Missionary Call

Lately, I have been giving a bit of thought into the whole subject of the “missionary call.”

On the IMB web-site, it says that applicants for career, missionary apprentice, and missionary associate positions should be “called and gifted by God, with a high sense of God’s leading to use their gifts in missionary service in cross-cultural situations.”

When it comes to Masters, ISC and Journeyman workers, however, the wording for this requirement is reduced to “a sense of God’s leadership.”

As far as potential members of mission volunteer teams are concerned, the advice they are given is: "Search our projects to find the overseas project that fits best with how God is calling you."

Several missionary colleagues, on their blogs, have had some insightful comments regarding “missionary call” in the past several weeks. Ken Sorrell, in a post entitled “As the Father has sent me…” Part One made the following statement:

To interpret Scripture in such a way to arrive at the position that every Christian is to fulfill the apostolic calling seems to me to be somewhat of a stretch. While agreeing that every Christian should be involved in activities that are normally associated with missionaries, this is not the same as the call to the apostolic task as seen and described in the New Testament. In fact, in this verse written by John, the word for “sent” is apostello, “as the Father has sent me, and the word for “send”, pempo, so send I you are two very different words and images. However, while meditating on this verse and seeking to understand those who are just as confident in their interpretation as I am in mine, I found myself asking the question, if Jesus is sending us out as God sent Him, as is stated in John’s Gospel, how did God send Jesus out? If everyone is a missionary, what does this really mean for all believers? And, are all believers prepared to embrace the implications of such a position?

In the comment string of the same post, Tim Patterson (a.k.a. “mr. t”), made the following observation:

Ken,

I agree there are those with a specific apostolic gift... set apart and sent by the Holy Spirit through the church for the work He has called them to do.

However, all believers are commanded to be salt and light in the world. I still believe the Great Commission is for all, not just for the professionals. All can be a part of making disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey. What we tend to forget is that God does not call us to do the apostolic task alone. It takes all kinds in the body of Christ to carry out His commission. As apostles we need to take the church along with us, the mission is for the whole church. We run ahead and hope they will catch up later... when we should be going together. True, not all will go, not all will have the same degree of sacrifice and commitment... but Christ will use them just the same. We all have to take baby steps before we can take longer strides.

Not to be outdone, IMB colleague “Strider,” on his post entitled On Being Apostolic, had this to say:

An apostle is a ‘sent one.’ He is given a specific task for breaking down barriers and he carries a ministry across the barricades that the enemy has erected to spread the light of the Kingdom in a previously dark place. The key difference for the apostle from the other ministries is the concept of barriers. Paul was sent to the Gentiles. This was cross cultural ministry. He went (physically) from where he was to a different place and culture with the Good News. Peter was an Apostle to the Jews. He was a Jew. He did not in one sense cross a barrier in that he was who he was sent to reach. But in another sense he crossed an important barrier. The Jews had rejected Jesus. Peter was ethnically a Jew but he became a citizen of the Kingdom and then was sent back to the Jews. He was in a sense re-crossing the barrier he had come across. Crossing barriers is important to apostles.

Another characteristic is the ministry. A preacher can preach anywhere. An evangelist evangelizes everywhere he goes. But they are not apostles. An apostle brings a ministry with him. He is not just a team leader. He is a team empowerer. Because he is called to cross the barrier he is given the authority to do the job that the King has called him to. As with all gifts in the Kingdom it only has meaning as it is given away. An apostle gives his authority to others that they may expand the ministry.

In recent reading, I have also come across the following thoughts that have stimulated my thinking regarding “missionary call” and, to some extent, challenged my ideas:

Oswald Chambers, in My Utmost for His Highest, February 2, “The Compelling Force of the Call”

“Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16)

Beware of refusing to hear the call of God. Everyone who is saved is called to testify to the fact of his salvation. That, however, is not the same as the call to preach, but is merely an illustration which can be used in preaching. In this verse, Paul was referring to the stinging pains produced in him by the compelling force of the call to preach the gospel. Never try to apply what Paul said regarding the call to preach to those souls who are being called to God for salvation...

To be “separated to the gospel” means being able to hear the call of God (Romans 1:1). Once someone begins to hear that call, a suffering worthy of the name of Christ is produced. Suddenly, every ambition, every desire of life, and every outlook is completely blotted out and extinguished. Only one thing remains—“…separated to the gospel...” Woe be to the soul who tries to head in any other direction once that call has come to him. The Bible Training College exists so that each of you may know whether or not God has a man or woman here who truly cares about proclaiming His gospel and to see if God grips you for this purpose. Beware of competing calls once the call of God grips you.

Watchman Nee, in The Normal Christian Church Life:

The first principle to note in the work of God is that all His workers are sent ones. If there is no divine commission, there can be no divine work...

Scripture has a special name for a sent one, namely, an apostle...

Who then are apostles? Apostles are God’s workmen, sent out by the Holy Spirit to do the work to which He has called them. The responsibility of the work is in their hands. Broadly speaking, all believers are responsible for the work of God, but apostles are a group of people specially set apart and bear a peculiar responsibility for its conduct...

The apostles were gifted men, but their apostleship was not based upon their gifts; it was based upon their commission. Of course, God will not send anyone who is unequipped, but equipment does not constitute apostleship. It is futile for anyone to assume the office of an apostle simply because he thinks he has the needed gifts or ability. It takes more than mere gift and ability to constitute men apostles; it takes God Himself, His will and His call. No man can attain to apostleship through natural or other qualifications: God must make him an apostle if he is ever to be one. “A man sent from God” should be the main characteristic of our entering upon His service and of all our subsequent movements...

Today those who have been sent out by the Lord to preach the Gospel and to establish churches call themselves missionaries, not apostles, but the word “missionary” means the very same thing as “apostle,” i.e. “the sent one.” It is the Latin form of the Greek equivalent, “apostolos.” Since the meaning of the two words is exactly the same, I fail to see the reason why the true sent ones of today prefer to call themselves “missionaries” rather than “apostles”...

If God has called a man to be an apostle, it will be manifest in the fruit of his labours. Wherever you have the commission of God, there you have the authority of God; wherever your have the authority of God, there you have the power of God; and wherever you have the power of God, there you have spiritual fruits. The fruit of our labours proves the validity of our commission. And yet it must be noted that Paul’s thought is not that apostleship implies numerous converts but that it represents spiritual values for the Lord, for He could never send anyone for a lesser purpose...

There was abundant evidence of Paul’s apostolic commission and the signs of an apostle will never be lacking where there is truly an apostolic call … Endurance is the greatest proof of spiritual power, and it is one of the signs of an apostle. It is the ability to endure steadfastly under continuous pressure that tests the reality of an apostolic call… But the reality of Paul’s apostleship was not only attested by his patient endurance under intense and prolonged pressure, it was evidenced also by the miraculous power he possessed. Miraculous power to change situations in the physical world is a necessary manifestation of our knowledge of God in the spiritual realm, and this applies not to heathen lands only but to every land. To profess to be sent ones of the omnipotent God, and yet stand helpless before situations that challenge His power, is a sad contradiction. Not all who can work wonders are apostles, for the gifts of healing and of miracle-working are given to members of the body (1 Cor. 12:28) who have no special commission, but miraculous as well as spiritual power is part of the equipment of all who have a true apostolic commission...

I, personally, tend to think that all of us, as believers, are “called” to participate, to the best of our ability, in the fulfilment of the Great Commission. The specific way in which each one participates will depend on various factors. I do not deny that God sometimes causes people to have a strong sense of His leading in regard to specific types of ministry, in particular places, and particular circumstances. I believe, however, that God’s “call” in our lives is perceived both through the “left side” of our brain and the “right side” of our brain. I believe that many have made out the “missionary call” and the “call to ministry” in general to be essentially a “mystical” experience. I do not deny the reality of this type of “call” experience in many people’s lives. I myself, on various occasions, have had a deep sense that God was “pricking my heart” in a special way, whenever the topic of world missions was discussed. On various occasions, I have not been able to hold back my tears, as I sensed God speaking to my heart about the need of the world, and His plan to reconcile to Himself those He was calling out from among all the nations and people groups of the world. Upon responding positively to that sense of “call,” I felt a peace inside, or a sense of “oughtness,” that I was doing the right thing.

At the same time, though, I have seen what I believe to be some dangers in over-subjectivity and dogmatism related to a “missionary call.” I have seen some very zealous workers arrive on the mission field, convinced that God had called them to a specific place and ministry, when, at the same time, the majority of their colleagues and national ministry partners could not affirm their effectiveness in the particular ministry to which they were supposedly “called.” I have seen this type of situation end up bringing quite a bit of anguish and heartache to various people, including, but not limited to, the family members of the supposedly “called” workers.

Without discounting the validity of all “right-brain,” subjective, and/or mystical type of “call” experiences, I believe that every one of us, as believers, need to honestly ask ourselves on a regular basis the following question:

Given the particular personality, talents, spiritual gifts, experiences, and life situations that God has placed in my life right now, exactly where and doing what do I believe I can make the most strategic contribution towards the fulfilment of the Great Commission?

Of course, that is a very deep question, which will no doubt require some serious reflection and soul-searching.

*Rick Warren, in The Purpose-Driven Life, has an interesting section about more or less this same basic concept, that he calls “God-given S.H.A.P.E.” (spiritual gifts, heart, abilities, personality, and experiences).

For some, this may mean one thing at one stage in our life, and something totally different, at another stage in our life. A change of ministry focus does not necessarily mean one has abandoned God’s “call” on his/her life, though. What is not an option, for any true disciple of Jesus, is looking for the “easy way out” or completely “throwing in the towel.”

I would be interested to hear what any of you have to say regarding the “missionary call.” I myself am very open to any new insights God may have to give me on this important subject.

Southern Baptist Zion?

Do a Google search on the term “Southern Baptist Zion.” You will find diverse people with diverse convictions using this term in diverse contexts. I do not wish to stoop to such a degree of pickiness here as to call into question the beliefs and motivations of all who have used this term, at whatever time, for whatever purpose. But I do want to point out an underlying belief system that may well, on occasions, accompany the use of this term, that I believe goes against God’s will and purpose for us as Christians.

The name of this blog, “Love Each Stone,” comes from the Contemporary English Version’s rendering of Psalm 102.14:

We, your servants, love each stone in the city, and we are sad to see them lying in the dirt.

According to Commentator Adam Clarke, “this Psalm has been attributed to Daniel, to Jeremiah, to Nehemiah, or to some of the other prophets who flourished during the time of the captivity.” The reference here is to the city of Zion, almost certainly, in the mind of the original author, the physical city of Jerusalem. The writer of Hebrews, however, takes verses 25 to 27 of this same Psalm, and applies them to our Lord Jesus (Hebrews 1.8-12). Further on, God inspired the same author to write the following words, clarifying the spiritual meaning of Zion for us, who have become part of God’s people by grace through faith in the redemption bought for us by the blood of Jesus on the cross of Calvary:

You have now come to Mount Zion and to the heavenly Jerusalem. This is the city of the living God, where thousands and thousands of angels have come to celebrate. Here you will find all of God's dearest children, whose names are written in heaven. And you will find God himself, who judges everyone. Here also are the spirits of those good people who have been made perfect. And Jesus is here! He is the one who makes God's new agreement with us, and his sprinkled blood says much better things than the blood of Abel.

Hebrews 12.22-24 (Contemporary English Version)

Although some may see the metaphor of “Zion” as a useful term to describe the particular historical heritage, common beliefs, and spiritual fellowship we share as Southern Baptists, I believe this is an unfortunate choice of imagery, as God’s Word tells us that the true spiritual “Zion” is made up of “all of God’s dearest children;” and its membership is comprised of all those “whose names are written in heaven.”

You may well ask why is this particular issue such a big deal to me? Is it just a pet doctrine or personal soapbox of mine? The truth is that, as I have studied Scripture, the concept of God’s spiritual Zion, embracing all of us as born-again believers, and members of the Church Universal, has come to be a key part of my understanding of biblical ecclesiology, missiology, and eschatology. In short, I believe a biblically instructed worldview leads us to be vitally concerned with a correct understanding of, and corresponding emphasis on, the practical unity of God’s people throughout the world, down through the ages, as manifested through the many different ecclesiological expressions and currents that come together to form the true spiritual Zion.

I leave you to meditate on the following words from the New International Reader’s Version’s translation of Psalm 102.12-22, which, for me, have great missiological and eschatological significance:

But Lord, you are seated on your throne forever.
Your fame will continue for all time to come.

You will rise up and show deep concern for Zion.
The time has come for you to show favor to it.

The stones of your destroyed city are priceless to us.
Even its dust brings deep concern to us.

The nations will worship the Lord.
All of the kings on earth will respect his glorious power.

The Lord will build Zion again.
He will appear in his glory.

He will answer the prayer of those who don't have anything.
He won't say no to their cry for help.

Let this be written down for those born after us.
Then people who are not yet born can praise the Lord.

Here is what should be written.

"The Lord looked down from his temple in heaven.
From heaven he viewed the earth.
He heard the groans of the prisoners.
He set free those who were sentenced to death."

So people will talk about him in Zion.
They will praise him in Jerusalem.
Nations and kingdoms
will gather there to worship the Lord.

SBC: Denomination or Convention?

I believe the comment originally made by Paul Burleson, and referenced by Wade Burleson on this post, is extremely relevant, not only in light of the discussion over the new policies at the IMB, but also in reference to many other questions being discussed throughout the SBC today.

In order to facilitate more discussion, I am reproducing here a comment I just left on Wade's post. It also ties in, to some degree, I believe, with the fruitful conversation we have been having here at Love Each Stone on the City church...

Wade,

I agree that this is a key issue that underlies many of the discussions within the SBC. As such, this question lies at the root of many of the posts on my own blog.

I believe that biblical teaching on unity is at the level of the Universal Church (or the Body of Christ), the City church, and the local congregation (or New Testament "house church"), but never at the level of "denomination." An overstated emphasis on denominational unity and uniformity can also become an impediment to true biblical unity at the Universal Church, City church, and local congregation levels.

This is not to say that the SBC, in and of itself, is a bad thing, or has to necessarily be counter-productive in regards to biblical unity. It does mean, however, that the SBC should never be viewed as more than a tool, in the hands of local congregations, in unity with the various City churches, and the Body of Christ around the world, for effective work towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission. In order to be a more effective tool, agreement on doctrinal statements such as the BFM, can be helpful.

But whenever the SBC, in and of itself, is seen as representative of the Body of Christ as a whole, or as competing with our legitimate loyalty towards the entire Body of Christ, it becomes, in my opinion, not only a "denomination," but also a sect, and as such, contrary to the will of God for us as believers.

E-Index: Application of Wayne Grudem's article "Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?" to the Current Situation in the SBC

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

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC:

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11

The City Church, a guest post by Paul Grabill

About a week and a half ago, I posted an entry entitled The Universal Church, Landmarkism, and John Dagg. One of the people who commented was Paul Grabill. I was so interested in what he had to share regarding the concept of the "City Church," which I believe relates in some very practical ways to the general theme of this blog, unity in the Body of Christ, that I invited Paul to write a guest post elaborating a bit more on this very important concept. What follows is Paul's post, which I have just received. I invite you to consider carefully what Paul is saying here, and to leave whatever comments you see fit...


Dear David:

I'm sorry that I have not gotten back to you sooner. I wanted to share something that was both well thought through and succinct. I'm not sure that I achieved that.:)

Thank you so much for the opportunity to share with you more about what is dear to my heart--and I believe the heart of the Lord--visible unity (not uniformity) among born-again believers.

As I briefly shared before, I believe the optimal and most biblical manifestation of that unity is what I will call the "City Church."

Let me lay out why:

First, here are my theological assumptions:

1. Our ultimate authority is Scripture--adding nothing and taking nothing away. Therefore, we must draw our ecclesiology from the New Testament, taking relevant passages at face value (as literal as possible). One cannot exegete from tradition or experience. Tradition (no matter how long the span of time) and experience (no matter how broadly shared) must submit to the clear meaning of the Word of God.

2. The Lordship of Jesus Christ as Head of His Church. What He wants is what we should want; nothing more, nothing less.

3. A commitment to the fundamentals of the faith, but latitude in interpretation on non-essentials.

4. One biblical truth cannot be sacrificed for another. For instance, we don't believe in the resurrection of our Lord less because we believe in the virgin birth. Some have established unity vs. truth as a false dichotomy. Both must be embraced. In fact, a commitment to biblical unity actually forces us to decide what are the core essentials of the faith. However, if seemingly everything is an essential/fundamental, then nothing is. When the list of fundamentals gets longer and longer, at some point the meaning of the word 'fundamental' is logically obliterated.

5. The Church Universal is called by Christ to be missional by definitiion. We should all think like missionaries. (I am a missionary to Central Pennsylvania. The fact that I was physically born in this area is irrelevant. Since I've been born-again, I've become a citizen of Heaven, and am therefore an "Ambassador of Christ.")

I think these are assumptions broadly shared in the evangelical community. However, our practice often does not match up with our declared assumptions.

To illustrate, let me address two key passages.

It seems transparently clear to me that John 17:23 speaks (1) of visible unity, i.e., "...that the world may know..." and (2) clearly expresses the heartfelt prayer and desire of the one we call Lord. I don't see any way that we can call Jesus "Lord" and ignore what is in his only extended canonical prayer. What do I mean by that? Well, Jesus must have prayed thousands of prayers, and a few of His brief ones are recorded, but this is the *only* extended prayer in our canon. Why? Because we are supposed to read what He wants. If this is not a priority for us, how can we call ourselves followers of Christ, let alone Biblical Christians?

It also seems transparently clear to me that 1 Corinthians 1 and 3 speak precisely against the denominational paradigm in which we presently minister. Of course, we have expanded the categories far beyond "Paul, Cephas, Apollos, and Christ." We have Luther, Wesley, all manner of Calvinists, et. al. And it's not just in one city that we have such divisions--it's in virtually every city. In fact, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of denominational (literally, using a name) networks that form part of the Body of Christ, but often believe themselves to have all or most of the Truth. Well, there are only two mathematical possibilities of how many denominations "have it all together." It's either one or none. And, I believe I know the answer: it's none. We all have part, but not the whole.

Now, it probably should be said that denominations (a phenomenon largely created by church/state separation in America and then exported to the world) are better than the religious wars of old Europe. But I think we must also admit that they aren't biblical. I don't know how anyone could argue that they are.

Some get around this by arguing that they are *the one* that has it all together. Landmark Baptists aren't the only ones that make that claim, as sincere a claim as it may be. Roman Catholics and others do the same.

So, how we move off of dead center and establish some semblance of visible unity as our Lord desires?

Here are some proposed pathways to Christian unity:

1. Institutional mergers.

2. Councils of Churches/denominations on national or international scales.

3. Local unity guided by the Holy Spirit.

As you have guessed, I believe the third is the only workable and biblical solution.

Remember that one of my assumptions is that the Church should always be missional. I believe common mission unites. We see that in the military, don't we? Paul and his ministry partners may have had disagreements and each may have had more in common with someone in Jerusalem who was not part of their missionary enterprise, but their common goal united them (I won't take the space to elaborate on Paul/Barnabas, hoping the point is accepted).

Therefore, it seems to me, that I have more in common with born-again pastors who wish to see State College, PA reached for Jesus than I do with, say, a pastor of my own denomination in Southern California. That perspective has led me and others to commit considerable time to not only praying, working and worshipping together, but to begin to knit hearts and to hold each other accountable in deeper ways than denominations are able (because of geographical distance). At the same time, we don't believe in uniformity, so we believe each congregation should have freedom to express their own way of worship and teaching on secondary and tertiary matters.

So, why am I still part of a denomination if I think that they aren't biblical? Because I don't believe in non-accountability. So, until a new wineskin (such as the "City Church") emerges, I remain connected with my ecclesiastical family of origin.

One other matter of note: I have mentioned in an earlier comment that, Biblically, the preeminent use of the word "Church" implied only one "Church" in each city--the Church of Ephesus, Philippi, Rome, et. al. The word 'Church' is used 3 ways in the NT--The Universal Church, the City Church and the House Church. The single mention of the House Church (I'd say all congregations today are just overgrown house churches) has been conflated by many with the preeminent use of the City Church. Hence the confusion. Each local congregation acts like they are the "Church of the City," when in reality, they are only a part of the whole.

So, as you can see, I have no interest in national/international ecumenical organizations, in sacrificing biblical essentials for false unity or in denominational mergers. What I am interested in is simply this: Pleasing the Lord. I am committed to an incremental, Spirit-led approach that does not seek to deconstruct what we already have until something better emerges (no, this is not part of the Emergent movement:)).

If you have any questions, David, I'll be happy to take my best shot at them.

Blessings on you and yours!

Paul Grabill

State College, PA

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 11)

We now come to the last of the eight questions that Wayne Grudem, in his article, Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?, says we should ask when trying to determine “for what doctrinal and ethical matters should Christian organizations draw new boundaries”:

8. METHODS OF ADVOCATES: Do the advocates of this teaching frequently manifest arrogance, deception, unrighteous anger, slander, and falsehood rather than humility, openness to correction and reason, kindness, and absolute truthfulness?

In my opinion, many of the same things I wrote in my last post concerning question # 7 apply here to question # 8 as well. If we cannot be sure of someone else’s motives, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary, I believe we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

I suppose that on both sides of the specific questions being discussed here (“PPL” and “alien immersion”), there are certain advocates who at times have fallen into patterns of “arrogance, deception, unrighteous anger, slander, and falsehood,” and others who have, for the most part, maintained an attitude of “humility, openness to correction and reason, kindness, and absolute truthfulness.”

Whether or not we perceive any tendency one way or the other on the part of the advocates of either side of the discussion will depend, undoubtedly, on the various prejudices and presuppositions each one of us bring to the table with us as fallible human beings. Although I have done my best, in my discussion of these issues, to maintain an attitude of “humility, openness to correction and reason, kindness, and absolute truthfulness,” I would have to include myself as someone who, to one degree or another, is also tainted by my own subjectivity and personal preferences.

In the end, each one of us will have to answer before God...

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work (1 Corinthians 3.11-13).

Another observation that Grudem makes at this point that seems relevant to me with respect to the current situation in the SBC is the following:

In 1923, J. Gresham Machen, in his classic book Christianity and Liberalism, wrote about liberal Presbyterian professors and pastors who believed one thing but said another just to keep their jobs and their influence. They signed the doctrinal statement even though they disagreed with it, and there was a fundamental dishonesty in what they were doing.

It is my intention, in what I write on this blog, to be forthright and honest. At the same time, I am aware that it is one thing to speak the truth boldly, without regard for the consequences, and, at times, something else to “speak the truth in love.” I also recognize there is a time for discretion, and we must “choose our battles,” asking whether or not what we are discussing is truly “a hill big enough to die on.”

In addition to my views on the issues of “PPL” and “alien immersion,” I have already indicated, on another post, a minor discrepancy I have with one statement in the Baptist Faith & Message that, as I understand it, advocates the practice of “closed communion.” If “coming clean” regarding my beliefs on these issues ends up threatening my job security, I am prepared to face the consequences. I personally do not believe my views are incompatible with faithful service as an IMB missionary. If that day were to ever come, though, I do not think it would be right to quietly continue drawing my salary on Cooperative Program dollars, merely taking care not to “make waves” or “ruffle feathers” within the organization. Neither do I believe that it would be right for me, in the meantime, to cover up my beliefs, or give the impression I believe one thing, when I really believe another.

In the end, each one of us, before God, must act according to the dictates of his or her own conscience. I am hopeful, though, that in the Southern Baptist Convention, and in the various institutions that are supported by the Cooperative Program, we don’t fall into the trap of letting job security and/or opportunities for advancement within the organization determine the views we are willing to defend publicly.

Along this same line, Grudem closes out his article referencing, in relation to “for what doctrinal and ethical matters should Christian organizations draw new boundaries,” what he believes are “SOME WRONG QUESTIONS TO ASK.” Regarding this, he says:

It is important to add that there are some questions that should not be part of our consideration in deciding which doctrinal matters to exclude with new boundaries. These are questions such as the following:

- Are the advocates my friends?
- Are they nice people?
- Will we lose money or members if we exclude them?
- Will the academic community criticize us as being too narrow-minded?
- Will someone take us to court over this?

I am in agreement with Grudem here that “such questions are all grounded in a wrongful fear of man, not in a fear of God and trust in God.” Perhaps in regard to the specific issues being discussed here, we could add the question: "Will some within the denominational community criticize us for being too open-minded?" I pray that God may indeed grant all of us who are faced with making decisions over issues like the ones we are currently facing in the SBC grace to act, not out of “wrongful fear of man,” but rather out of “fear of God and trust in God.”

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 10)

The next in Wayne Grudem’s list of eight questions we should ask when trying to determine “for what doctrinal and ethical matters should Christian organizations draw new boundaries” is:

7. Motivations of Advocates: Does it seem that the advocates of this teaching hold it because of a fundamental refusal to be subject to the authority of God’s Word, rather than because of sincerely-held differences of interpretation based on accepted hermeneutical standards?

In his explanation of this criterion, Grudem asks some rather pointed questions…

With regard to some specific type of false teaching, after some interaction with one of its responsible advocates (not just with a fringe follower of the teaching who may be ill-informed or unsanctified, or even an unbeliever, but with a responsible advocate) we might ask ourselves, for example, “Deep down inside, is he (or she) just embarrassed by the offense of the cross?” Or we might ask, “Deep down inside, is he embarrassed by the exclusive claims of Christ to be the only way to God?” “Is he driven by a desire to be accepted or approved by liberal scholars?” “Is he craving for attention, for praise, and for being called ‘creative’ and ‘innovative’?” “Is his case built again and again on hermeneutical novelties, special pleading, and methods of interpretation that we could not adopt elsewhere?”

In order to answer these questions in regard to the advocates of “private prayer language” and so-called “alien immersion,” we must first identify, as Grudem points out, their “responsible advocates.”

In the case of “PPL,” there has been an attempt by some to discredit its “advocates” by branding them as “Charismatics” or “Pentecostals.” While undeniably, true “Charismatics” and “Pentecostals” are, almost always, “advocates” of “PPL,” the great majority of the “advocates” for freedom to practice “PPL” within the SBC, or, more specifically, for IMB missionary candidates, are neither “Charismatics” nor “Pentecostals.” Not meaning to imply that “Charismatics” or “Pentecostals” are necessarily “irresponsible advocates” of their positions, but due to the aforementioned reason, I don’t believe we should include “Charismatics” or “Pentecostals” when discussing “responsible advocates” of the freedom to practice “PPL” within Southern Baptist circles.

I think we could include in our list of “responsible advocates” such people as Jerry Rankin, Ken Hemphill (see here), and no doubt, many other SBC leaders who have not yet chosen to be vocal about their convictions on this particular issue. I believe it is self-evident that people of this caliber are neither “embarrassed by the offense of the cross” or by “the exclusive claims of Christ to be the only way to God,” nor “driven by a desire to be accepted or approved by liberal scholars,” “craving for attention, for praise, and for being called ‘creative’ and ‘innovative’,” nor is their case “built again and again on hermeneutical novelties, special pleading, and methods of interpretation that we could not adopt elsewhere.” Regarding these men, very few would dare to even suggest such a thing.

Although perhaps not quite so much in the mainstream of Southern Baptist life or directly involved in the current discussion, I believe there is good reason to include in the list of “responsible advocates” of freedom to practice “PPL” within the SBC such theologians as D. A. Carson and Grudem himself. Hardly anyone within the SBC who is a knowledgeable student of theology would be so bold as to say that these men base their theological positions, which leave room for the legitimate practice of “PPL,” on “hermeneutical novelties.”

I believe we could also include in our list of “responsible advocates” people such as Wade Burleson, Dwight McKissic, and a number of other Southern Baptist bloggers. Although I believe it would be a mistake to wed the validity of the argument in favor of freedom to practice “PPL” with the motivations and character of these individuals, it would be disingenuous to deny that, in the eyes of many, the cause in favor of repealing the new polices at the IMB has come to be coupled with their written support of it.

Of course, when talking about a category as general as “bloggers,” there is room for just about anything under the sun. Some “bloggers,” by way of their on-line behavior, are not worthy to be called “responsible advocates” of anything. However, in the case of the two gentlemen mentioned above, as well as many others I choose not to specify by name here, I think it is hard, despite the efforts of some, to make the accusation of the possible wrong motivations that Grudem mentions here “stick.”

Regarding the issue of “alien immersion,” though the list of “responsible advocates” may not be an exact carbon-copy of the list of the advocates of freedom to practice “PPL,” I believe it is just as difficult, if not even more so, to build the case that those arguing against the new policy are motivated by “a fundamental refusal to be subject to the authority of God’s Word.”

Let’s be honest with one another. With the possible exception of a small minority of those involved in this discussion, I believe we all, on both sides of these questions, want to see Jesus glorified, the Word of God honored, and lost souls among the people groups of the world won to Christ and led to become growing disciples. We may have some sincere differences regarding our interpretation of some biblical texts and minor points of doctrine, or about methodology and ministry style. But, at the core, we all want the same thing, and, for that reason, we should stop impugning each others’ motives.

I am not saying there is no such thing as a “liberal” or that there are never those who may be motivated to compromise on doctrine for less than honorable motives. But, I am firmly convinced that such is not the case for the great majority of people involved in the current discussion. And, even if it might happen be the case of a scattered few, that should not invalidate the position of those who are doing the best they can to be honest and responsible in their handling of the Word of God, and convey their heart-felt convictions regarding these issues to others.

The Universal Church, Landmarkism, and John Dagg

Back when I was in seminary (1983-84, 86-87 at Mid-America, and 88-89 at Southwestern), I was most interested in the practical side of ministry. I think I sort of saw theology classes as a “necessary evil” to get to what I felt God had called me to do. I remember at Mid-America from time to time hearing students talk about whether the church in the Bible was always “local” and “visible” or sometimes “universal” and “invisible.” At that time, although I never really understood where the “local church only” folks were coming from, it didn’t seem to make that big of a difference to me. “Let’s just get on with ministry, tell people about Jesus, make disciples, and love one another,” I thought.

Since that time, after 17 years of career missionary service, as I have matured a bit in my faith, and reflected on the Scripture and how it applies to life and ministry, I have come to appreciate more and more the importance of the Universal Church. It’s hard for me to pinpoint exactly when and from where this increased appreciation has come: perhaps from preparing sermons on and preaching through the book of Ephesians; perhaps from some great times of Christian fellowship with believers from other denominations and backgrounds; perhaps from assorted books I have read, and messages I have heard down through the years; or, perhaps, just through the conviction of the Holy Spirit in my life.

In any case, I have come to believe that the essential unity of the Body of Christ, or the Univeral Church, is one of the most important doctrines in the New Testament. As a missionary, I see that, as I am working to fulfill the Great Commission, I am at the same time to be doing my best to work towards the fulfillment of the “end-vision” so poignantly described by that great missionary model, the Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 4.11-13:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

I never have been in favor of ecumenism, in the sense of the World Council of Churches, or dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. I firmly believe that the Reformation principles of sola scriptura, solus Christus, sola gratia and sola fide (“only Scripture”, “only Christ”, “only grace”, and “only faith”) are watershed issues that necessarily divide between those who preach the gospel of Christ, and those who preach “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Gal. 1.6-7). If I did not believe that, I probably would not be dedicating my life and missionary ministry to a place with such a strong Roman Catholic tradition as the country of Spain.

At the same time, however, I believe the early Church was right on target when they decided to include in the Apostles’ Creed, as part of the set of basic beliefs that set us apart as followers of Jesus, the line: I believe in…the holy catholic church, the communion of saints.

In any case, when I first heard about the new policy on baptism at the IMB, and read the comments of Wade Burleson on how it tied in somehow to Landmarkism, a few things began to “click” for me. I believe strongly the Bible teaches believers baptism, and have even spent hours showing believers from Reformed backgrounds the biblical basis for obeying Christ’s command regarding baptism. However, to say that those who have been baptized as believers, motivated by their desire to be obedient to Christ’s command, may not be qualified to be missionaries, just because those who baptized them may not dot every “i” and cross every “t” like us as Baptists, seemed from the beginning, to me, to be “over the top.”

As I have begun to reflect back on my seminary days, and research a little more on Baptist history, I have come to see how all this does seem to be tied in, one way or another, to Landmarkism. While not many today would go so far as J. R. Graves et al in saying we should never even allow non-Baptist ministers to preach in Baptist churches, it has been eye-opening to me to see how many in prominent positions in Southern Baptist life still seem bent on either denying the legitimacy of the Universal Church, or minimizing its importance. Consider the following quote from Mid-America Seminary Theology Department Chairman Jimmy Milliken, taken from his article “The Nature of the Church: Local or Universal? in the November 2006 edition of the Mid-America Theology Journal "Theology for Ministry", (pp. 62-77), describing the view of church in which I personally believe:

Universal Invisible/Local Visible

A widely held view of the meaning of “church” in the New Testament is that it refers both to a universal invisible spiritual body, and also to a local visible assembly of believers. This view is similar to the above view, except it limits the visible church to a local body with a distinct identity. Unlike the above view, the visible church does not include all professing believers. One automatically becomes a part of the universal church through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and personal faith in Christ. However, one must personally unite with a local assembly of believers to be a part of the visible church. In other words, a person may be a part of the universal church and never join a local visible church. Likewise, a person may be a member of a local visible church and not be a part of the universal invisible church.

This view of the church is held by many Southern Baptists and other Baptist groups. The Baptist Faith and Message, the official statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, included an acknowledgment of the universal use of “church” in the 1963 revision. It basically defines church as a local visible autonomous assembly, but added this statement: “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages.” The 2000 revision kept the universal statement with a slight expansion: “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.” Although acknowledging the universal use of church in the New Testament, both versions support the view that the primary meaning of church in the New Testament is that of a local visible autonomous assembly of baptized believers in Jesus Christ. The statement of a universal church amounts to simply an addendum that seeks to accommodate those within the Baptist fold who sees (sic) some sort of a universal church, but it is not an essential factor in defining the New Testament church.

Consider as well the following interchange at the recent Baptist Identity Conference between Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and Dr. Paige Patterson, at the end of Dr. Patterson’s presentation on “What Contemporary Baptists can Learn from Anabaptists” (as reported by Marty Duren)…

First question from Malcolm Yarnell–”I’ve been looking in the Bible for the invisible church and it’s just not visible.” Would the anabaptists have held to the doctrine of the invisible church? Answer- Ekklesia is overwhelmingly used to refer to the visible, local church.

Consider also the following quote from Dr. Yarnell’s article on The Baptist Renaissance at Southwestern:

Yet Baptist identity has fallen on hard times… It has become common to hear people refer to “the church,” not in its primary biblical sense of a local body, but in the secondary and eschatological sense of a universal body.

I have no problem at all with recognizing and taking seriously what the Bible has to say about the local church. The only problem I have is when this emphasis, at the same time, demands downplaying the importance of our unity and cooperation with other born-again believers who were bought with the same blood as us, and will spend eternity in heaven together with us. It would appear, from what I am able to observe, that this belief on the relative unimportance of the Universal Church underlies the inference that our only real “partners” in the gospel and the fulfillment of the Great Commission are those who share not only our beliefs in the fundamentals of the gospel, but also our specifically “Baptist distinctives” as well… and, if we can’t cooperate with them on the mission field, we most certainly are not going to allow those who may have come to Christ and been baptized in their “churches” to join with us, and benefit from our Baptist Cooperative Program funds.

I realize that for many all of this may seem like theological quibbling. You may prefer, just like I did before I got wind of what was at stake, to just “get on with ministry, tell people about Jesus, make disciples, and love one another.” However, if this line of thinking is not going to eventually affect how we as Southern Baptists do ministry in a very practical way on a day-to-day basis, I believe that some of us are going to have to do our “homework.” If you think God may be leading you to be one of these, I invite you to investigate further the important words that Gene Bridges has to say about Landmarkism in the Southern Baptist Convention here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and especially, what classic Baptist theologian John Dagg has to say about the Church Universal here.

Application of Grudem's Article to the Current Situation in the SBC (Part 9)

We now come to a point in Grudem’s article that I believe will play a major role in deciding the current debate over the new policies in the IMB, and eventually other issues in SBC life as well:

6. PURPOSES OF THE ORGANIZATION: Is the teaching a significant threat to the nature and purposes of the organization?

After posing this question, Grudem makes the following observation, which seems especially relevant to us as Southern Baptists at this time:

In asking this question I am attempting to take into account the fact that God raises up different organizations for different purposes… The situation is somewhat different with denominational groups and denominational or theologically-distinct seminaries. For example the Presbyterian Church in America is Reformed in its doctrinal convictions. If it were to begin to admit Arminians into leadership, it would be a significant threat to the nature and purposes of the denomination, and I do not think that it would appropriate for them to do so. It would fundamentally change who they are. Or, to take another example, I do not believe that historic Pentecostal groups such as the Assemblies of God should allow into their leadership people who deny that spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues and healing and prophecy continue today. To do so would be a significant threat to the nature and purposes of that denomination.

Grudem gives some examples of how the answer to question # 6 might be applied in other denominations. Let’s think some of how we might determine the answer in relation to “PPL,” “alien immersion,” and the IMB…

The Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention, originally drafted in 1845, contains the following statements:

Article II. Purpose: It is the purpose of the Convention to provide a general organization for Baptists in the United States and its territories for the promotion of Christian missions at home and abroad and any other objects such as Christian education, benevolent enterprises, and social services which it may deem proper and advisable for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God.

Article IX. Missionaries' Qualifications: All missionaries appointed by the Convention's boards must, previous to their appointment, furnish evidence of piety, zeal for the Master's kingdom, conviction of truth as held by Baptists, and talents for missionary service.

If it were possible to arrive at a unanimous conclusion of who we are as Baptists, and what is “truth as held by Baptists,” I believe the answer to Grudem’s question # 6, as regards the issues currently under discussion, would be relatively simple. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be quite so easy. Let’s consider first the question of “private prayer language”…

Up to the present, Southern Baptists, as a group, have never officially defined themselves as opposed to the practice of “private prayer language.” None of the three versions of the Baptist Faith & Message (1925, 1963, & 2000) has ever made any mention one way or another of “PPL.”

Undeniably, individual Baptists have on various occasions expressed their opposition to “Pentecostal/Charismatic” doctrine and practices, including, at times, the related issue of “private prayer language.” Some have even gone so far as to claim Baptists as a whole, or practically as a whole, have been united in these views.

The recent article in the Feb. 15 edition of the Florida Baptist Witness entitled “Is Charismatic Theology historically Baptist?” gives some good examples of this:

James A. Smith:

Can Southern Baptists adopt elements of charismatic theology and still be considered Baptist?

Paige Patterson:

Overall, consistently, for all the years of Baptist theology, whether we are talking about Anabaptists, whether we are talking about British Baptists, or whether we are talking about American Baptists and certainly Southern Baptists have rejected the charismatic interpretation of spiritual gifts.

For us to become charismatic in our emphasis now would be a major, new departure for Southern Baptists.

However, in the same edition of the Florida Baptist Witness, in a separate article, there are some quotes by other Southern Baptist leaders that would appear to lead to a different conclusion…

Ken Hemphill:

There are legitimate issues of interpretative difference on this matter among scholars with a commitment to biblical inerrancy. While I do not personally practice a prayer language nor advocate such practice, I do not think we should make this a test of one's commitment to the conservative resurgence, the principles of biblical inerrancy, or loyalty to Southern Baptist life and work. I think we should be guided by Paul's preference for intelligible speech in the gathered assembly and his caution that we should not prohibit a private prayer language.

We must be careful not to allow issues of personal interpretation and preference to deter us in our passion to expand God's kingdom through our Baptist family of faith.

James Leo Garrett (addressing the possibility of including a statement on “PPL” in the Baptist Faith & Message):

If you begin to put in things you disagree on, you begin to turn the statement in a different way. I don't believe there is now unanimity. It might be wise to wait on that.

Regarding the new policy on baptism at the IMB, any serious student of Baptist history must recognize the fact that there have been times in Southern Baptist past in which a significant group, perhaps even the majority, has been sympathetic to Landmarkist views, including the illegitimacy of so-called “alien immersion.” However, in the end, Landmarkism did not win the day. As Robert A. Baker states in the book The Southern Baptist Convention and its People, 1607-1972:

James E. Tull is probably correct in suggesting that Landmark ideas had filtered into the bloodstream of Southern Baptists, for some of them are still evident; but the radical denominational enlargement and concentration beyond the local church level that took place in the early decades of the twentieth century in the structure and function of the Southern Baptist Convention point unerringly to the disintegration and overbalancing of Landmark views. A strong Landmark undercurrent would have rendered impossible what took place in Southern Baptist organizational life between 1917 and 1972.

Some will undoubtedly protest and say that the new policy on baptism is not directly Landmarkist, and those who support it are not necessarily Landmarkers. While it is true that there were Baptists who opposed so-called “alien immersion” before the arrival of J. R. Graves on the scene, and there are some who oppose it today who do not necessarily identify with all of the teachings of Graves and Pendleton, I maintain that a certain brand of what I would call “Neo-Landmarkism” does indeed underlie the new policy.

In many ways, it would appear the soul of the Southern Baptist Convention is in the balance. Some would say there is a danger of turning “charismatic.” I believe this is a “red herring.” Very few in Southern Baptist life, even among those who are opposed to the new policy on “PPL,” would want the SBC to become “charismatic.” On the other side, some would say we are in danger of returning to Landmarkism. Although there are certain elements of the Landmarkism of J. R. Graves and J. L. Pendleton that seem to have “run their course,” I would say the dangers of “Neo-Landmarkism” gaining ascendancy in the SBC are much more real than those of the SBC going “charismatic.”

The issues are no doubt broader than just this. But the controversy over the new policies at the IMB seems to be illustrative of two streams of thought, one which would like the SBC to be, in general, more “open,” and one that would like the SBC to be more “closed.”

If the recent Baptist Identity Conference in Jackson, Tennessee, is any indication of where we are headed, though, I believe there is good reason to be encouraged. Recognized Baptist leaders, such as Frank Page, Thom Rainer, David Dockery, Mike Day, Ed Stetzer, Greg Thornbury, and Timothy George, without making clear reference to the policies at the IMB, from my perspective, all seemed to be advocating a view of Baptist identity tending more to the “open” side of the spectrum than the “closed.” All of these men are at the same time solid advocates of the authority of the inerrant Word of God and other basic doctrines held by conservative, evangelical Southern Baptists across the board.

It is my hope that I am not mistaken here in my interpretation of the spirit in the air in the SBC. It is also my hope that the Board of Trustees of the IMB, when they make a final decision on the review of the new policies, will be able to see that, indeed, those new policies seem to be out of step with the overall nature and purpose of the SBC at this time in history.

A reply to James A. Smith, “Is charismatic theology historically Baptist?”

A recent article in the Florida Baptist Witness by James A. Smith bears the title “Is charismatic theology historically Baptist?, as well as the sub-title “The current debate in SBC life concerning ‘private prayer language’ may hinge on whose Baptist history is correct.” I believe the thesis proposed by these titles is flawed from the beginning.

Among the main reasons I am Baptist is because I believe the interpretation of Scripture accepted by Baptists is closer to my own understanding of Scripture than that of other groups with which I might affiliate. It is my contention that the primary thing that describes who we are as Southern Baptists is an unswerving commitment to the authority of the Bible, as evidenced in both its inerrancy and sufficiency. I believe consistency to this commitment implies a concomitant commitment to the Reformation principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”). We, as Baptists, have never claimed to have an infallible understanding of God’s truth, and as such, should always be open to being shown, from Holy Scripture, how views we may have taken in the past may be mistaken.

It is because of this that I am convinced that questions of Baptist history should hold a very relative importance in deciding matters of interpretation and practice for us as Baptists today. The question is not whether Baptists in a certain time and cultural context held to one view or another, as much as it is how do we today, in total submission to God’s revelation for us through His inerrant Word, understand we can best move ahead to obey His commands, and work towards the fulfilment of the Great Commission.

The main focus of Smith’s article, as well as that of an accompanying article entitled “The Sandy Creek-Charleston Baptist Analogy,” is a response to Dwight McKissic’s reference to the “Sandy Creek” and “Charleston” streams of church life in early Baptist history in the south of the United States.

Consider the following quotes from Smith’s article:

McKissic’s historical claims to buttress his argument for latitude in the SBC on spiritual gifts rests on the scholarship of two Baptist church historians, Leon McBeth and Walter Shurden.

When asked if there is any historical evidence that Sandy Creek Baptists spoke in tongues or private prayer languages, Shurden responded, “I know of none in historical sources.”

Shurden told the Witness, “… Sandy Creekers were what I would call ‘little c charismatics.’ I know of no evidence to suggest that they spoke in tongues as in what I would call ‘large C Charismatics’ today.”

The apparent implication is that, if one is unable to demonstrate that Sandy Creek Baptists actually “spoke in tongues,” then McKissic's case collapses, and there is no basis for allowing freedom for the practice of “private prayer language” among Southern Baptists today.

Although it would be up to Rev. McKissic himself to either confirm or deny this, the idea I get, upon reading his various writings on the topic, is not that the legitimacy of “private prayer language” in Southern Baptist life has ever hinged upon the practice of Baptists in the past, whether at Sandy Creek or anywhere else. As I understand it, the example of Sandy Creek and Charleston are given, rather, to point to a model of cooperation and mutual understanding among Baptists of differing liturgical styles that might be taken as an inspiration to us as Southern Baptists as we deal with the present-day controversy over “private prayer language.”

Even if McKissic did mean to imply that Sandy Creek Baptists “spoke in tongues” (once again, something I doubt), I think it is a bit “over the top” to suggest that “the current debate in SBC life concerning ‘private prayer language’ may hinge on” McKissic’s or anyone else’s interpretation of Baptist history. It is my firm conviction that the implications of this discussion transcend the views of any one individual.

Smith, in another place in this article, refers as well, though, to one other person’s view of Baptist history:

Acknowledging isolated historical examples of Baptists who held ‘charismatic leanings,’ [Dr. Paige] Patterson said, “Overall, consistently, for all the years of Baptist theology, whether we are talking about Anabaptists, whether we are talking about British Baptists, or whether we are talking about American Baptists and certainly Southern Baptists have rejected the charismatic interpretation of spiritual gifts.”

This statement seems strange to me. How could Anabaptists and pre-20th-century Baptists have “rejected the charismatic interpretation of spiritual gifts” if the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement did not even begin until 1901? I do not deny that many Anabaptists, pre-20th-century Baptists, as well as Christians from many other ecclesiological streams, may have well been “cessationist” in their understanding of miraculous gifts. However, I believe the “cessationism” of many of these was more a reaction to the phenomena they observed around them in the Christendom of their time than a careful response to an objective study of Scripture itself on these points. I would propose, rather, that it has only been with the advent of Pentecostalism, and the Charismatic and Third Wave renewal movements within other denominations, that serious theologians have begun to study with any exegetical depth the possibility of the continuation or reappearance of miraculous gifts for the present time.

During the 20th century, without a doubt, many, both within Southern Baptist ranks, as well as without, have reacted to the excesses of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Some of this reaction, in my opinion, has been measured and well-directed. On the other hand, some has been of a combative, hysterical nature that has tended to be non-objective, oftentimes resorting to emotion-laden straw man argumentation. Since the 1960’s, however, some Baptists, both within the SBC, and especially in other parts of the world, have taken a more open position towards the continuation of miraculous gifts and the practice of such phenomena as “private prayer languages.”

The choice for us, as Baptists today, as I see it, is: do we want to dig in our heels in regard to all that our past has represented, or do we want to remain open to the continued direction of the Holy Spirit, new insights, as the result of developing scholarship, into the unchanging truths of Scripture, and the principle of semper reformanda? As I understand it, a choice to cling to the past implies at the same time a choice to embrace the views of our Southern Baptist forefathers on such things as slavery and race relations. It might also mean, for many, a revival of Landmarkism.

Smith also quotes Patterson as saying: For us to become charismatic in our emphasis now would be a major, new departure for Southern Baptists. If, by “charismatic in our emphasis,” Patterson means accepting the traditional Pentecostal/Charismatic distinctive of the normative expectation for all believers of the baptism in the Holy Spirit accompanied by the initial sign of speaking in tongues, than I would pretty much be in agreement with him here. However, to imply that those who are advocating the freedom within Southern Baptist life to practice a “private prayer language” are necessarily “charismatic” in their emphasis is just not true.

In closing, I find especially disconcerting the following reference in Smith’s article:

Noting that differences of interpretation on spiritual gifts is one reason why different denominations exist, Patterson invoked a baseball analogy, suggesting Baptists and charismatics are not on the same denominational teams: “Why would I want to wear a Red Sox uniform if I want to play for the Yankees?”

As born-again members of the Family of God, I believe it is a fundamental biblical principle that we are all essentially on the “same team.” In the supposed “game” of Christian service, I would hope we would all be able to say: “I do not play for the ‘Baptists,’ and I do not play for the ‘Charismatics’; I play exclusively for the same King of Kings and Lord of Lords who once said “He that is not with me is against me” (Luke 11.23).