Their movement is often called the "Baptist Identity" movement.

The issues that sparked this debate were the policies the IMB enacted a couple of years ago. In spite of the fact that the current IMB president has a private prayer language, the Board of Trustees adopted a policy preventing any missionaries who have a private prayer language from serving. They also defined acceptable baptism more narrowly - requiring that candidates be baptized in churches that believe as we do, especially on issues like baptismal regeneration (I happen to agree on that one) and eternal security. Someone baptized in an Arminian church would need to be rebaptized.

Wade Burleson's dissent from these policies caused a two-year firestorm that reached a climax with his censure and eventual resignation last month from the IMB. It is my opinion that too much of the focus of this discussion has been on Wade, pro or con. We need to focus on the issues.

So, the first issue is the one that the SBC needs to decide. What is the true SBC identity. Some have wanted to widen the tent and include more people. Others have been concerned that the wide tent will include the moderates and liberals who left during the conservative resurgence.

I would like to take my crack at Baptist Identity. I am a lifelong Southern Baptist, a 26 year pastor, a state convention president and a follower of several of the blogs that have carried his conflict. This gives me a perspective. It does not make my perspective any better than anyone else's. But I think it gives me the right, at least, to air my opinion.

So, as best I can define it, here are the non-negotiables of SBC Identity.

1) A belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and its authority as our guide. Everything else derives from this. People disagree about the meaning and importance of inerrancy, but what did we fight for during the 80's and 90's if not to demonstrate that inerrancy was germaine to SBC identity.

2) Belief in fundamental doctrines of the faith. We cannot brook disagreement on the fundamental doctrines related to salvation - depravity, blood atonement, salvation by grace through faith alone, etc. We have differences over some issues in this area (Calvinist controversy) but on the essentials, there can be no debate.

3) Baptism of believers by immersion. We do not say that pedobaptists are unsaved, but we do believe they are in serious biblical error. We value and prize baptism enough to require it of everyone who wants to be a member. Some churches recently have downplayed this. That is their right. But if you are an SBC church, you baptize believers only, and by immersion. If you compromise this doctrine, you may still love Jesus, but you are not really SBC.

4) The free church. We do not believe in denominational hierarchy. We are a voluntary association of free churches. But part of a free church is the ability to leave a voluntary association if my beliefs change. So, a church may embrace

5) Soul Competancy and Priesthood of believers. The problem with this is that these doctrines were so twisted by the moderates that they have become almost nonsensical. But we believe that each person has direct access to God through Christ and does not need a human intermediary. This does not give us the right to do as we please or believe as we please. But under the Lordship of Christ, each of us is given access to God.

6) Common beliefs and practices. We do not have a creed, but that does not mean that we have no common dogma. We have adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as our doctrinal statement and our catalog of common beliefs and practices. The BFM is our statement of commonality. If someone rejects the BFM, they might still be a solid, Bible-loving, God-honoring Christian. But if that rejection is serious or systemic, that person or church is not SBC. Again, disagreeing with the BFM doesn't make you evil, but it may define you as other than Southern Baptist.

7) The Cooperative program. In reality, this is the essence of the SBC. We cooperate to do missions. We pool our money to support seminaries and missionaries. We do not require everyone to give a set amount, but if you aren't into Cooperative Missions, why be a part of the SBC?

This is a rudimentary list. I will probably add more later. But, to me, this is a fairly complete list.

This Tent's Just Right!

2008-02-03T10:46:00.000-06:00

I am opening a third blog to discuss issues related to my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. For a couple of years, I have been reading and commenting on other blogs. I realized I was always responding to other people's ideas. I thought it was time for me to start putting out my own ideas.

Comments will be open. I will not moderate, but anonymous postings of a critical nature will be deleted.

Remember Goldilocks? She snuck into the home of the Three Bears. Papa Bear's bed was too hard. Momma Bear's was too soft. Baby Bear's was JUST RIGHT.

That's kind of how I feel about the SBC right now. The big question has been how big our tent should be. In the 70's and 80's, we narrowed the tent dramatically, saying that we wanted people who believed in the inerrancy of scripture and only those as a part of our denomination. In recent years, some started trying to narrow this further - excluding people with a private prayer language, or who were baptized in arminian churches. The question of the influence of Calvinism has been a big one as well as issues like Elder-led churches. We are in the middle of a re-examination of the Baptist Identity. Who are we and who do we want to be?

I believe that many of our most powerful leaders have gone too far. They have narrowed the tent too far. They have excluded people I don't think need to be excluded. Their tent is too small.

Others, who want to reform the SBC, seem to be going too far - wanting to reengage with moderates and folks like those promoting the so-called New Baptist Covenant. I think their tent is too big.

So, I am looking to establish the parameters of Baptist fellowship that are just right - at least by my standards. I will broach subjects for discussion that I hope will help people think through what Baptist Identity really is.

So, here's to finding a tent that is JUST RIGHT

In case anyone ever shows up here, let me establish what I consider to be the rules:

1) This blog is for debate, not attack. It is okay to disagree (dissent?) but deal with ideas, not character.

2) Anonymouse (I like Wade's word) posts will be be deleted, unless there is a good reason. I have no respect for the opinions of people who are unwilling to stand behind what they believe.

3) Try to understand the person you are disagreeing with. As I have observed comment streams, most of the problems come because people do not listen to what the other says, but make assumptions about what they believe, put words into their mouths then assign motives to those words.

4) I will put out an idea, engage in debate, and try to keep people on task.

Of course, that is if anyone every reads what I say and responds. Who knows?