The Arc

The stated or implied objective of many organizations and Christian ministries is “to change the world.” But ambitious plans for global transformation must reckon with the fundamental truth that the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. While certain projects and initiatives may help in one way or another to alleviate human suffering—and the aim to alleviate human suffering is not in and of itself a bad thing—any initiative that bypasses the human heart and the problem of personal sin will only be temporary and transitory. 

A careful study of church history shows that even those places in the world that have experienced seasons of revival and spiritual awakening, and along with them a modicum of moral and cultural uplift in broader society, have with time eventually returned to a deeply embedded pattern of ungodliness and in many cases surpassed pre-revival levels of societal sin. Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the Mediterranean Basin, Europe, Great Britain, North America, and to a large extent today Latin America, Africa, and Asia—each of them have had, or are having, their day in the sun, so to speak. But in spite of the many souls saved, disciples made, churches planted, and worthwhile ministry endeavors undertaken, sin still runs rampant in broader society in all these places today. 

In essence, the same crowds that shouted “Crucify him!” when Jesus was being tried by Pilate are still with us today. In the spiritual realm, the same Roman Empire that washed its hands from the crucifixion of our Lord is still with us today. The same religious authorities that wanted to protect their power base and their national pride are still with us today. Indeed, in many ways, after 2,000 years of gospel ministry, the world has not been transformed.

What are we to glean from this observation? Unitarian theologian and minister Theodore Parker penned the following words:

“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.” 

These same words served as an inspiration to Martin Luther King, Jr., who on several different occasions said something along the lines of, “The arc of the moral universe may be long, but it bends towards justice.” But as time moves on, is the world really becoming a better place? 

While we may well see progress here and there, I find it hard to say that the world is truly better now than it used to be at any other time in history. Thank God, chattel slavery is now deemed unconstitutional in the United States. But human trafficking still runs rampant in many places around the world, including right here at home. If reports are true, Roe v. Wade may be on the verge of being overturned by the Supreme Court. But according to recent polls, support for the freedom to choose abortion appears to be expanding, both in the States and around the world as well. In a lot of ways, as far as the moral and cultural transformation of society at large is concerned, it looks to me like the general pattern is two steps forward, three steps back.

As Christians, it is true, we may be certain that the day is coming when God’s justice will be done on earth as it is heaven. And as Christians, we are indeed called to be bold and faithful advocates for justice and goodness right here and now. But my understanding of biblical eschatology and the vision it presents for our expectations as Christians down through human history does not lead me to be overly optimistic with regard to the gradual and ultimate triumph of truth and righteousness up until the end of the age.

Jesus shared several parables that appear to speak to this question, and that may be interpreted—and have been interpreted—in different ways. Some interpreters interpret the parable of the leaven as referring to the power of the gospel to gradually transform the whole world just like leaven little by little spreads throughout a whole loaf of bread while it is baking. Others, however, have pointed out that leaven is almost always a symbol of evil or corruption in the Bible, and claim that the parable of the leaven speaks to the spread of false doctrine and corruption within historic Christendom over the centuries. In a similar way, the parable of the mustard seed is viewed by some as an illustration of the power of the gospel to accomplish great, world-changing things, even though its beginnings may be small like the mustard seed. Others point to the reference of the birds that roost in the branches of the tree that sprouts from the implanted mustard seed as another reference to the spread of evil and corruption that generally coincides with the growth of the church.

I am not dogmatic on my interpretation of either of these two parables. But my reading of the broad, underlying message of the Bible is that the gospel will indeed be proclaimed throughout all the earth, and the church will indeed be successful in its mission of making disciples of all nations. Some, however, have interpreted this discipling of all nations as transforming the cultures of all the nations of the earth or Christianizing the world. Indeed, the Greek term is literally “discipling the nations.” I think it is important to note, however, that the two activities that make up the disciple-making process—baptizing and teaching—are directed toward individuals, not structures or institutions. In other words, you don’t baptize or teach structures and institutions; you baptize and teach individuals.

All in all, I don’t think the Bible leads us to expect a Christianized world when Jesus returns. In Jesus’ day the gate was narrow and the road that led to life was hard, and there were few who found it. And as I read it, there is nothing in the Bible that leads us to expect that situation is to drastically change as time goes on.

If anything, the Bible tells us that “in the last days there will come times of difficulty” and that in that time “people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Timothy‬ ‭3:1–5). The power of the Anti-Christ will arise in the last days. Deception will be rampant. The kings of the earth and the merchants of the earth will join in league together against the Rider on the White Horse (Revelation 18–19). And the Bible doesn’t say anything about Christian kings, Christian merchants, or Christian nations as over against “the kings of the earth” and “the merchants of the earth.” A plain reading of the text leads us to suppose that “the kings of the earth” pretty much includes all the kings of the earth.

This leads us to ask, “What about our work for the advance of the gospel? Is it all in vain, then?” 

The Bible clearly gives us the answer to this question in 1 Corinthians 15:58: “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” So our efforts for the progress of the gospel are not in vain. Could it be, however, that we’ve gotten a bit confused regarding our ultimate objective? I think that may indeed be the case. 

I don’t think that the Bible teaches that we are actually called to transform the world. It says, rather, that we are to preach the gospel and make disciples from among all the different nations (or people groups) of the world. And as we live out our calling, we can rest assured that some will obey the gospel, and others will choose to disobey. Revelation 7:9–10 does lead us to expect, though, that when it’s all said and done, there will be at least a remnant from every nation, tribe, people, and language who will embrace the gospel and become authentic worshipers of Jesus.

In the meantime, I believe we are called to set up outposts of the Kingdom of God among all the nations and to be light-posts of love, mercy, and righteous living in the various places we presently live as pilgrims and exiles on this earth. Indeed, our good deeds, neighborly love, and advocacy for peace and justice all will be richly rewarded in this age and in the age to come. I also believe that the principles behind the Lord’s admonition to the Judahite exiles in Babylon by way of His prophet Jeremiah apply to us as well: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7). And as our Lord Jesus said, “Whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward” (Matthew‬ ‭10:42‬). 

So, be encouraged. Even though it may seem like truth and righteousness are not progressing in our nation and around the world as we hoped they would, God’s agenda is not failing. The establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth is on it’s way. Indeed, it is right on schedule. And as my father, Adrian Rogers, used to say, “Praise the Lord, it’s getting gloriously dark!”

Adrian Rogers & SBC21

What would my father, Adrian Rogers, say regarding SBC21?

The truth is, none of us knows for sure regarding every detail. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since he left us back in 2005, and a lot of new issues have arisen that he never had the occasion to address directly.

As his son, I had the privilege to know him up close and to speak with him at length on various occasions about matters such as theology and denominational politics. We all know that he was a champion for the authority of the Word of God. We know that he stood for integrity and righteousness. And we know that he was a key leader in the Conservative Resurgence of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, and that he chaired the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 Committee.

As we approach the SBC Annual Meeting in Nashville next week, a lot of controversial issues are in the air, and there has been sharp disagreement among many Southern Baptists over these issues. Ironically, from what I gather, key representatives of each of the different sides of these issues all hold my father in high esteem and regard him as a spiritual hero. Unfortunately, some of these leaders have accused those on the other side(s), despite holding to biblical inerrancy and all the other matters spelled out in the BFM 2000, of “drifting leftward” and compromising on biblical and social imperatives.

I know that my father was good friends with many of the leaders on different sides of these issues. I imagine some who read these words may well have had personal conversations with him in which he expressed his opinions on various matters related to the SBC. I was not privy to all these conversations, and I imagine some opinions were expressed in them that go beyond matters I had the opportunity to discuss with him. But I do know of one specific conversation I had with him in the summer of 2005 a few months before he passed away. 

In this conversation, he expressed to me his apprehensions about the future of the SBC. While he did not budge one inch on his convictions regarding the issues spelled out in the BFM 2000, and did not regret his role in the Conservative Resurgence, he told me that the one thing that worried him the most about the future SBC was the rising influence of a group of people he colloquially called the tire-slashers. 

The tire-slashers, according to my father, were the foot-soldiers of the Conservative Resurgence who were so enthusiastic in their support of the conservative cause that in the midst of their zeal for correct doctrine they forgot about Christian charity and treating those with whom they disagreed with decency and respect. They were those who were willing to cut ethical corners in their words and actions, all for the advance of the cause. Another name he sometimes called this same group was the Young Turks.

One of the most oft-quoted statements of my father is the following:

“I’m willing to compromise about many things, but not the Word of God. So far as getting together is concerned, we don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention, as it is, does not have to survive. I don’t have to be the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don’t have to be loved; I don’t even have to live. But I will not compromise the Word of God.”

While I am quite confident that, were he still with us today, he would say the same thing without reservation, it is important to understand the context of this statement. He by no means was minimizing the importance of Christian unity or of agreeing to disagree agreeably over secondary and tertiary doctrinal matters. By way of the BFM 2000, the BFM 2000 Committee decided to codify or “set forth” certain doctrinal distinctives that Southern Baptists believe, and at the same time they decided not to include others, thus distinguishing between denominational doctrinal essentials and non-essentials. 

Make no mistake about it, my father was not willing to compromise on any of the essentials. But he most certainly also believed in unity and charity on the non-essentials. Personally, I believe he would be heartbroken by the lack of unity and charity demonstrated by certain Southern Baptist leaders today toward those who disagree with them on non-essentials.

Nate Akin very perceptively describes here a big part of what I believe is happening in SBC life today (listen to the podcast linked below for the full context):

“There are two things I’m burdened about, and I think it’s maybe a part of the issues we’re facing. One is how driven we are by politics. So one of the things that I’ve noticed in all of these fights right now is that politics is uniting people—when you think about who’s united, it’s uniting people who have radically different soteriologies and ecclesiologies, but because they have a very similar political position. And it’s dividing others who have a similar or same soteriology and ecclesiology. And I think that is awful and I think that is sad. If anything should unite us, it should be soteriology and ecclesiology, and not politics. And yet it is uniting and dividing based upon political lines. And not even just political lines, how you view how we should be involved in politics and how you view, basically, I would say, cultural engagement, which I think is the big issue that people are missing. There’s a difference in how we think we should engage culture. And it doesn’t make one of us right or wrong. But it is kind of what’s dividing us. But when it does make it wrong is when you look at the person across the aisle who views cultural engagement different than you, and then you call them a liberal because they view it that way.”

Once again, my father is not here to speak for himself. But based upon conversations I had with him, I believe he would say amen to Nate’s words here.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/baptist-21/id1441454363?i=1000524720539

Discerning the Body: A Biblical Defense of Modified Open Communion

Who should be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church, and who should not? Some leading views advocated by Baptists are close, closed, open, and the view I personally take, modified open communion. I do not consider myself technically to be an advocate of open communion since I don’t believe the Lord’s Supper should be offered indiscriminately to anyone and everyone, nor even to all those without exception who profess to be Christians. Paul had some pretty serious words to say about taking the bread and the cup in an unworthy manner. And he relates taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner to a failure to “discern (or recognize) the body of the Lord”:

 

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. (1 Corinthians 11:27–34, NIV)­ 

*other versions translate the phrase “recognizing the body” here “discerning the body.”

 

Thus, I believe it is very important that we not participate in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner and that we encourage those who are participating with us not to participate in an unworthy manner. However, neither do I agree with the close communion position, which requires Baptist churches to only admit to the Lord’s Supper those who have been immersed in water after their profession of faith in Christ. And I do not agree with the closed communion position, which requires that Baptist churches only admit fellow members of the particular local congregation in which the Lord’s Supper is being served.

 

Lest for some reason anyone think differently, let me make perfectly clear that I do think that those who profess faith in Christ should be baptized shortly afterward and that only truly born-again people should participate in the Lord’s Supper. So I am in agreement that the normal order would be conversion, baptism, and then participation in the Lord’s Supper. However, when we think of the Lord’s Supper and who should be permitted to participate, we need to think first of all about just what it is and what we are celebrating when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. 

At the core, the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of what Jesus did for us—not of what we have done for Jesus; that is, a memorial of and witness to our salvation won by Jesus on the cross of Calvary—not a witness to our obedience to the command to be baptized, nor of our meeting the requirements for local church membership. In addition to this, the Lord’s Supper is also a celebration of the unity of the Body of Christ, the Church. Consider the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16-17:

 

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

 

The Lord’s Supper is not just a celebration of the unity of the local church. Neither is it a celebration of the unity of all of those who have their doctrine right concerning baptism. It is a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ. Paul says clearly, “We, who are many, are one body”—not many different autonomous bodies. And when we don’t admit folks to the Lord’s Supper, we are in effect telling them we don’t believe they belong in the Body of Christ.

 

Among Baptists, the traditional understanding of the phrase “discerning the body” in 1 Cor. 11:29 has to do with the responsibility of taking the Lord’s Supper in a respectful manner, realizing that what we are doing at that moment is commemorating the death of our Lord Jesus and that it is a solemn occasion, not one for joking, jesting, or behaving in a flippant manner. Certainly, there is an important element of truth here. In the overall context of 1 Corinthians, however, I believe that “discerning the body” also has a very important application to our stance with regard to our fellow brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, Paul links the two senses of the body of Christ—physical and mystical—and it appears that in 1 Cor. 11:29 he does so again. The specific sin pointed out by Paul in 1 Corinthians in relation to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was a sin against one’s fellow members in the Body of Christ. Notice chapter 11, verses 18–22:

 

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

 

What was the problem at Corinth? It was primarily a problem of division within the Body of Christ. Specifically, some of the people (presumably the more wealthy) were despising those who had nothing (i.e. the poor). Essentially, what they were doing was treating certain bona fide members of the Body of Christ like second-class citizens. One chapter later, in chapter 12, Paul develops this same theme further (vv. 12–27):

 

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

 

In the context of the specific abuses of those taking part in the Lord’s Supper, Paul is pointing out a particular division: the division between the rich and the poor within the congregation at Corinth. He makes a special point to show that, whether we be slaves or free, members who are humanly speaking “less honorable” or members who are “more honorable,” we are all part of the same Body. In the overall context of 1 Corinthians, he also decries divisions based on loyalty to certain teachers—i.e. Peter, Apollos, and Paul himself—what we might call today a denominational or sectarian spirit. Whatever the cause behind it, though, Paul is saying there is nothing that should come between us as brothers and sisters in Christ if indeed we are truly members of Christ’s Body. Because of this, it is vitally important for us to know, to the degree it is possible to know this side of heaven, who is a part of Christ’s Body and who is not. And as I understand it, this is an important part of what it means to correctly discern the Body of Christ.

 

How do we discern who is truly a part of the Body of Christ and who is not? Paul in 1 Cor. 12:13 tells us how. All of us who were baptized by one Spirit and given the one Spirit to drink were baptized (by the same Spirit) into one body—that is, the very same group to whom Paul addresses the letter of 1 Corinthians when he says in chapter 1, verse 2, “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.”

 

Notice that for Paul the “church of God in Corinth” is one and the same with all “those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy”—that is to say, every single born-again believer in the city of Corinth. Notice, also that he does not treat them as an independent group unto themselves, but rather as a local representation, or expression, of a broader group: “all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

Along with most Baptist students of Scripture and church history, I agree that in the context of the NT it would have likely been very rare, if not impossible, to find individuals who had been baptized by the Spirit yet who had not yet been baptized appropriately in water. However, in the context of today, due to the tragedy of divisions and false teaching within the Body of Christ, sadly that is no longer the case. There are many paedobaptist brothers and sisters in Christ who, though mistaken (as I understand it) in their understanding and practice of water baptism, have nonetheless been baptized by the very same Spirit as we (as Baptists) have. And when we attempt to discern the Body and we notice there is not an exact correlation between the group of all those who have been appropriately baptized in water and the group of all those who have been baptized by the Spirit, we come to the conclusion that the group of those who truly comprise the Body of Christ is made up not just of those who have been baptized both by the Spirit and in water, but rather of all those who have been baptized by the Spirit.

 

Now it is true that if someone has studied out what the Bible teaches on baptism and has come to the understanding that Jesus has commanded them to be baptized in water, and yet in spite of this has not yet followed through with what they understand, then they are living in disobedience and need to get their baptism on the right side of their salvation. In such a case, we need to warn them about the danger of participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, which includes allowing any known, un-repented-of sin in one’s life, no matter what that sin may be. At the same time, however, an objective consideration of the reality present in Christendom today leads us to the conclusion there are many authentically born-again Christians, who are sincerely endeavoring to be obedient to Jesus in everything, including baptism, yet for one reason or another understand baptism differently than we do as Baptists and as a result have not been immersed in water subsequent to their profession of faith in Christ.

 

Some claim that maintaining a practice of close communion serves as a good opportunity to proclaim to the unbaptized their duty to be obedient to Christ’s command, causing them to reflect on the reason for their exclusion from the Lord’s table. However, while this perspective may have an element of truth to it, two wrongs do not make a right. I personally agree that it is wrong for believers not to be immersed after professing faith in Christ. And I agree that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is indeed an opportune moment to remind people of their need to be obedient to the command to be baptized. But at the same time, on the basis of my understanding of Scripture, I also believe it is wrong to deny true believers—whether they have been biblically baptized or not—access to the Lord’s Supper, which is a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ, not just a part of it.

 

There are other ways to proclaim to the unbaptized their need to be baptized without at the same time despising the unity of the Body of Christ by denying them a place at the Lord’s table. The question has been raised how someone who is presiding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the context of a Baptist church can follow through with what I am saying here without at the same time being disloyal to the Baptist distinctive of believers baptism by immersion. However, I don't think this is necessarily a problem. The following is an example of what I have said, when I have presided the Lord’s Supper:

 

“The Bible teaches that before partaking of the bread and the wine we are to examine our hearts. I believe this includes examining ourselves to see if there is any known sin we have not confessed or for which we have not repented. Before sharing together with us in the Lord’s Supper today, I ask, and indeed urge, you to examine the condition of your own heart before the Lord. If the Holy Spirit convicts you of any sin, please make it right before Him before partaking in the Lord’s Supper. This is a very serious matter. The Word of God says that some in the congregation in Corinth had ‘fallen asleep’ (that is, they died) as a result of not taking this admonition seriously. I would also add that in our congregation we believe that Jesus commanded each believer after truly repenting of their sin and placing their faith in Christ to seal their surrender to Christ by means of believers baptism, or being immersed in water, after having been saved, in obedience to the Lord’s command. If you have not been obedient to Jesus’ command to be baptized, I urge you to not put off any longer doing so. At the same time, I am aware that there are some who have sincerely repented of their sin and placed their faith in Christ alone for their salvation and yet believe, as they have examined Scripture, that their baptism before they were saved is an authentic and biblically condoned baptism. Though in this congregation we believe and teach differently on this matter, we consider the Lord’s Supper to be a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ, not just of those who agree with us on this particular matter. In any case, I urge you to carefully and prayerfully study the Scripture and examine your own heart on this matter. If you are convicted you need to be biblically baptized, don’t put it off any longer. If you before the Lord have a clear conscience about being obedient to the Lord’s command in this area, then follow before the Lord the dictates of your conscience. In any case, if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are attempting to the best of your ability to serve and obey Him, we warmly embrace you and accept you as a fellow member of the Body of Christ.”

 

*What do you believe about who should participate in the Lord’s Supper?

 

*What is the practice in the churches in which you have been a member, and/or the churches you are aware of?