"Charismatic Continualists" and "Non-Charismatic Continualists"

I am currently engaged in an on-going dialogue with Jonathan K. on his blog, World of Faith, over various questions regarding "Charismatic" theology. Though Jonathan is a regular commenter on several Southern Baptist blogs, he is openly "Charismatic" and is not a Southern Baptist. Though I have found him to be a warm-hearted Christian, and a gentleman in his tone and style of dialogue, there are several issues over which I do not agree with Jonathan in his interpretation of Scripture.

Jonathan first commented on this post here on my blog, and invited me to comment on his blog concerning an issue related to his defense of "Charismatic" theology. At first, I had little interest in taking the time to respond, at least in any length, to Jonathan’s questions. I am fairly confident in my positions on the issues over which Jonathan wished to engage me, and Jonathan is fairly confident on his positions. I don’t think either one of us is probably going to convince the other of our point of view. For this same reason, I do not generally take time in my busy schedule, for instance, to debate with any number of Presbyterians in the blogosphere over the issue of infant baptism. Not to say these are not important issues, nor that those discussing them are unworthy of my respect, but in the general scope of things, I, at this particular time in my life, have more important things to do with my time.

In the end, however, I have taken a bit of time to respond to the questions Jonathan raises on his blog. I think it has been a valuable experience that may also be of some interest for some of you from Southern Baptist backgrounds that read my blog. Not that I consider myself to be an “expert” on these issues, or more equipped to answer Jonathan’s questions than many other people who have more theological knowledge than myself. Neither do I consider Jonathan to necessarily be the consummate defender of the traditional "Charismatic" point of view, though he does, in my opinion, do a quite admirable job of presenting his position.

The point for me is the following: many Southern Baptists have a tendency to equate “continualist” interpretation and a befief in the legitimacy of “private prayer language” with the point of view presented by Jonathan on his blog. The dialogue I have been having with Jonathan is a good opportunity for me to show how, even though I am a “continualist” and believe in “private prayer languages,” I am not necessarily, at the same time, on the “slippery slope” towards full-blown "Charismatic" theology.

I am thankful for Jonathan and his evident love for the Lord and for the Word of God. I am proud to embrace him as my brother in Christ. At the same time, I readily concur with others in Southern Baptist life that someone who takes the views Jonathan takes should not be considered as a candidate for missionary service with the IMB, the NAMB, or for leadership positions of our Southern Baptist institutions. His views, in some areas, are indeed, in my opinion, incompatible with what we, as Southern Baptists, have decided together is our understanding of doctrine taught in God’s Word.

I obviously (for those of you who regularly read this blog) do not, however, think this is necessarily true for all those who adopt "continualist" theology and/or believe in or practice a “private prayer language.” I believe that anyone who carefully reads through the dialogue between Jonathan and me will be able to see how this is the case. Some may even be persuaded that Jonathan’s arguments from Scripture are more convincing than my own. I am okay with that. I believe we all must do our best to look at all sides of the issues, and decide for ourselves what is the best interpretation. We must be guided more by our best effort to be objective than by our denominational biases.

I am hesitant to use the term “Charismatic,” because it means different things to different people. However, for lack of a better alternative, my point in this post is not so much to convince you of the correctness of my biblical interpretation as it is to show you the difference between “Charismatic continualist” interpretation and “non-Charismatic continualist” interpretation. For those who do not want to take the time to read through the entire dialogue on Jonathan’s blog, I will give the following synopsis to the differences of the various views, as I see them…

Though some may object and see this as an unfair characterization, for me, between “cessationist” interpretation, “non-Charismatic continualist” interpretation, and “Charismatic continualist” interpretation, “non-Charismatic continualist” interpretation is the only one that doesn’t “put God in a box.” The “cessationist” is convinced that God does not and will not work now in the same way He worked in the New Testament church. The “Charismatic continualist” is convinced that God always works now in the same way He worked in the New Testament church. The “non-Charismatic continualist,” on the other hand, is content to let God be sovereign and work however He pleases whenever He wants.

Jonathan’s posts (and my comments) up to now include:

What is Charismatic? - Introduction (no comment by me)
What is Charismatic? - Part One: Baptized into Christ (no comment by me)
What is Charismatic? - Part Two: Water Baptism - The Outward Symbol of our Baptism into Christ (no comment by me)
What is Charismatic? - Part Three: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit - Being Filled Afresh for the New Year in 2007
What is Charismatic? - Part Four: Prayer Language and Speaking in Tongues - Evidence of Being Filled with the Holy Spirit
What is Charismatic? - Part Five: Spiritual Gifts - The Motivational Gifts (Romans 12)
What is Charismatic? - Part Six: Spiritual Gifts - A Look at 1 Corinthians 12

Reply from Malcolm Yarnell

I received the following e-mail from Malcolm Yarnell, which he has graciously given me permission to copy here (I include my response at the end):

Dear David,

I read your recent blog post concerning the "Conservative Resurgence" and the "Baptist Renaissance." It is highly disconcerting to read that you could perceive that our emphasis on our common Baptist heritage is an attempt to somehow exclude you or others.

Of course, I do not know you or your specific theological positions very well, but I assume they are close to your father's heart, whose powerful preaching of God's Word so formed my own convictions. However, it is quite clear that you are a man sold out to following the Great Commission of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that is highly laudable. Indeed, that commitment is what holds us together as Baptists: passionate obedience to the Great Commission.

Personally, I would hope that you would remain at home within the Southern Baptist Convention. Indeed, I would beg of you not to let the issues that make us differ with one another overpower our common commitment in Christ.

Please do not assume that a renaissance in Baptist identity is a veiled attempt to isolate any Southern Baptist. The renewed focus on Baptist doctrine is a deliberate attempt, however, to remind us of whence we came so that we may form a common vision of whither we will go. The diverging foci on those things which make us different in recent years without a constant renewal of our common foundation is exactly what has brought us to a near crisis.

We need to plant a flag in the center and say, "Let us unite here, as disciples totally yielded in obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit march forward together to proclaim the good news to a lost world so that our Father might be glorified." The other issues should not be our primary focus. Amen?

Peace to you, my brother in Christ.

In Christ,

Malcolm

................................................................................................................................

Dear Malcolm,

Thank you very much for your acknowledgement of what I have written, and for your response. I appreciate your desire to dialogue about these issues, and to attempt to come to a common understanding.

Regarding my own theological positions, it would be unwieldy to go into much depth here, though I believe the salient matters have been treated a bit more fully at one place or another on this blog throughout the course of the past months. In summary, I am in full agreement with the Baptist Faith & Message 2,000, with the exception of one statement in the section on baptism which would seem to advocate "closed communion." I am also convinced that the Scripture teaches a "continualist" approach to spiritual gifts, which includes the possibility of what many call a "private prayer language." While I certainly believe in the local church, I also see an emphasis on the Universal Church in the New Testament in places that I understand many Baptists see more of an emphasis on the local church. I also see no need to consider as invalid the immersion of a sincere believer due to concerns over the doctrinal position of the administrator of the baptism or the administrating church.

I can easily see how any perceived "attempt to exclude" may indeed be unintentional. I myself would not want to impose my views on these particular issues on anyone else. At the same time, the views I take on these issues I take as a result of my honest understanding of the authoritative teaching of Holy Scripture. I am open to being shown where I may be mistaken. But, in the meantime, my convictions on these matters hold firm. It is my sincere hope that the views I have expressed above might not prove to be an impediment to full participation in Southern Baptist life, fleshed out in such important and practical matters as missionary appointments and opportunities for leadership within our various institutions, in order that "as disciples totally yielded in obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ" we may indeed be able "in the power of the Holy Spirit" to "march forward together to proclaim the good news to a lost world so that our Father might be glorified." I look forward to continuing to seek the Lord in prayer and to dialogue with you and others, so that this may indeed be a established reality for the years ahead.

May the Lord bless you richly,

David

The "Conservative Resurgence" and the "Baptist Renaissance"

The “Conservative Resurgence” in the SBC, as I understand it, had to do primarily with the issue of biblical authority. Yes, it occurred within the context of the Southern Baptist Convention, and thus, all of its leaders were essentially Baptist in their interpretation and basic ecclesiological convictions. However, the “Conservative Resurgence” and the self-proclaimed “Baptist Renaissance” within the SBC are not two sides of the same coin. This is evidenced in the fact that there are many who were convinced supporters of the causes advocated in the “Conservative Resurgence” who are not equally excited about the “Baptist Renaissance.”

It is my opinion, however, that the “Baptist Renaissance” is attempting to “piggy-back” on the success of the “Conservative Resurgence,” presenting itself as the legitimate heir of its legacy. At one point, several years back, it would seem that all the supporters of the “Conservative Resurgence,” both those of a “Baptist Renaissance” mindset, and those of other mindsets, were considered legitimate members of the fold.

Up until recently, in the post-Conservative Resurgence SBC, the issues of “private prayer languages,” “local church” as opposed to “Universal Church,” alien immersion, open communion, Calvinism, etc. were not high on the denominational agenda. Of course, some may have debated these issues in certain forums, but, in general, there seemed to exist a tacit agreement towards peaceful coexistence within the broader sphere of the SBC in these areas. Local churches that wanted to take a strong stand, one way or another, on these issues felt free to do so, but at a local church level. On the denominational level, there was more flexibility.

It is hard to pinpoint exactly one set of issues that describe these two visions. From my perspective (which admittedly may not be the same as some others), though, it seems one way to describe it is there are some who would want to “put the exclamation point” on everything that distinguishes us from other conservative evangelicals, while for myself and others, we prefer to put it on everything that unites us with other conservative evangelicals. On the main points of doctrine, we have no real discrepancies with each other. We both agree to the basic doctrinal framework laid out in the Baptist Faith & Message. However, there seem to be certain differences of basic values that define who we are.

Those who think like me give a high priority to unity. We have no inherent desire to form a splinter group. The CBF has already gone its own way. We wonder if it would be a good testimony to the world and the Church at large if we were to go our own way as well. We also wonder if it would be the most responsible stewardship of the resources God has entrusted into our hands. We would like to continue to work together with Baptists that may think a little differently than we do on these issues. However, if we are made to feel less and less welcome, the more and more awkward it becomes to continue to cooperate in the same way we have before. In some situations, it is not even a matter of choice. The decision has already been made for us.

It is not my point, nor that of many others who think like me, to be a “fly in the ointment” of the promoters of the “Baptist Renaissance.” We are just wondering where is the best place for us to serve the Lord, and cooperate with like-minded believers for the advance of His Kingdom. We feel we have as much place in the SBC of today as others.

Where do we fit?

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 5)

The next in Grudem’s series of eight questions (from the article Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?) that should be asked when deciding For What Doctrinal and Ethical Matters Should Christian Organizations Draw New Boundaries? is:

2. EFFECT ON OTHER DOCTRINES: Will this teaching likely lead to significant erosion in other doctrines?

In regard to the PPL policy, I think it is a fair assumption to say that this concern is the real “bogeyman” driving the issue. Several have implied that the work of the IMB is in imminent danger of being diverted into “Charismatic extremes.”

Consider, for example, the following quotes:

Paige Patterson, The Church in the 21st Century

With the advent of “Third Wave churches” partnering with other “Great Commission Christians” and the age of post-denominationalism, new horizons force contemplation of questions of cooperation both new and old... To accept the funding provided by Baptists and proceed in a direction distinct from what that supporting constituency believes is no different. The author does not allege that this is what is happening, but it is the case that disturbing reports do continue to filter in from the field. If any of these represent the trajectory of even a few, then that issue must be faced; and a solution acceptable to the Convention must be found.

Paige Patterson, Keith Eitel, & Robin Hadaway, Follow-up to Keith Eitel’s “Vision Assessment”

Rather we’re planting churches that reflect more the mix of ideas inherent in a blend of Great Commission Christian ideas, often neo-charismatic leaning and quasi Biblical… In addition, SC’s were encouraged to include charismatic groups such as the Assemblies of God denomination in their strategies, including church planting… How many of our IMB missionaries are involved in the neo-charismatic movement, and what is presently being taught and advocated by staff concerning "spiritual warfare"?

Emir Caner, Southern Baptists, Tongues, and Historical Policy

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

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not arguing in favor of making room within Southern Baptist life for classical Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I understand the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 to have already addressed this question. Neither am I interested in promoting manipulative practices common in certain Pentecostal, Charismatic and Third Wave circles that tend towards working people into an emotional frenzy, and falsely promote short-cuts to spiritual maturity and victory in our walk with the Lord. I, on several occasions, have had to teach against these things in churches, warning people of dangers of experiential emotionalism as over against sound biblical interpretation.

I will concede, as well, that, without a doubt, the great majority of those who would like to introduce “Charismatic extremes” into Southern Baptist life would also tend to promote the practice of “private prayer languages.” However, I do not make the corresponding conclusion that everyone who believes in or practices PPL has a “hidden agenda” to introduce “Charismatic extremes” into the life of the church. As I have stated previously on another post, the great majority of hyper-Calvinists also believe in the doctrine of eternal security. However, that does not mean we ought to limit the teaching of eternal security in order to keep a check on the spread of hyper-Calvinism.

At times, I am sure, all of us would like for things to be a lot simpler. It makes us feel more secure to have neat categories of black and white, right and wrong, orthodoxy and heresy. And there definitely are certain things that are, either black or white, right or wrong, and orthodox or heretical. But there are other things that the Bible does not specify quite so clearly. I, myself, out of a concern for shielding myself from something I don’t understand, or is out of my “comfort zone,” do not want to stand in the way of something God may sovereignly choose to do. I understand that He will not go against what He has already revealed in His infallible Word. But I am also aware that my cultural biases can sometimes blind me to what His Word really says.

On the basis of all of this, I believe (and I imagine Grudem would concur) that without a firm answer on question #1, How Sure are We that the Teaching is Wrong?, question #2 takes on a relatively diminished importance. Basing our entire spiritual and doctrinal outlook on the need to avoid the “slippery slope” towards other extremes is a sure path towards legalism and a closed-minded attitude toward the work of the Holy Spirit that I am convinced ends up quenching the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the baptism issue, it is hard to determine just what the new policy is intended to accomplish. Some have suggested that it is closely linked with the PPL policy, intending to discourage those candidates who might originally come from other church backgrounds that are more open to Charismatic practices. I suppose there are others who are strict denominational loyalists (who, if not 100% Landmarkist in their beliefs, are, at least, influenced by Landmark teachings) who just like to keep things “within the family” so to speak. I suppose those of this second group might be afraid that those who were baptized in a non-baptistic church would have a tendency to also de-emphasize biblical ecclesiology. Once again, though, I feel the important question is whether or not there is clear biblical teaching to justify the position taken. If not, I am afraid that, at times, our fears of things getting out of hand and not fitting in neatly with our denominational traditions can actually be an impediment to new ways that God may want to work, and His plans to get out the gospel to all peoples of the world.

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 4)

Upon arriving at the fourth section of Grudem’s article, For What Doctrinal and Ethical Matters Should Christian Organizations Draw New Boundaries?, we really get to the part where “the rubber meets the road.” The material that is relevant to the present situation in the SBC is so plentiful that, in order to “do it justice,” it looks like I am really going to have to “make good” on my “threat” to “park awhile” on my analysis of this article. If I were to comment here on all eight of the questions Grudem suggests as guidelines regarding over what matters a Christian organization should draw new boundaries, this post would be unwieldy in its length. Thus, I propose to comment one by one on each of the questions, beginning here with:

1. CERTAINTY: How Sure Are We That the Teaching Is Wrong?

From my perspective, this particular criterion weighs heavily against support of both of the new policies at the IMB.

Grudem asks: Have the advocates of this teaching been given a fair hearing? Has there been enough time to reflect on the matter carefully?

My answer is that, in good part due to the blogs during the past year, there have been many opportunities to point out the biblical argument in favor of PPL and a more open stance on baptism among a certain constitiuency, that had not been given before. At the same time, it is a shame that from certain platforms of denominational life, there has not been much of an effort to debate these matters on an “even playing field.” The impression is given by some that it is a “done deal”: “There is NO biblical support for PPL.” “Baptists have always recognized baptism as a ‘church ordinance,’ thus only ‘true churches’ (i.e. Baptist churches) have the authority to baptize,” etc., etc.

On various comments posted lately on various different blogs, the argument is being made that much time and effort is being unwisely dedicated to debating the doctrinal issues themselves: “Let’s just keep the main thing the main thing.” “If they’re ‘third tier’ issues anyway, what’s the big deal?” While I have a certain degree of sympathy for this point of view, I, at the same time, believe that, if there is a good case to be made for the particular issues at hand, and those who are best able to present this case remain silent, the points are ipso facto conceded to the other side. In Spanish, we have a saying: el que calla otorga (“he who remains silent concedes his point”). On the posts dealing with questions #3 and #5, the reasons for the importance of these issues will be discussed in more detail.

Grudem also asks: Is there a growing consensus among God’s people generally that this new teaching cannot be right?

I think that, if we are talking about “God’s people generally,” the answer is a definite ‘no’. As to PPL, in addition to the opinions of serious Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third Wave theologians, such as Gordon Fee, Wayne Grudem, Jack Deere & Sam Storms, how can you summarily dismiss the well-reasoned opinions of devout conservative, evangelical, non-charismatic scholars of the stature of D.A. Carson, Vern Poythress, J.I. Packer, and even someone with a Baptist pedigree like Jack MacGorman, as well as a host of others?

As to the baptism issue, pretty much, by definition, all non-Baptist scholars, and many Baptists as well, would be at odds with the new policy.

But, then again, that is what I perceive to be a big part of the underlying issue at stake: To what point are we in the SBC going to defend our so-called “Baptist distinctives” as over against the opinions of conservative evangelical Christians at large?

When we get to question # 6 on the “purposes of the organization” (the organization being the SBC in this case), the question of “Baptist distinctives” will need to be dealt with more specifically. However, I am quite certain that, if the opinion of conservative evangelicalism in general is to be seriously taken into account, we are quite some distance from being “sure” that either the teaching of PPL, or the disposition to accept as valid the post-conversion immersions of churches that do not conform to strict Baptist standards, are “wrong.”

A Qualification of my Last Post

Upon reading this post from Bart Barber, I realized it might help for me to make a qualification of my last post. Instead of being directed only to "cessationists," I would like to pose the very same question as before, but also include as its intended recipients not only those who consider themselves to be "cessationists," but also all those who, for whatever reason, believe that the practice of "private prayer languages" is unbiblical.

An Honest Question for "Cessationists"

I just posted the following as a comment to a post on Wade Bursleson's blog, but figured I would post it here as well, in case anyone prefers to dialogue about it here.

I would like to ask an honest question of "cessationists" within the SBC. I would like to pose a hypothetical situation for the sake of making a point, as well as for the sake of helping me in my own thinking and decisions related to all of this. I would sincerely implore you to give careful thought, as well as to be as honest and objective as you possibly can in answering this question:

If, on the basis of your study of the Word of God, you were to come to the conclusion that "private prayer language" is indeed an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit still valid for today, though not necessarily the initial sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit; and, if, you continued to hold to the doctrinal position of the Baptist Faith and Message; and, if you continued to see the value of cooperating together with others who identify themselves as Southern Baptists for the advance of the Kingdom of God, how would you respond to everything that has been going on in SBC life over the last year related to these issues?

Would you:

A. Quit being a Southern Baptist, and look for some other group with which to cooperate?

B. Remain a Southern Baptist, but quietly bide your time, waiting for the administrative process to work out these issues on its own?

C. Become active in the process of helping the SBC to be more open in its acceptance of this particular position in regards to such things as missionary appointments and doctrinal statements?, or

D. Do something else not described well by either option A, B, or C?

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 3)

With this section of Grudem’s article, When Shoud Christian Organizations Draw New Boundaries?, the issues discussed begin to cut a bit closer to the heart of the discussion in recent Southern Baptist life, and, accordingly, open up potential for greater controversy.

According to Grudem, the correct time for a Christian organization to draw new boundaries is, first of all, after a false teaching has become a significant problem. As Grudem observes, “open theism,” being basically an unknown position, was not readily recognized as a doctrinal issue that needed specific mention in most doctrinal statements of evangelical organizations, up to as recently as twenty years ago.

Along this vein, I would agree with many who are quick to point out that one of the the main reasons that Baptists in general, and the Southern Baptist Convention in particular, have not previously defined themselves on “private prayer language” is because, not having been taught or practiced to any great degree in contexts that impinge upon the beliefs and practice of Baptists until fairly recently, it is an issue that has largely been deemed irrelevant. However, since the “Azusa Street Revival” in 1906, and especially the spread of Charismatic and Third Wave theology and practices to other churches and denominations outside of traditional Pentecostalism from the 1960’s on, this has become an issue over which many more people have begun to show a growing interest.

Along with the practice of “private prayer languages,” there have commonly been associated a whole series of teachings and practices that many in Southern Baptist life have come to regard as “significant problems.” Churches have been divided. Spiritual elitism, dividing along lines of “haves” and “have-nots,” has derailed many efforts of Christian discipleship. It is completely understandable, in my opinion, why many might well be concerned.

At the same time, however, there are certain practices that may originally have been more associated with Pentecostalism or the Charismatic movement that are gradually becoming accepted across the board, and recognized as a source of blessing. These include such things as the singing of praise and worship choruses, the lifting of hands to the Lord in public worship, and, in more recent times, prayer walks. The truth is some, even in Southern Baptist circles, have been critical of each of the above practices as well.

Change is never easy, nor is it always welcome. When the Reformers of the 16th century began to talk about “justification by faith,” they were met with stern opposition, and many suffered persecution. During the Radical Reformation, many feared that the teaching of believers’ baptism and separation of church and state would open up a huge Pandora’s box, and felt they had seen their greatest fears confirmed with the onset of the Münster Rebellion. Similar opposition was raised against the abolitionist movement in the 19th century in the United States. Yet, today, the “new” teachings and practices introduced through each of these examples are accepted across the board as sound doctrine among Southern Baptists and many other Christian groups.

We will have to leave to our discussion of Part 4 of Grudem’s article the question of whether or not “private prayer languages” are indeed a “false teaching” that has become a “significant problem” in Southern Baptist life. For now, the point is: “new” understanding of doctrine does indeed come onto the scene from time to time throughout the course of church history. When such doctrines can be demonstrated to be “false teaching” and to create “significant problems,” we do well to deal with them by, if you will, “narrowing our parameters.” However, not all “new” teaching is necessarily “false teaching” and some “new” teaching may prove to be more of a blessing than a problem.

Grudem’s second option for when Christian organizations should draw new boundaries is before the false teaching does great harm, and before it has a large following entrenched in the organization.

This seems to be the motivation given in the rationale statement for the new IMB policy on “private prayer languages,” as evidenced in the following statement:

Not all of the trustees who voted for this policy are strict cessationists (those who believe the revelation producing gifts ended with the death of the Apostles). Yet, when the practice of something that may or may not be biblical is creating confusion in the ministry then trustees have acted to do what is best for the work.

Paige Patterson, Keith Eitel, and Robin Hadaway, in their follow-up paper to Eitel’s “Vision Assessment” refer to “systemic problems running throughout the structure” of the IMB, in large part related to what they term “neo-charismatic leaning.” Steve Grose, Baptist pastor from Australia, has on repeated occasions commented on this blog and others of the dangers of growing Charismatic influence and corresponding extremes in doctrine and practice that have infiltrated Baptist work in his own country.

In my opinion, while it is true that those who have a “private prayer language” may be more likely than those who don’t to espouse Charismatic extremes, I do not see this, in and of itself, as a proper motivation for prohibiting this practice. It could also be argued statistically that those who believe in eternal security are more likely than those who don't to fall into extremes of hyper-Calvinism, and as a result, to deemphasize the need for evangelism. “Guilt by association” can be a dangerous model to follow.

From Grudem’s perspective (as well as mine), the changes introduced in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 came at an opportune time. One of these changes is the declaration that "at the moment of regeneration, [the Holy Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ," thus precluding traditional Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching on a subsequent “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” It is interesting to me, however, that the BFM 2000 committee chose neither to specifically address the issue of “private prayer languages” nor of the legitimacy of the administrator of baptism.

This leads us to the next point in Grudem’s article: But who has the authority to make these changes? According to Grudem, there are two basic alternatives: 1) "decisions are made by tens of thousands of organizations in a gradual process, as their governing bodies, or the organizations as a whole in some kind of formal meeting, come to a decision on doctrinal matters"; or 2) "some kind of worldwide church government…[that] would concentrate too much power in the hands of too few people, and would likely lead to far worse decisions in the end."

Evidently, the IMB Board of Trustees has the authority to determine policy for the IMB. However, it is my contention (and that of many others) that their authority to set doctrinal directives is subject to the joint decisions of the individual congregations that make up the Southern Baptist Convention, as expressed through the Baptist Faith and Message. If the SBC as a whole has not chosen to define itself yet on a particular doctrinal issue, I think it best that the various boards and agencies that receive their support from the Cooperative Program not go beyond what has been formally agreed upon.

Dwight McKissic and others have gone on record as supporting an amendment to the BFM in order to specifically address the question of “private prayer languages.” I myself question the wisdom of forcing this issue before there is any sort of consensus. I believe the BFM 2000 committee were wise in not including it. At the same time, however, I concur that it is inconsistent for the IMB Board of Trustees to demand compliance on something on which the SBC as a whole has not yet defined itself.

Grudem astutely observes: "Almost always such decisions are preceded by vigorous debate and discussion, and by much study on the part of the people involved." It has been stated that the new policies at the IMB are a result of 2 ½ years of discussion and study among the Board of Trustees. This is well and good. However, before making such decisions binding on an organization that represents the SBC as a whole, the opportunity should be given for these issues to be discussed in a more open forum, with the various points of view taken given fair and honest representation.

That, in my opinion, is precisely what has been going on in the blogosphere over the past year. As I understand it, it is also a big part of the motivation behind the "Roundtable" in Arlington, TX, and the upcoming "Conference on Baptists and the Holy Spirit." No doubt, at the upcoming "Baptist Identity Conference" in Jackson, TN, various views will also be articulated on these issues. Opinions have also been expressed through Baptist Press, various state papers, “White Papers” and other publications issued by various Baptist entities.

To all involved in these discussions, I believe the words of Grudem ring true:

For those of us who are scholars, we have a significant responsibility in this process, for we often write the materials that are read by study groups and church leaders as they make decisions on these questions. It is our responsibility to be truthful and accurate in what we publish, to represent the arguments fairly, and above all to be faithful to Scripture as God by his grace enables us to do so.

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 2)

The second section of Wayne Grudem’s article Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries? is entitled “Why Should Christian Organizations Draw New Boundaries?” In this section, Grudem defends, I believe successfully, the idea that there are times when doctrinal statements of Christian organizations must be updated, not to reflect changes in truth (which stays the same down through the centuries), but rather to reflect changes in our understanding of Scripture, and especially in our application of Scripture to new situations and contexts that perhaps did not exist when the original doctrinal statement was written.

Grudem’s first point in this section is: False teaching changes, so old boundaries do not protect against new problems. Just as there are questions that were hotly debated in New Testament times (such as, whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be obligated to be circumcised) and in the Early Church (such as the divine-human nature of Christ), and are now pretty much non-issues, regarded by all orthodox believers to have already been resolved, there are new questions that arise that are just as relevant, and that require further reflection and definition in order to come to a God-honoring resolution. This is the crux of the phrase the Reformers used to describe the true church: semper reformanda.

I believe that Grudem has correctly identified several issues that have cropped up in recent history for which it has proven necessary for orthodox Christians in various organizations to make some sort of a pronouncement. These include such things as: annihilationism, universalist inclusivism, and homosexuality. During the last century, the whole question of the inerrancy of Scripture (though not previously uncommented) came to the forefront. During a period of time, it seemed as if inerrancy was a good “measuring stick” to determine who were, as Grudem describes them, “genuine evangelicals,” and who were not. However, the development of the concept of “open theism” among some who also claim to embrace inerrancy, has left many questioning the adequacy of inerrancy in this regard.

At this point, I will throw in my own agreement that inerrancy, in and of itself, is not a sufficient benchmark of doctrinal orthodoxy within Southern Baptist life. It is a very important, “watershed” issue. However, it is possible to assent to inerrancy, and at the same time, be woefully heretical, as the existence of groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses amply demonstrates. To say the Bible, in and of itself, is our sufficient guide is all well and good. But, if, by way of your interpretation and application of the Bible, you completely “butcher” its message, we suddenly find ourselves in need of some other standard of orthodoxy beyond just inerrancy.

Grudem’s next point is phrased by means of a question: Why does God in His sovereignty allow these various false teachings to come into the church in different ages? The answers Grudem proposes also seem to me to be relevant for us today as Southern Baptists.

First, Grudem states that God allows false teaching for the purification of the church. Although throughout history there have been periods of deep spiritual darkness and regression in understanding of the Bible and obedience to its message, I am in agreement with Grudem, when he states:

“The long-term pattern has not been 19 centuries of decline in the purity and doctrinal and ethical understanding of the Church, but rather a pattern of gradual and sometimes explosive increase in understanding and purity.”

I think it is especially significant for us what Grudem says next:

“But all of these advances have come through controversy. As the church struggled to define its own beliefs clearly in distinction from false doctrine, it grew in its understanding of the teachings of Scripture. So God has used controversy to purify his church.”

This is encouraging to me. It is true that we seem to be embroiled in a good deal of controversy at the present. And, by no means, is it a good thing to treat others poorly or have a combative spirit. However, if Grudem is right (and I believe he is), controversy, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. It may well be a sign we are on the brink of one of the “explosive increases in understanding and purity” Grudem mentions earlier.

Grudem brings this right to home, when he says:

“Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity came to be understood much more fully and clearly through the doctrinal controversies of the fourth century. Similarly, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy came to be understood much more fully through the inerrancy controversies of the last part of the twentieth century. In our present time, controversies over the nature of spiritual gifts and over appropriate roles for men and women in the home and in the church are also resulting in much deeper understanding of the teachings of God’s Word on those subjects.”

It is because of this that I believe we should not shrink back from discussing controversial topics such as these. It is only as we have the courage to delve deep into what the Word of God teaches, and the openness and objectivity to consider the viewpoints of those with whom we may have traditionally disagreed, that God can lead us more and more into the discovery of his eternal, unchanging Truth.

A second reason Grudem points out for God allowing false teachings to have influence in the church is in order to test the faithfulness of His people. I think Grudem makes an important point when he says that not everyone who teaches false doctrine in a church or Christian organization is necessarily the equivalent of a “false prophet” in the Old Testament, or an unbeliever. There are definitely degrees of false teaching. That is the whole point behind the recent discussion on “theological triage.” This does not mean, though, that we should be careless in our approach to doctrine. Correct doctrine, even in matters of apparent detail, has its significance.

It matters whether or not we are completely faithful to our understanding of God’s Word. It is a question of integrity. It is a question of the state of our heart. If we are easily led to compromise and downplay the teaching of God’s Word, then our loyalty and devotion to the absolute Lordship of Christ can also be legitimately called into question.

Grudem states:

“Believing the Bible is not always the easiest or most popular thing to defend. There are many things that God asks us to believe that are not really logical contradictions but are mysteries or paradoxes, matters that we cannot fully explain.”

In the current discussions in Southern Baptist life, I am encouraged by what I perceive as a sincere desire on the part of most of the participants to be faithful to biblical truth. Although I do think there are times all of us let our personal experiences and traditions blind us to what the Bible really says, I, for one, am not yet so cynical as to believe that very many at all in the current discussion are intentionally distorting the Word of God in the positions they defend.

And, I think this is especially helpful to keep in mind, as we come to Grudem’s last reason why God sometimes allows false teaching in the church: in order to test our attitude toward false teachers. This does not refer to compromising the truth, but rather to the disposition of our heart. As Grudem asks: “Will we act in love and gentleness toward those with whom we disagree?”

Grudem’s quote of Francis Schaeffer, commenting on divisions within the Presbyterian denomination in the 1920’s and 30’s, is especially relevant for us today as Baptists:

“At the same time, however, we must show forth the love of God to those with whom we differ. Thirty-five years ago in the Presbyterian crisis in the United States, we forgot that. We did not speak with love about those with whom we differed, and we have been paying a high price for it ever since…we did not talk of the need to show love as we stood against liberalism, and, as the Presbyterian Church was lost, that lack has cost us dearly.”

I personally think it is a good thing we are discussing the issues we are discussing over the blogs, and through other media. I am learning a lot from fellow bloggers, and coming to understand several doctrinal issues better than I had before. At the same time, though, I am concerned that we may be failing the test of our attitude toward false teachers.

George Verwer, in the book The Revolution of Love, sums it up as follows:

“There is no more biblical teaching than love, and apart from love there is no biblical teaching. Love is the foundation of all other biblical teaching, and you cannot build the builiding of biblical truth without that foundation.”

May we all take to heart, as we continue to seek the truth of God’s Word together, Paul’s admonition to Timothy:

“And the Lord’s servant much not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Timothy 2.24-25a).

"Heads Up" on a Good Discussion on PPL

On various different occasions on this blog, I have made reference to the question of so-called “Private Prayer Languages.” However, I have never yet taken the time to present a systematic biblical argument for the view I hold on this matter. Recently, I was made aware of a series of posts by Geoff Baggett on the subject of PPL. I do not know Geoff personally, but through my interaction with him on various blog-posts, he seems to be a nice enough guy. Also, the fact that he grew up in the Memphis area is a point in his favor in my book. :^)

On this particular question of PPL, Geoff takes a different view than I do. Geoff’s comments, however, have provided a good platform for me, in my comments to his posts, to explain in a fair amount of detail the rationale behind the view I take in my biblical understanding of this topic. Especially relevant in this discussion is our different interpretation of several key verses in 1 Corinthians 14.

I believe the comment string on a blog-post can be an effective way of discussing theological questions such as this one. Although it does not have the formal precision of some other channels of communication, the “give and take” of the discussion provides a means to clarify doubts regarding what the other participants are saying, as well as to challenge points on which one believes other participants may not be presenting a totally viable argument. It also gives you the opportunity to hold your own point of view up against the critique of other participants, in order to see where you yourself may have some possible “blind spots” in need of reevaluation and possible revision.

Through the comment string on Geoff’s series of posts, I believe I have found a good means to present the biblical argument for the view I hold and defend it against possible objections. I invite any of you who may be interested in this topic to check out the following posts, and especially the comment string of each one, where I add in my contribution to the discussion.

"Private Prayer Languages" - Part I
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part II
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part III
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part IV
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part V
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part VI
"Private Prayer Languages" - The Final Chapter

And I’m sure Geoff wouldn’t mind me saying… Feel free to add in your own comments, wherever you think you have something interesting to contribute to the discussion.

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 1)

In the first section (Why Should Christian Organizations Draw Boundaries at All?) of Wayne Grudem’s article Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries? (see previous post), there is much common ground from which those expressing different views regarding new policies at the IMB and other SBC entities can find a good starting point for the discussion related to these questions.

Although some “liberal” Baptists may perhaps voice disagreement with the initial thesis that there are indeed times when Christian organizations (including local churches, denominations, mission organizations, specialized ministries, educational institutions, and professional groups) should set doctrinal boundaries, it is my impression that nearly everyone involved in the current discussion would be in agreement with Grudem at this point. If doctrinal boundaries are left completely up in the air, the door is indeed opened for false teaching that harms the church.

Moreover, as Grudem argues, “if false teaching is not stopped, it spreads and does more and more damage.” The history of Christendom is rife with examples that show this to be the case. Grudem states: “In practical terms, once a church or Christian organization allows some vocal advocates of a false teaching (or even one) to have a position of influence in an organization, then those people become precedents by which others can be allowed in.” I think that as Southern Baptists today, we would almost all be in agreement with this idea as well.

On Grudem’s third point, “If false teaching is not stopped, we will waste time and energy in endless controversies rather than doing valuable kingdom work,” I think it is very important the distinction he makes, when he says: “I do not think that he (Paul) meant they (his readers) should avoid profitable doctrinal discussions or even useful debate…when Paul urged his readers to avoid controversies, he did not mean all controversies, but rather the fruitless, endless controversies that disrupt the peace of the church, that hinder us from doing more productive ministry, and that show no indication of moving toward resolution.”

It is my opinion that the discussion on the controversies of the past year have been, for the most part (with a few exceptions), fruitful thus far. Blogging has opened a door for many who would not otherwise have such an opportunity to communicate their thoughts. I personally have learned a lot about why people hold the views they hold, and been able to evaluate the Scriptural basis for these views more thoroughly, as a result of the written opinions of many bloggers.

At the same time, though, I think we do well to remember that blogging also opens the door more widely than ever before for “fruitless, endless controversies.” I think we all would do well to seriously take into account, before we post anything, whether or not what we have to say is really constructive, and will help work towards the edification of the Body of Christ, and the advance of Kingdom of God.

I also believe that there is general agreement on Grudem’s fourth point: “Jesus and the New Testament authors hold church leaders responsible for silencing false teaching within the church.” We may have some nuances of disagreement over just what is “false teaching” and what is not, as well as over exactly how church (and other Christian organization) leaders should go about enforcing this accountability. But, on this basic point, I believe we are in essential agreement.

As to the fifth point, a refutation of the objection that “doctrinal boundaries don’t do any good, because they cannot be enforced,” I also believe there is general agreement. It is true that there will always be the possibility of those who are not totally honest regarding their agreement or lack thereof with established doctrinal boundaries. I do not believe those who express any caveat they may have in relation to doctrinal boundaries (such as the BFM) are necessarily being dishonest, however. It is rather those who secretly maintain discrepancies with these boundaries, and say nothing about it, or intentionally try to twist their language to make it sound as if they are in agreement, who show true dishonesty. I believe it is generally incumbent on those leaders with the authority to enforce doctrinal accountability to determine whether or not expressed caveats fall outside the realm of acceptabilty.

There is also the reality that words are often interpreted differently by different people, no matter how specific we intend them to be. I, for instance, was not aware of the great significance certain people attach to the phrase “church ordinance,” as it appears in the Baptist Faith and Message, until reading views expressed on blogs this past year. Several have argued, for instance, that this implies that baptism is always to be administered under the supervision of a duly established local church. While that may have well been the intention of the original drafters of that phrase, I am almost certain that many who have signed the Baptist Faith and Message did not grasp the full implications of what they were signing regarding this point. I am likewise convinced that a significant amount of people who voted to approve the BFM were unaware of the supposed implications of this phrase.

In spite of these almost unavoidable weaknesses, however, I think we all (or almost all) would be in agreement that it is much better to have clear doctrinal boundaries than to have none at all.

Although, at this point, we still haven’t gotten to the “meat” of the issues involved in the current discussion, I think we do well to point out the essential agreement that exists here, with the intention of preempting possible “straw man” arguments that might crop up, as well as unfair labeling of others and accusations that don’t really square with the truth.

Merry Christmas from Spain

Dear Friend,

Greetings from Madrid, Spain! We send our love and thank the Lord for each of you and your prayers for our family and ministry here in Spain.

At our ministry team meeting this week, we reflected on the idea that Christmas is not about us. It is not about traditions that make us feel good. It is about our Savior, who left behind everything that might have "made Him feel good," and sacrificed Himself, putting the welfare and comfort of others above His own. Although it is not the most "traditional" Christmas passage, I think the following summarizes well what Christmas is really all about:

"If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! "

Philippians 2.1-8

As you reflect on the "true meaning of Christmas," let me encourage you to take 60 seconds right now to turn the volume up on your computer speakers, click here, and view an impacting video that I hope will stimulate you, as you look for ways to put into practice this Christmas the example that Jesus gave for us. (Hint: if you click on the little box in the bottom right-hand corner, you can see the video in full-screen mode).(HT: Guy Muse)

The Rogers Family wishes that you may truly have a Christ-filled Christmas, and that as God blesses you, you will let Him use you to bless others as well.

Love,

David, Kelly, Jonathan & Stephen

Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?

I just came across the article Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?, by Wayne Grudem, published in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, edited by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), pp. 339-370.

As the title of the book indicates, the original context of the article is the discussion within the Evangelical Theological Society over Open Theism, and its compatibility or incompatibility with membership in the society. However, the scope of the issues dealt with in the article is much broader than just ETS and Open Theism. I, personally, believe that it provides a very helpful framework for continued discussion on the questions of "narrowing parameters of cooperation" in the IMB and Southern Baptist life in general that have been frequently discussed on blogs and other media over the last year.

In his article, Grudem deals specifically with four questions:

A. Why should Christian organizations draw boundaries at all?
B. Why should Christian organizations draw new boundaries?
C. When should Christian organizations draw new boundaries?
D. For what doctrinal and ethical matters should Christian organizations draw new boundaries?

Since the article is 28 pages long, it is not practical to copy it here. However, I would strongly recommend anyone who is interested in these questions to give an attentive read to what Grudem has to say. Although Grudem is a well-known advocate of "continuationalism" (the view that all of the spiritual gifts mentioned in the Bible are still in effect today), nothing he says in this article comes down clearly on any side of the issues currently being debated among Southern Baptists. He does, at one point, mention the Baptist Faith & Message 2,000, and the process involved in bringing about the revision of the earlier statement. But, the current issues being discussed were evidently not specifically in mind when Grudem wrote this article.

Having said that, however, I think that Grudem's article is highly relevant to the discussion at hand, and has much potential to guide us through the process of looking for a workable solution on the questions that threaten to divide us. I would be interested in what any of you have to say after reading this article, and possibly "parking" here awhile, for a more in-depth analysis of implications of specific parts of it, in future posts.

The church, "pillar and foundation of the truth"

A lot of the issues being discussed lately in Southern Baptist life (as well as in Evangelical life at large) revolve around our understanding of the “church” (or the “Church”). It seems to me that various participants in the discussion are coming from widely different perspectives.

At one time, the majority of Southern Baptists appear to have embraced a very narrow view of church, encapsuled in the Landmarkist movment of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The main points of this movement, according to the Wikipedia article on Landmarkism (of which our brother and fellow blogger, Bart Barber, confesses to being a primary contributor), are: 1) The exclusive validity of Baptist churches; and 2) The invalidity of non-Baptist churchly acts. Although the influence of Landmarkism has waned a good bit since that time, many believe it is making a comeback in Southern Baptist life in recent years.

On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, a group of people, affiliated in great part with the Emerging Church movement, have adopted a much more loosely defined understanding of church. At a recent conference entitled “You say you want a Revolution!,” researcher and author, George Barna, gave nine reasons why he “left the conventional church for a house church.” In his book, Revolution, Barna makes it quite clear that he no longer believes that it is necessary for Christians to be members of and participate in a “local church.” When I first heard about Barna’s book, I thought some people might be over-reacting. Surely it was just a question of semantics. But, upon reading the book, I was confronted with quotes such as the following:

“Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrevelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God). What matters is not whom you associate with (i.e., a local church), but who you are.” (p.29)

“If the local church is the hope of the world, then the world has no hope.” (p. 36)

“There is nothing inherently wrong with being involved in a local church. But realize that being part of a group that calls itself a ‘church’ does not make you saved, holy, righteous, or godly any more than being in Yankee Stadium makes you a professional baseball player.” (p. 36)

“Ultimately, we expect to see believers choosing from a proliferation of options, weaving together a set of favored alternatives into a unique tapestry that constitutes the personal ‘church’ of the individual.” (p. 66).

“The major concern about the Revolution is that millions of its adherents are not affiliated with a local church. As described in earlier chapters, Revolutionaries’ distancing themselves from formal congregations does not reflect a willingness to ignore God as much as a passion to deepen their connection to Him. In my experience, Revolutionaries do not try to draw other people away from the local church. Theirs is a personal choice based on a genuine desire to be holy and obedient, but finding that need better served outside the framework of congregational structures.” (pp. 112-13)

“In fact, there is no verse in Scripture that links the concepts of worshipping God and a ‘church meeting.’” (p. 114)

“It seems that God really doesn’t care how we honor and serve Him, as long as He is number one in our lives and our practices are consistent with His parameters. If a local church facilitates that kind of life, then it is good. And if a person is able to live a godly life outside of a congregation-based faith, then that, too, is good.” (p. 116)

“I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church.” (p. 129)

From what I understand, Barna, and many others espousing similar views, are well-motivated. They really are interested in glorifying God, advancing His Kingdom, and honoring His Word. I consider him to be a brother in Christ, as well as a treasured co-laborer in the work of the gospel. I myself have been greatly blessed and helped by Barna’s book The Power of Vision. But, on this particular issue, I believe He is wrong. If he were just anybody, what he is saying might not merit that much attention. But, according to the publicity for the Revolution conference, Barna is "the most quoted person in the Church today."

From what I can make out, there is indeed something called the “local church” that is commended to us in the Bible as an important part of God’s plan for this age. It is not enough to say that we are all a part of the “Universal Church,” and that all that really matters is that, in one way or another, we are fulfilling the functions we are meant to fulfill as believers in Christ.

Paul, in 1 Timothy 3.15, tells us that the “church” is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” Some, such as Roman Catholics, have taken this verse, and inferred that the authority of the Roman hierarchy takes precedence even over that of the Bible. I do not at all agree with this interpretation. But, I do see, that in the context in which this verse is placed (right between vv. 1-13, that talk about qualifications of elders, deacons, and either wives or women in ministry, according to the translation you prefer; and v. 16, that talks about the essence of the gospel) seems to indicate a significant role for the local church, with local church offices, and accountability structures, as a key part of His plan to bring the gospel message to the world.

On Jan. 25, 2005, the IMB issued the following statement:

The definition of a local church is given in the 2000 edition of the Baptist Faith and Message:

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scriptures.

GUIDELINES

We believe that every local church is autonomous under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of His inerrant word. This is as true overseas as it is in the United States. Some churches to which we relate overseas may make decisions in doctrine and practice which we would not choose. Nevertheless, we are accountable to God and to Southern Baptists for the foundation that we lay when we plant churches, for the teaching that we give when we train church leaders, and for the criteria that we use when we count churches. In our church planting and teaching ministries, we will seek to lay a foundation of beliefs and practices that are consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, although local churches overseas may express those beliefs and practices in different ways according to the needs of their cultural settings. Flowing from the definition of a church given above and from the Scriptures from which this definition is derived, we will observe the following guidelines in church planting, leadership training and statistical reporting.

1. A church is intentional about being a church. Members think of themselves as a church. They are committed to one another and to God (associated by covenant) in pursuing all that Scripture requires of a church.

2. A church has an identifiable membership of baptized believers in Jesus Christ.

3. A church practices the baptism of believers only by immersing them in water.

4. A church observes the Lord’s Supper on a regular basis.

5. Under the authority of the local church and its leadership, members may be assigned to carry out the ordinances.

6. A church submits to the inerrant word of God as the ultimate authority for all that it believes and does.

7. A church meets regularly for worship, prayer, the study of God’s word, and fellowship. Members of the church minister to one another’s needs, hold each other accountable, and exercise church discipline as needed. Members encourage one another and build each other up in holiness, maturity in Christ, and love.

8. A church embraces its responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission, both locally and globally, from the beginning of its existence as a church.

9. A church is autonomous and self-governing under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of His Word.

10. A church has identifiable leaders, who are scrutinized and set apart according to the qualifications set forth in Scripture. A church recognizes two Biblical offices of church leadership: pastors/elders/overseers and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

I am in essential agreement with this statement. My only possible caveat would be, if, someone, on the basis of this statement, were to try to argue (a la the Landmarkists) that “non-Baptist” churches were not authentic churches. I am also happy to use these guidelines as an IMB worker as we are specifically involved in “church planting” work.

It is true that many of the cultural expressions of church may vary from context to context. For instance, in many contexts around the world, IMB missionaries are finding that several different types of “house church” or “cell church” models seem to be helpful in penetrating their local culture with the gospel. I see no inherent incompatibility with this and the guidelines given above.

I do, however, see some potential incompatibility with what I read from people like Barna and these guidelines. And, when faced with such a dilemma, I am inclined to side with the IMB guidelines (not just out of a sense of duty or organizational loyalty, but out of scriptural interpretation and conviction). I would hope that IMB colleagues, as well as other fellow workers in the Lord’s vineyard (whether in SBC circles or otherwise), would use some serious discernment when reading things well-intentioned people like Barna are writing about “the church.” If, as Paul says to Timothy, the church really is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” we do need to be careful with how we deal with it.

*Other thoughtful perspectives on related issues to this topic (all somewhere in between the extremes of the Landmarkist position on the "right", and Barna's position on the "left"), can be found from:

Bart Barber (expressing a view somewhat to the "right" of my own), at Praisegod Barebones, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and other assorted posts.

Alan Knox (expressing a view somewhat to the "left" of my own), on various assorted posts at The Assembling of the Church.

John Reisinger (expressing a view somewhat closer to my own), here. here, here, here, here and here.

Contagious Christianity

In the historic city of Toledo, Spain (pop. 76,000), Spanish "church planters" José and Jenny Portillo have been working several years to get a Baptist church established in this town that for centuries, up until 1560, was the capital of Spain, and is still today the seat of the Catholic Archbishop of all of Spain. The small group of believers that meets together answers to the same description given by the Apostle Paul of the New Testament church in Corinth: "Not many...wise by human standards; not many,,,influential; not many...of noble birth" (1 Cor. 1.26). About half of the congregation are immigrants from Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia & Brazil.

It has been my privilege, together with my wife Kelly, to visit and encourage the believers in Toledo on a fairly regular basis for the last year. A couple of weeks ago, I had the joy of leading the group pictured above through a 2-day seminar entitled "Becoming a Contagious Christian." Based on materials produced by Willow Creek Association, this seminar, in my opinion, is one of the most strategic tools we have for helping to see reproducing, growing congregations of New Testament Christians in places like Spain.

The seminar is based on the thesis that God wants all believers to be "contagious Christians," but He has gifted us all with a unique personality and a different evangelistic style that is natural for each one. Some of us are naturally gifted at confronting people directly with the claims of Christ. Others are more naturally adept at answering difficult questions and objections. Others feel most at home sharing their testimony of how Christ changed their life. Others are great at making their lost friends feel understood, and that they really care for them. Others find their niche inviting their lost friends to special events and activities, where they know they will be exposed to the gospel. And, others bloom evangelistically in a context of doing acts of kindness and service for those in need.

The point is, there is no "cookie-cutter," "one-size-fits-all" approach to evangelism that works for everyone. There are certain tools that are good for everyone to be familiar with, such as being able to share your personal testimony in 3 to 4 minutes, and knowing how to share the key points of the gospel through something such as the "Bridge Illustration." But, just because you or I are not gifted in one certain approach doesn't mean we don't have an important role to play in sharing the gospel with those around us.

I personally think that training people like those in the picture above in these concepts is one of the most important things I can do as a missionary in Spain. In other places of the world, things like "chronological storying," "the Camel Method," or the "Alpha Course" seem to be showing good results. In the end, though, if we are going to see true spiritual reproduction and multiplication, we are going to have to help the local believers learn how to share Christ in a natural way, that fits the context in which they live.

Entrepreneurial Spirit

As Americans, one of our typical cultural characteristics, in comparison with those of other backgrounds is our entrepreneurial spirit. This can be a very good thing. I lifted the following off of the Wikipedia article on Entrepreneur...
John G. Burch [Business Horizons, September 1986] lists traits typical of entrepreneurs:

* A desire to achieve: The push to conquer problems, and give birth to a successful venture.
* Hard work: It is often suggested that many entrepreneurs are workaholics.
* Desire to work for themselves: Entrepreneurs like to work for themselves rather than working for an organization or any other individual. They may work for someone to gain the knowledge of product or service that they may want to produce.
* Nurturing quality: Willing to take charge of, and watch over a venture until it can stand alone.
* Acceptance of responsibility: Are morally, legally, and mentally accountable for their ventures. Some entrepreneurs may be driven more by altruism than by self-interest.
* Reward orientation: Desire to achieve, work hard, and take responsibility, but also with a commensurate desire to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts; rewards can be in forms other than money, such as recognition and respect.
* Optimism: Live by the philosophy that this is the best of times, and that anything is possible.
* Orientation to excellence: Often desire to achieve something outstanding that they can be proud of.
* Organization: Are good at bringing together the components (including people) of a venture.
* Profit orientation: Want to make a profit; but the profit serves primarily as a meter to gauge their success and achievement.
As international missionaries, one of the things we most frequently "bring to the table" as Americans, is our "entrepreneurial spirit." The truth is, however, when we are guests in someone else's country, and working under someone else's cultural norms, our "entrepreneurial spirit" is not always greatly appreciated. Many nationals in other countries, including some of our brothers and sisters in Christ, and ministry partners, have seen more than their share of American missionary "entrepreneurial spirit."
I am more and more convinced that, after 16 years of full-time missionary service in Spain, our "entrepreneurial spirit" as American missionaries needs to be tempered by an at least as healthy dose of "servant spirit" and "cooperative spirit." We must come as learners, both from the national believers and churches, as well as those foreign workers who have come before us. We must earn our right for our opinions to be heard and taken into account. This, especially for us as Americans, is not easy to do. I have learned this the hard way on more than one occasion. And I'm sure I will have occasion to learn this again in the future as well.

This Post is not about Alcohol

When I first came to Europe about 27 years ago on a summer missions campaign with Operation Mobilization, I was surprised to learn that committed evangelical believers from other denominations, countries, and cultural backgrounds were not all “teetotalers.” Since that time, especially after 16 years in Spain, I have pretty much come to terms with the fact that we as North Americans, and especially as Southern Baptists, are pretty much a minority among the world’s evangelicals on our stance regarding alcohol. In Spain, for instance, at the annual Baptist Pastors’ Retreat, you would typically see wine served and consumed at every table, both at lunch and supper.

In spite of all of this, I myself have maintained a position of total abstinence. I see with great conviction the untold harm the alcohol industry has caused, in terms of broken homes, highway mortality, and ruined lives. I see the risk involved of not being able to control oneself, and, unintentionally winding up an alcoholic. I also see the issue of respect for the convictions of others, primarily believers in the States, who voluntarily contribute of their tithes and offerings in order to keep missionaries like myself on the mission field. I also see the need to submit to the authority of the organization with which I serve, which has a policy that enjoins me, as a field worker, to not partake of beverage alcohol.

However, I do not see quite as clearly that the Bible necessarily commands total abstinence. Injunctions against drunkenness? Yes, indeed. Warnings against the dangers associated with the abuse of alcohol? Without a doubt. But, across the board, no exceptions, total abstinence? A little harder to make the case biblically.

In any case (remember, this post is not about alcohol), in the majority of the evangelical churches (both Baptist, as well as others) in Spain, at the Lord’s Supper, they serve wine, and not grape juice. It just so happens at the church where my family regularly attends that they serve a combination of small cups, some (on the outside of the serving tray) with wine, and others (on the inside) with grape juice. The reason for this? First off, I imagine, out of love for those with an alcoholic background, in order to not be a motive for “stumbling.” Next, out of deference, for those, like myself, who have convictions against the consumption of alcohol. All in all, a posture for which I have great respect, and which, for me, represents a high level of spiritual maturity, being willing to sacrifice cultural values out of love and deference for those with other convictions and values.

Normally, when the plate comes around, I always choose from among the glasses of grape juice on the inside of the plate. One Sunday, however, by the time the plate got to me, the only glasses left were those on the outside, the ones with “real wine.” What to do? And, now we are finally getting to the point of this post…

How do our core values determine the decisions we take? For me, one of my main core values is a commitment to the authority of the Word of God. If I were totally convinced that the Bible mandated total abstinence on every occasion, this would be a “no-brainer” for me. However, I cannot honestly say that.

Another one of my core values is the unity of the Body of Christ. And, here we are, celebrating the Lord’s Supper, in which we commemorate the Lord’s death, but also show symbolically our communion one with another, as brothers and sisters in Christ, from different races, backgrounds, and cultures. Since I do not believe in hiding the truth from others in order to make things less awkward, I will come out and let you know now that, on this occasion, I went ahead and drank the wine from the outside cups. And I don’t feel guilty about it. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I would have felt bad if I had not been able to join together in unity with my brothers and sisters in Christ to commemorate His death, just as He commanded, on that particular Sunday morning.

Several other bloggers, among them, Art Rogers, have written recently about a suggestion given at the recent Florida State Baptist Convention to eliminate from consideration from denominational leadership anyone who either partakes of alcohol in moderation, or (if I have understood correctly) who advocates the legitimacy of moderation. I am not sure, based on what I have just shared, whether I myself would be included among those eliminated from possible leadership. I am more confident that the majority of Baptist pastors in Spain, and in many other countries in the world, would be.

Which brings me back to the point of this post. Another one of my core values is a commitment to working, with the best stewardship possible of the resources with which God entrusts us, towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission. I believe this implies working together with believers from other cultures and denominations. I am concerned that there is a certain disposition in the air to move us as Southern Baptists to more and more of a narrow and isolationist approach towards our work together with other believers for the advance of the Kingdom of God.

This, in my opinion, goes far beyond attitudes towards cooperation with those who take a different view on the use of alcohol in moderation. I will not be able to be in attendance at the Sandy Creek-Charlestonian Roundtable this Tuesday in Fort Worth, to talk about some of these issues, and consider what should be done in response. I do pray, however, that God would give an unusual amount of wisdom, insight, vision and charity to those of you who will be there.