Rocks on the Path to Unity

My last post on "Unity with Other Religions Too?" has got me thinking more about the whole matter of our essential unity with other Christians, and how hard it is, at times, to make it work. A very interesting conversation, in which I was involved, ensued on this topic in the comment string over at Paul Grabill’s blog. Also, I had a conversation yesterday with some family members, including my Mom, in which I mentioned this post, and the various issues involved.

In the midst of this conversation, my Mom shared about how my Dad, early on in his ministry, when he was pastor of a church at Fort Pierce, Florida, decided to drop out of the local Ministerial Alliance, because they voted to include the Mormons. In the latter part of his ministry, here in the Memphis area, I know he was a regular participant in pastors’ meetings in relation to the local Baptist Association. I know he also met together on a regular basis, and actively pursued fellowship, with several other area pastors from other denominations, including Methodists, Presbyterians, and Assemblies of God.

I am proud of my father, and the example he set for me in this area. I believe that biblically, there is a legitimate tension between the injunctions, on the one hand, to not be "yoked together with unbelievers" and "come out from them and be separate" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18), and, on the other hand, to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3).

As I have observed other pastors and Christian leaders in various contexts down through the years, it seems to me that one of the major causes that keep them from more actively pursuing practical unity with believers and churches from other backgrounds is the fear of being "yoked together with unbelievers." I personally find it hard to find fault with someone, whenever their decisions are truly based on a desire to be as faithful as they possibly can to the teaching of the Word of God. However, I am convinced there is still a "more excellent way" (1 Corinthians 12:31).

Back in Extremadura, Spain, where I learned and experienced many of the things that have molded my current thinking regarding Christian unity, at one time, the Seventh-Day Adventists applied for membership in the regional Evangelical Council. The vote among all the participating churches, which included Baptists, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Charismatics, Presbyterians, and Independents, was unanimous to not admit them.

Personally, I have known several brothers and sisters in Christ, who are now solid, committed evangelicals, who shared with me that they first came to a saving knowledge of Christ while they were still with the Seventh-Day Adventists. So, I am not saying that you cannot be Seventh-Day Adventist and saved at the same time. I would say that pretty much the same thing holds for Roman Catholics. However, the official doctrine of both of these groups, as I understand it, if rightly understood and embraced, would preclude salvation, because it is, at its root, a doctrine of "grace plus works."

Because of this, my personal position has always been to pursue fellowship and unity on a personal level with all those who give evidence in their personal life and testimony of being truly born again; and on an organizational level with all those whose official doctrinal position, if truly understood and embraced, would lead to being born again.

What if the Extremaduran Evangelical Council had voted to include the Seventh-Day Adventists? What if they had voted to include the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the Muslims? I freely admit, that, in such a case, things would have gotten a lot more complicated for me. But, I still would have felt a compulsion to do my best to work towards practical unity with those I understood to be true believers, even if I disagreed with them about admitting others who were not.

Within the family of faith, there are plenty of things we can discuss and disagree about amongst ourselves. But, they are, at the root, "in-house arguments." They do not affect our basic unity one with another.

There are also certain individual believers, as well as certain groups of believers, with whom God joins our hearts in a special way, and with whom we have particularly close fellowship. There are also some who, for more pragmatic reasons, turn out to be more conducive partners than others in certain ministry projects.

But the fact that there are difficulties and complications involved in putting into practice our unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ should never lead us to put the topic of unity on the back-burner, or to treat a fellow believer as if he/she were not a true, full-fledged member of the family.

Unity with Other Religions Too?

Paul Grabill has posted a link on his blog to a story in the Austin American-Statesman about Hyde Park Baptist Church in Austin choosing to not allow Austin Area Interreligious Ministries to use its property for an inter-faith Thanksgiving service, which encouraged the joint worship of Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Bahais, and was to include Muslim Maghrib prayer.

I hope it is clear, when I write about the practice of Christian unity, that I am NOT talking about events like this. I think that Hyde Park Church made the right decision. In the world in which we live, this type of decision can be very unpopular, and expose us to accusations of intolerance. See, for example, the editorials in the Austin American-Statesman here, here, here and here.

Among those accustomed to narrow denominationalism, efforts toward promoting biblical unity can also be unpopular. Sometimes, seeking to be faithful to our Lord's commands leads one to walk a pretty tight rope.

Thoughts from Philippians on the City Church

I was just reading through Philippians in the New Living Translation, and, with the post from yesterday on the City Church on my mind, the following verses stood out to me:

v. 1. This letter is from Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus. I am writing to all of God’s holy people in Philippi who belong to Christ Jesus, including the elders and deacons.

vv. 4-5. Whenever I pray, I make my requests for all of you with joy, for you have been my partners in spreading the Good News about Christ from the time you first heard it until now.

v. 27 Above all, you must live as citizens of heaven, conducting yourselves in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ. Then, whether I come and see you again or only hear about you, I will know that you are standing together with one spirit and one purpose, fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News.

Would it not be something truly wonderful to be able to say that "all of God's holy people" in Memphis, or Dallas, or Tulsa, or Hot Springs, or Madrid, or wherever, were "standing together with one spirit and one purpose, fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News"?

The City Church Revisited

One of the posts that has attracted the most comments on Love Each Stone was a guest post, entitled The City Church, by Paul Grabill. There are many misconceptions about the City Church, including the idea that it eliminates the need for individual congregations, and denominations. Grabill, who blogs at Beside the Point, is pastor of the State College Assembly of God in State College, Pennsylvania. As such, he obviously believes in the value of the local congregation, as well as in denominational cooperation.

Christian Unity: Local Movements & Congregational Implications is a paper Grabill wrote fleshing out the concept of the City Church, and proposing some practical steps for putting it into practice. As a conservative Baptist, I, evidently, have a few doctrinal differences with Grabill. Frankly, there are a few things he says in this article that make me a bit nervous, especially when he uses terms like ecumenism and liberalism, and talks about building bridges to Catholics.

Don’t worry. I’m not on the verge of selling out on such matters as the inerrancy of Scripture, justification by grace through faith alone, or believers baptism. It’s just that, in addition to these, I also have a conviction that we, as Southern Baptists, are not doing all we could and should to work towards the unity of Christ’s Body for which he prayed in John 17. And it doesn’t necessarily mean compromising our convictions on other key doctrines.

In the interest of seeking to be as obedient as we can to Christ’s commands, and making "every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3), I urge you to carefully read what Grabill has to say, and prayerfully consider whether it is line with what Christ would want of us as his children.

Another article along the same lines I highly recommend is Shopping for the Right Church, by Nathan Pitchford. It is well worth the read. Please take the time to read the whole thing and take to heart what it says as well.

For some more practical examples where some interesting progress is being made along these lines, see also:

Mission Houston
The Katy Church
Why a "City Church?"
Church Planting Manifesto

Additional Thoughts

For those of you who, for whatever strange reason, may not have already had more than your fill of my thoughts and reflections on assorted topics, here are a few links...

1. Back in the Spring, Ryan Rice, over at churchpod.org did a pod-cast interview with me, on the topic of church planting in Spain, which he now has on-line here. We did it in a crowded restaurant, so there is a bit of background noise. But, if you turn the volume up, you can follow it pretty well.

2. I still am posting, once every 8 or 9 days or so, at sbc IMPACT! My posts over there, which, for the most part, are different from what I post here, include:

The Role of the American Church in World Missions
The World is a Waffle
The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination" (with a separate comment string from the one here at Love Each Stone)
World Evangelism is a "Team Sport"
Why Did God Destroy Sodom?
The "Harvest Cycle" and Short-Term Missions

While you're at it, don't forget to check out the daily articles by the entire excellent team of writers at sbc IMPACT!

Landmarkism and the Arkansas Baptist Convention

During the past couple of years, there has been a good bit of debate regarding the influence of Landmarkism within the SBC. Although I am a pretty far cry from being a political pundit, I believe the recent vote at the Arkansas Baptist State Convention may well have been a pretty good referendum on this question (read about it here). I was not there, but here are a few of my observations based on what I have read on the internet:

1. The proposed amendment was to strike from the ABSC constitution the statement: “The Baptist Faith and Message shall not be interpreted as to permit open communion and/or alien immersion.”

While, as I understand it, state conventions are officially autonomous, and are free to make the doctrinal statements they wish, it is interesting to me that, in addition to approving the Baptist Faith and Message, the ABSC has officially gone on record as interpreting it. The problem is that the terms “open communion” and “alien immersion” are open to interpretation themselves. I had always assumed that the phrase “Being a church ordinance, [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper” precluded the option of “open communion.” Inasmuch as, strictly speaking, my personal view is not that of “open communion,” but what some (such as Nathan Finn) have called “modified open communion,” I may not have needed to sign the Baptist Faith and Message with a caveat after all. At least not, according to the way many Arkansas Baptists apparently interpret it.

I don’t have a clue where they get that the BF & M says anything one way or another about “alien immersion,” though.

2. The vote total in favor of the amendment was 383 votes (63%) to 225 votes (37%) against. However, that was not enough, since the constitution requires a 2/3 majority (67%) in two consecutive conventions in order to pass.

It is difficult to know for sure how many of the people who voted in favor of the amendment actually believe in and/or practice “open communion” and the admission of “alien immersion.” However, it seems significant to me that a pretty clear majority appear to at least be open to this possibility. This is in Arkansas, a state that is generally considered to be a stronghold of Landmarkism within the SBC. It is also significant to me, at the same time, that 37% appear to favor an interpretation more in line with Landmarkist views. This is evidence that what Timothy George once called “the ghost of Landmarkism” is still with us, and is something to be taken into account.

From what I read into these statistics, there is a very real possibility, or even probability, that the majority of rank and file Southern Baptists do not expect SBC denominational employees and missionaries to hold to “closed communion” or reject “alien immersion.” At the same time, it is evident there is a real division within the SBC (if the ABSC is representative of the rest) over these issues. That would not be so much of a problem if Landmarkism did not carry along with it the tendency to exclude those who do not give assent to its tenets.

I doubt the authors of the ABSC constitution contemplated this particular situation when they came up with the 2/3-majority, 2-convention clause. However, I think it is ironic, and somewhat ominous, for the SBC at large, that a Landmarkist-leaning minority was able to hold sway in this particular situation.

3. By in large, the people who voted in favor of this amendment were, no doubt, solid conservative Southern Baptists who are supportive of the Conservative Resurgence in general.

Greg Addison, chairman of the committee that presented the amendment, is a personal friend, who grew up with me in the youth department of Bellevue Baptist Church, under the pastoral leadership of my father, Adrian Rogers. He was a staff member of Bellevue for several years, a frequent preacher in the Bellevue pulpit, and someone of whom I know, beyond a shadow of any doubt, my father thought very highly.

It is significant to me, as well, that Ronnie Floyd, Senior Pastor of FBC Springdale & the Church at Pinnacle Hills, as well as candidate for the presidency of the SBC in 2006, publicly supported the amendment. According to his blog, his church practices “open communion,” and handles cases of “alien immersion” on an individual basis.

Pretty good evidence to me that this is not, as some would have us believe, a matter of compromising with the authority of the Word of God. As Floyd says, “Yes, our commitment is to doctrinal purity. We hold the line tight, even to the point of losing possible members to our church. However, we are to be a biblically grounded, Christ-centered people of God. We cannot negotiate away the precious doctrine of salvation as well as other doctrines.”

At the same time, I think it is significant that Floyd defends the right of his church to dissent with decisions they feel are not biblically correct: “Please understand that while we do associate with the Arkansas Baptist Convention, we are an autonomous body of Christ. No convention office dictates to our church how to practice our faith. As a local body of Christ, we have the liberty to interpret Scripture as we believe is right and prayerfully historically accurate.”

Praying for the Sick

One of the most significant memories that will stick with me from my visit to India is the several occasions on which I was asked to pray, one by one, for sick people after several of the meetings in which we participated. Although, as I have previously indicated on various occasions on this blog, I am a continuationist, and believe in the current operation of the so-called "sign gifts," I have not, in the past, been quite so intensely involved in praying for sick people as I was on this trip to India.

This was not something that I sought out on my own. I was asked, on several occasions, if I would be willing to pray for the sick. Believing that, in some way or another, God might be able to use me, I agreed to do so. After the meetings, the people lined up, and one by one, I asked them what was their particular prayer request, laid my hands on them, and lifted them before the Father. Some of them brought with them a small vial of oil, and handed it to me. In those cases, I poured a little bit on my hands, and rubbed it on their head, as I prayed for them.

While I was in India, I was told that pretty much across the board, throughout all the Christian groups and denominations that are seeing any significant response to the Gospel, a good part of this response is linked to praying for the sick and miraculous healing. From what I have read, in books such as The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins, this is true as well for most areas of the world that are experiencing significant church growth, especially among the so-called "two-thirds world."

I cannot say for sure whether anyone I prayed for was healed as a result of my prayers. I did not ask them directly. However, this experience in my life gave me cause to reflect on the whole issue of praying for the sick. The following are some of my observations:

*God still miraculously heals people today. From my study of Scripture, I see no reason to conclude this is not the case. I have also heard too many credible testimonies of miraculous healing to discard them as mere emotionalism or exaggeration.

*The term "the gift of healing" is a red herring in the whole discussion on continuationism. The biblical text, in the original Greek, says literally, "gifts of healings" (1 Corinthians 12:9, 28). As such, the argument that, if someone had "the gift of healing," they ought to be able to go into hospitals and heal people indiscriminately, is unfounded. I believe that God, in his sovereignty, has distributed the gift of being able to pray for people, and see God heal them as a response, in differing degrees, to different people, in different circumstances, at different times.

*I also believe that physical healing is included in the atonement. A thorough examination of the biblical context of the phrase "by his wounds we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24) makes it hard to relegate it to the strictly spiritual sphere. However, the full effects of Jesus’ death on the cross, especially in the physical realm, are not extended to us completely until "the redemption of our bodies" at the last day (Romans 8:18-25; Revelation 21:4). This does not preclude the possibility of God, on occasion, sovereignly bringing forward, into the present day, some of the blessings reserved for us, as his children, in eternity. In the biblical records of miraculous healing (both O.T and N.T.), I believe this is precisely what happened. Whenever God miraculously heals, whether physically, psychologically, or spiritually, He does so on the basis of the blessings won for us by Jesus on the cross of Calvary (see also Exodus 15:22-26).

*I believe that many who purport to have "the gift of healing" are spiritual charlatans. Whenever people use supposed spiritual gifts, accompanied by manipulative techniques and a motivation of personal aggrandizement, there is no way that God can be pleased. Therefore, as believers, we need to use a healthy dose of spiritual discernment in our evaluation and support of such ministries. However, I believe we need to be careful, at the same time, to not "throw the baby out with the bath water."

*I also believe that the degree of our faith does play a role in the efficacy of our prayers for healing. There are too many verses in the Bible that say this too clearly to deny that it is so. However, I believe that, at the same time, it is a travesty to lay the blame for people not being healed on the supposed lack of faith of those being prayed for. Biblically, there is evidence of God responding to the faith of the sick person him/herself, the faith of the one praying for the sick person, and the faith of the one bringing a sick person to someone else so that they might pray for them. I also believe that it is blatant Scripture-twisting, not to mention extreme irresponsibility, to suggest that going to the doctor and taking medicine manifests a lack of faith.

*One of the main motivations for healing in the Bible is compassion towards those who are suffering. As a result, whenever we pray for someone who is sick, we need to be very careful to do so in such a way as to not add to their suffering by either laying the burden of the responsibility for their healing on their faith or lack thereof, or raising their expectations for miraculous healing, only to send them crashing down to the ground afterwards.

*Although it is certain that not all sickness comes as the result of individual sin (John 9:1-3), it is also true that many ailments, whether spiritual, psychological, or physical, have their root in unconfessed sin in our lives. I believe the context of the passage in James on calling for the elders to pray for the sick (James 5:13-16) implies taking this possibility into consideration ("if he has sinned, he will be forgiven"). As ministers of God’s grace, though, we need to be very careful, compassionate, and spiritually discerning, in the way we deal with this.

*I do not believe all sickness comes as a result of demonic activity. However, there does appear to be a clear link, in many instances recorded in the Bible, to certain physical conditions and spiritual bondage. I believe that some people are more spiritually gifted than others at discerning when this is the case. I also believe that our authority, as believers, over the power of the enemy and the spiritual bondage he inflicts, is more direct and complete in this present age, than any authority God may happen to give us over purely physical phenomena. As a result, I believe it is generally a good thing, whenever we sense that demonic activity or spiritual bondage may be at the root of physical sickness, to appropriate in faith the authority God gives us as his children over "all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19).

*For some reason, God’s miraculous power in healing seems to be more active in certain areas of the world, and in certain periods of history, than others. We therefore need to be careful not to judge what God may be doing in a certain place, at a certain time, on the basis of what we may have observed at another place and another time.

*At the present time, from all evidence, God appears to be working in unusual ways in many places around the world to raise spiritual awareness and prepare a great harvest of souls. Much of this seems to be tied in with miraculous healing. I believe that we, as God’s servants, and particularly as those associated with Southern Baptist missionary efforts, need to be "in tune" to what God is doing, and join him where He is at work around the world. While we do need to use discernment and not be too quick to jump on the bandwagon of the latest spiritual fads, we, at the same time, need to be just as careful to not cast a scornful eye, and miss out on some of the mighty works of God, as a result of our spiritual skepticism and cultural presuppositions.

IMB in South Asia

During my recent trip to India, I had the privilege of spending some quality time with several members of the IMB South Asia Region’s leadership team. In the same spirit as my last post, I would like to dedicate this one to the tremendous things God is doing through our Southern Baptist IMB workers in a different region of the world than the one in which I normally work, Western Europe.

I must say I was totally blown away by the vast spiritual needs and ministry opportunities in this significant region of the world that comprises the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives. In my time with the South Asia regional leaders, I learned that, among the various ministries in which they could invest their efforts, our IMB workers have chosen to focus their energies on reaching the most unreached of the unreached. They are strategically working to train national believers in discipleship and church planting methods that have proven to yield the greatest fruit in terms of spiritual multiplication. Inasmuch as IMB work in much of the region is comparatively new, I was especially pleased to learn of plans to give priority consideration toward building stronger relationships with the various Baptist unions and other Great Commission Christian groups scattered across the region, helping to mobilize them towards greater effectiveness in reaching the unreached in their midst.

The South Asia region has a very informative and extensive web-site, which I strongly recommend you to check out for yourself. A good place to begin would be the Fast Facts page, and the Frequently Asked Questions page. But for those of you who don’t go there for yourselves, here are a few of the more noteworthy statistics:

• More people live in India than in all of North America, Central America and South America – combined!
  
  
• The seven countries of South Asia are home to about one out of five people in the world. Most have never heard the Gospel even once!
  
  
• South Asia has 51% of the world’s Unreached People Groups (UPGs), nearly 3/4ths of the world’s Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs) and one out of every four lost persons on the planet!
  
  
• South Asia is home to more unreached people groups and more unengaged unreached people groups than all the rest of the world combined!
  
  
• As an IMB region, South Asia still has one of the lowest numbers of personnel compared to other regions!

I am extremely grateful that God allowed me to have a first-hand glimpse at what He is doing in this part of the world. I also have a deep admiration for those who have made the decision to actually move to South Asia, and pour their lives into helping to reach the unreached and minister to the needy in this very challenging place to live and work. And, while not neglecting other areas, including Western Europe, I have been inspired to be more faithful in praying for the needs of South Asia, as well as becoming an advocate, whenever I have the opportunity, for the work of the IMB in this high-priority arena of God’s redemptive work around the world today.

RIMI - Mission India

Back in 1984-86, when I served as a missionary volunteer on board Operation Mobilization’s ministry ship, MV Doulos, there were several things that deeply impacted my life. One of them was the weekly Thursday nights of prayer, in which we would pray for the needs of countries and ministries around the world. In addition to the blessing of praying so intensely and regularly, I was very impressed by the fact that, on so many occasions, the prayer requests were not just centered on the ministry of Operation Mobilization, but rather, as well, on those of many other sister organizations and ministry efforts.

During my time on the ship, one story was relayed to us that brought home in a very poignant way this significant principle of unselfish cooperation and solidarity in the Body of Christ. Back in the late 60’s, the leaders of both Operation Mobilization (OM) and Youth With A Mission (YWAM) were praying and seeking God’s provision for their first ship to launch in ministry around the world. YWAM had received significant donations, had their eyes on a particular ship, and were involved in initial negotiations to purchase it. When the deal fell through, though, the leaders of YWAM felt led by the Lord to transfer the money they had received to OM, enabling them to buy the MV Logos, the ship that would end up becoming the pioneer vessel of world missions ship ministry. Now, years later, as many of you are aware, both OM and YWAM have several different ministry ships.

As a missionary of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, some might question why I am writing to plug the ministry of another mission organization. However, it is in the spirit of what I learned years ago during my time with OM that I want to share about the strategic ministry of a wonderful organization with which I had the opportunity to partner on my recent trip to India: Reaching Indians Ministries International (RIMI), or Mission India (as it is known within India).

According to RIMI’s web-site:

RIMI is an international, interdenominational, evangelical Christian missions agency, established in 1993, with the compelling vision of glorifying Christ by training national (indigenous) leaders who plant reproducing churches in India and beyond. This is implemented by the PARTNERSHIP of God's people everywhere.

RIMI's India based ministry is called Mission India which is located in Nagpur, Central India. Today we have over 980 church planters with over 4,000 house churches, a leading theological seminary in Nagpur with 22 satellite training centers and many compassion projects including 20 Mercy Homes, which serve over 500 children. This year about 850 students will be trained to become tomorrow's influential leaders for Christ's Kingdom.

Mercy Home Kids

During my time in India, I was able to observe first-hand how RIMI/Mission India is doing everything they say here and more. Many times, it is difficult to know, when dealing with national indigenous ministries, whether the money donated is really being used wisely or not. I am happy to say, though, I was extremely impressed by the servant heart, responsible stewardship, and personal integrity I saw exhibited by the various members of the Mission India leadership team with whom we were privileged to work during our time there. I was able to see first-hand the magnificent seminary and ministry center in Nagpur, as well as the satellite training centers in Warangal and Goa. I was able to fellowship, work, and pray together with a good many of the Mission India national leaders on a close, personal level.

Mission India Leadership Team, Nagpur

The scope of the vision of RIMI Founder and President Saji Lukos, and the rest of the Mission India leadership team, is enormous. They are very close to fulfilling their goal of having a Ministry Training Center in each of India’s 28 states. They are providing valuable training for national pastors and church planters, and preparing them to reach out in obedience and faith to the unreached millions scattered throughout India. They are doing a fantastic job of ministering the love of Christ to the needy by way of their Mercy Homes and many other compassion projects.

I absolutely love RIMI/Mission India’s Core Values Statement, which I found, by experience, to be more than just mere words, and which reads as follows:

1. Christ before Career: We have absolute trust and faith in the Word of God, and we are committed to honor Christ by obeying everything that He commands us to do, and living humbly and sacrificially.
2. Character before Ministry: We are committed to develop Christ-like leaders through various innovative programs so that the people will see Christ and want to follow him personally.
3. Unity before Growth: We are committed to being truly evangelical, inter-denominational and multi-cultural.
4. People before Program: We are committed to build people on the basis of their specific call and gifts in order to develop various ministries to meet the needs of people in the community. Disciple making is the number one priority of RIMI churches (Faith Gospel Church).
5. Ownership before Organization: We are committed to establish autonomous and self-supporting churches and church-based projects. This is ownership, and avoids long-term dependency.
6. Unreached before Reached: We are committed to reach the unreached strategically, region by region with the help of local trained leadership.
7. Integrity before Popularity: We are committed to practice absolute integrity and accountability.
   

I could say more, but I will leave you to visit the RIMI web-site yourself, and learn more about what they are doing, and how you could play a part in helping to support the vision of this wonderful, God-honoring ministry that I whole-heartedly recommend.

Seminary Class

Mission India, Warangal

"Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute" in India

Pastors Training Conference in Mission India Seminary, Nagpur

During the last several years of my father’s life, he set as a major goal to mentor and train younger pastors, sharing with them the wisdom that God had given him through his more than 50 years of ministerial experience. Together with my brother Steve, who assisted with logistical and technical aspects of the ministry, he put together a three-day conference for pastors in the States entitled What Every Pastor Ought to Know. They decided to call the ministry the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute (PTI).

In the following months, God allowed them to put together several different Adrian Rogers PTI events around the country that were a real blessing to the hundreds of pastors who were able to participate. Six months before my father’s death, and one month before he was first diagnosed with cancer, Steve had the idea to professionally video-tape the entire conference. As a result, we have a high quality 10-DVD set of the entire 21 hours of teaching done before a group of about 100 pastors in Memphis, Tennessee. Steve has since edited the materials, put together a workbook, and packaged them attractively in a box, so that the What Every Pastor Ought to Know course is now available by purchase for pastors in the States (see http://www.pastortraining.com/).

Since my father’s death, several one-day, condensed version, What Every Pastor Ought to Know conferences have been organized and carried out in various places around the States, by way of DVD large-screen projection before a live audience. Thus far, the response to these events has been very positive. Upon praying and reflecting on what might be the best stewardship of these materials, though, Steve had the idea to make them available free of charge to pastors around the world, who, so many times, have very little access to training materials like these. As he began to publicize the availability of this key resource, various Christian ministries from around the world got in contact with him, inquiring about the possibility of holding Adrian Rogers PTI conferences in their countries.

Back in February of this year, the first international Adrian Rogers PTI conference was held in Nairobi, Kenya with a group of about 200 national pastors. Despite the cultural differences, and the fact that many of the attendees had never heard of my father, the overall response was extremely positive.

Among the other invitations that Steve received, two came from the country of India: one from Pastor Saji Lukos of Reaching Indians Ministries International (RIMI)/Mission India, and another from Pastor Sudhakar Rao of Newlife Ministries in the city of Hyderabad. After a lot of soul-searching, and not knowing quite what to expect, Steve began to make plans to travel to India, together with his wife Cindi, from Sept. 21 to Oct. 10. About a month before leaving, they suggested I might want to accompany them; and three weeks before leaving, I made the decision to go along as well.

I am very grateful to the Lord, Steve & Cindi, RIMI/Mission India, and Newlife Ministries, for the opportunity to participate in this tremendous venture. All told, we were able to share a condensed version of the What Every Pastor Ought to Know video-course with some 1,200 pastors and Bible Institute students in 6 different events in 4 cities in different parts of India.

The challenges were enormous, but the blessings were well worth the effort:

*We brought with us two DVD players, a projector, and a portable large screen. We used the local sound equipment. In spite of all the precautions we took, it was practically always a challenge getting everything set up and running on time. On several occasions, we had power outages. It was hard to explain to our local hosts, in way that they could understand it, exactly what we wanted to do. But, in the end, after a bit of fretting and running around, in each occasion, the “show did go on.”

*Although English is widely spoken in India, we found the language barrier to be bigger than what we had expected. In each different state we visited, there is a different main local language. Although we had capable interpreters, with the teaching on DVD, it was not practical to do simultaneous interpretation. The solution we found was for someone, at the end of each 30-60 minute teaching session, to give a summary in the local language of what had just been said in English. In spite of drawing out the time quite a bit more than we had anticipated, the listeners were very patient, and did not seem to mind at all.

*Culturally, we wondered how well the concepts originally directed toward a group of American pastors would prove to be relevant in India. It is certain that a number of the jokes and anecdotes my father told in the original setting did not make much sense to the majority of the Indians. Also, the general context of the churches and ways of doing things made some of the teaching less applicable than in the States. However, if we were able to read correctly the reactions of the audience, they found the basic material to be extremely helpful. As we were presenting a condensed, one-day version of the 21-hour course, we were able to pick the sessions we felt would be most relevant and helpful for the Indians in their particular context. It was interesting to learn that many Indian believers and church leaders are exposed to a steady stream of Christian television from the West, a large part of which is comprised of “health and wealth” prosperity teaching. The teaching of my father on topics such as integrity in ministry, proper priorities, and a biblical view of spiritual authority, were very well received. The comments of the attendees were very encouraging.

From a missiological point of view, one of the biggest questions is what will happen on an on-going basis, as a result of our visit, after we are gone. We are very pleased that the leadership of Mission India has taken on the vision of helping us to translate the materials into several local languages of India, beginning with Hindi and Tegulu, and continuing on with others, as the Lord provides the means. We were also able to leave the DVD players and screen with them, as well as train Mission India’s Director of Conference Ministries, Jesroon Levi Polepaka, in technical and practical aspects of the ministry. We are thrilled that Mission India has plans to take the DVDs to many places around India in the near future, and make the teaching a vital part of their on-going Bible Institute training and Conference ministry.

Jesroon Levi Polepaka, Sudhakar Rao, Ebenezer Rao & Me

Overall, despite the challenges and difficulties involved, it was incredible for me, as a veteran missionary, to see how God used this training in the lives of so many different pastors in such a strategic way. I am pleased that my father’s ministry continues to impact lives, even beyond the United States, to the far corners of the earth. I am also proud to be able to support and partner with my brother Steve, and the ministry of Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute, as he continues to work towards the global advance of this exciting and fruitful vision. Plans are already underway to take the training to pastors in places such as Russia, Nepal, South Africa, and Latin America. We would appreciate your prayers and support as God continues to open doors to use this training to bless pastors and believers among the nations of the world (for more information, see http://www.pastortraining.com/).

Mother India

After three life-changing weeks in India, I am now back in the USA. During this time, I had the very special privilege of visiting the cities of Delhi, Agra, Nagpur, Warangal, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Goa, and Mumbai.


India is a land marked by stark contrasts. There are so many things I could say about this trip. Here are a just a few of my first impressions (more to come in upcoming posts)…

Sumptuous palaces, modern hotels, and luxury shopping, side-by-side with unspeakable filth, squalor, and poverty.

Enormous cities, with millions and millions of inhabitants, many of which I had never heard before. And yet, 70% of Indians live in the rural areas and the more than 550,000 villages.

The bright, vivid colors of the saris and salwar kameezes of the Hindu and Christian women, and the monotone burqas of the Muslim women.

The spicy, pungent panoply of multi-faceted flavors that make up the standard bill of fare of the tasty Indian cuisine.

The lovely, polite, hospitable Indian people who are proud and eager to show off the beauty of their native land, but who, many times, are very difficult to understand.

The dusty, serpentine streets that weave endlessly through the booths and tiny shops of local merchants.

The insane traffic, replete with high-octane aggressive taxi drivers artfully dodging their way through the daily obstacle course of cows, rickshaws, motor scooters, bicycles, pedestrians, and other assorted items.

The "330 million gods" of Hinduism, the "one true God" of Islam, and many, many spiritually open people, hungry for the truth.

The amazingly intricate tapestry of humanity made up of people from a vast array of different ethnic groups, languages, castes and religious beliefs. It is incredible to think that the thousands and thousands of people we saw personally on this trip are only a drop in the bucket of India’s more than a billion souls. Although there are many Christian churches, and evangelical believers, India is home to 70 % of the unengaged, unreached people groups in the world, and 50% of the total of unreached people groups.

Truly, my life has been greatly impacted from the time I have been able to spend in India. The song "Mother India," by Caedmon's Call, from their phenomenal missions-inspired album Share the Well, expresses well my own thoughts and emotions…


Mother India

Father God, you have shed your tears for Mother India
They have fallen to water ancient seeds
That will grow into hands that touch the untouchable
How blessed are the poor, the sick, the weak

Father, forgive me, for I have not believed
Like Mother India, I have groaned and grieved
Father, forgive me, I forgot Your grace
Your Spirit falls on India and captures me in Your embrace

The Serpent spoke and the world believed its venom
Now we're ten to a room or compared to magazines

Father, forgive me, for I have not believed
Like Mother India, I have groaned and grieved
Father, forgive me, I forgot Your grace
Your Spirit falls on India and captures me in Your embrace

There's a land where our shackles turn to diamonds
Where we trade in our rags for a royal crown
In that place, our oppressors hold no power
And the doors of the King are thrown wide

Father, forgive me, for I have not believed
Like Mother India, I have groaned and grieved
Father, forgive me, I forgot Your grace
Your Spirit falls on India and captures me in Your embrace

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #17

Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

I have noticed in the comment thread of your last letter that you plan on making your next letter your last in this series. In the event that ends up being the case, I want, first of all, to make sure to speak to several points you bring up in your last letter. After that, I want to pose a few brief questions I would like for you to answer before we close off this current dialogue.

In your section on “Clarification Regarding ‘Faith’ and ‘Order,’” you say that I define "secondary matters" in terms of "order" with my references to "baptism by immersion" and "common loaf." Actually, if I am understanding correctly the traditional theological distinction between “faith” and “order,” I would say that I do not define “secondary matters” in terms of “order.” While I would agree that many matters of secondary importance do, in fact, coincide with what have been termed matters of “order,” I am not so sure that the actual division between “primary” and “secondary” always falls neatly along these same lines.

As I tried to make clear, especially in Letter #13, I certainly do not “dismiss” the importance of obeying any command of Christ, whether it concerns matters of “faith” or “order.” However, there are certain commands that, due to confusion in interpretation, or a certain degree of ambiguity in the biblical text itself, have been understood differently by sincere followers of Christ down through history. At the same time, there are certain matters that heretical groups and false cults have twisted in order to prop up their false doctrinal systems, and are of such central importance to the Gospel message itself, that to misunderstand and misapply them would compromise the very essence of Christian discipleship. Perhaps these are what you would call matters of “faith.” If such is the case, I do not have any real objection to this distinction. At the same time, I wish to make perfectly clear, once again, that I do not advocate any compromise whatsoever regarding one’s personal obligation to obey, as well as he/she is able to understand them, each and every one of Christ’s commands, whether they be matters of “faith” or “order.”

In your section entitled “Where Do You Stand?,” you say that several things I have written suggest that “disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands is not something with which disciples should be overly concerned.” I forcefully disagree with this conclusion. I do not see a contradiction between the statements of mine that you quote, and a concerted effort towards “disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands.” The fact that we will not be judged according to our observance of the law, but rather in virtue of the righteousness vicariously gained for us by Christ at Calvary, does not, in any way, devalue the importance of obedience to his commands, whether in so-called issues of “faith” or “order.”

At the same time, you correctly understand me to voice a conviction consistent with a traditional Baptist interpretation of baptism. However, I believe you misinterpret me when you suggest I am confused about what I believe. Properly understood, I believe there is no contradiction whatsoever in my personal convictions regarding the biblical teaching on believers baptism by immersion, and the possibility of cooperating and fellowshipping with authentic followers of Christ who are sincerely mistaken in their views of baptism, and/or other “secondary” and “tertiary” matters.

While, in the spirit of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda, I am open to growth in my understanding of biblical teaching in many areas, I do not, at the same time, consider myself to be in a “precarious position” of abandoning important principles due to an unhealthy influence of “modern missionary thought and practice.” Actually, the views I take on the particular issues we are discussing are views at which I have arrived after a heartfelt and diligent study of Scripture. They are matters of strong conviction for me from which I will not easily be moved.

With regard to your section on “The Definition of a Great Commission Christian,” I think it may help to “clear the smoke” a bit, at this point, to recognize that the term “Great Commission Christian” is not in itself a biblical term, and has only recently come into use among evangelical Christians and Southern Baptists. As such, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in the definition we choose to give it.

The International Mission Board, when they first began to publish material on “New Directions” in regard to missionary strategy and philosophy of ministry around the world, gave the following definition to the term Great Commission Christian: “an evangelical Christian actively engaged in or committed to the fulfillment of the Great Commission” (from Something New Under the Sun, Glossary).

In addition, the following description is a bit more specific:

“…within the great sea of Christianity there are many born-again believers--men and women--who have experienced a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ and look to God's Word as their authority for faith and practice. These evangelicals are scattered all over the world and are growing in number. Current global estimates put their number at up to 500 million. They are found in more than 20,000 denominations with over 1,000 foreign mission agencies worldwide. It is these fellow believers who offer us tremendous potential as co-laborers in fulfilling the Great Commission” (from Something New Under the Sun, ch. 5).

On the comment thread to your Letter #16, several others have already pointed out that, according to the criteria you appear to be using, we ourselves as Baptists would be disqualified as Great Commission Christians. None of us is perfect, neither in our understanding of nor our obedience to the Great Commission. Undoubtedly, at the same time, however, many Baptists are sincerely trying to understand and obey as consistently as possible the Great Commission. But, then again, if that is the understanding we have of “Great Commission Christians,” so are many others in many, if not all, of the groups you reference in your letter. The real issue for me, however, is not who we may call “Great Commission Christians”, and who we may not, but rather with whom we fellowship and cooperate for the advance of the Kingdom of God in our desire to be obedient to the Great Commission.

In your section entitled “Unrepentant Sinners” and “The Baptist Renaissance,” you make the assertion that Christians who do not understand and practice baptism in the same way as Baptists are, in fact, “unrepentant sinners.” The question that must be answered at this juncture is whether or not someone who has made a heartfelt commitment to submit to the Lordship of Jesus as transmitted to us in Holy Scripture, but who is sincerely mistaken in their attempts at understanding and obeying certain commands, is truly “disobedient.” In American society, a commonly quoted maxim is “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” However, as I understand it, the correct application of the principle enunciated in this maxim only applies in the case of laws that are punishable by condemnation and penalty. If, however, we have been set free from the bondage of the law (Galatians 5:1), and “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1), I do not understand sincere but mistaken attempts to obey as actual “disobedience.”

Under the New Covenant, we seek to understand and obey out of love, not obligation, or fear of punishment. As such, the true degree of our obedience is commensurate with the degree of our love. As a matter of fact, we can be completely flawless in our external adherence to the commands of God, and yet, at the same time, if we do not have love, be nothing more than resounding gongs or clanging cymbals. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

While I readily recognize, together with you, the dangers of compromising our convictions of the truth due to “sentimental gullibility,” I do not, by any means, concede that all of us who are diligently working towards progress in our understanding and application of Christian unity are doing so out of a lack of solid conviction. In my case, personally, I do not believe I am naïve or deceived when I affirm that my convictions regarding Christian unity are rooted first and foremost in my understanding and diligent study of the Word of God.

Malcolm, I can’t help but ask myself, in relation to what you have written here, whether you are really being obedient to Christ’s commands concerning unity in his Body. I am disappointed that you have not responded, as far as I can tell, to what I consider to be the main thesis of my Letter #13--even though we may be convinced of how we, in our personal practice, ought to obey specific commands of Christ, it does not necessarily follow that, in order to avoid disobedience in our own lives, we must demand the same understanding and manner of obedience from others. My thesis, as I understand Scripture, is that the most obedient option is many times the one of greater tolerance and acceptance of those who differ with us in their understanding and practice of secondary matters. From my perspective, it is not that I am being any less obedient to Christ’s commands concerning baptism, and other secondary matters, but rather, perhaps, I am being more obedient in regard to his commands concerning unity.

In your section entitled "A Positive Conclusion," while I appreciate and am humbled by your comments regarding my love for other people, you indicate that I seem to misinterpret John Gill in some way or another. Recognizing the breadth of your studies of Baptist history, I dare not call into question your understanding of Gill’s theology. However, in my post on Romans 14, I limit myself, for the most part, to quoting directly from Gill’s commentary. It would help me to know on what specific point you feel I have mischaracterized Gill.

While, most assuredly, you, I, and Gill are all totally convinced of the correctness of the Baptist view on the subject and mode of baptism, I think you are missing the point I was making from Romans 14--we may be totally convinced of our particular position, but the degree of certainty we have regarding our interpretation of a particular point is not what makes it a “disputable matter.” What makes it “disputable” is the fact that other sincere disciples of Jesus understand it differently than us.

Frankly, I cannot understand how you can call clear biblical teaching on the “common loaf” a mere personal preference, and, at the same time, call baptism by immersion an inviolable command. It seems to me that, in stating that baptism symbolizes the Gospel, and the common loaf symbolizes church unity, you yourself are making the same distinction between “faith” and “order” about which you forewarned me earlier. Malcolm, as the popular adage states: “You can’t have your cake, and eat it too.”

Now, for my closing questions to you:

1. I hope that by now you have a fairly good grasp on my theological views, at least on the particular issues we have been discussing during this dialogue. Do you believe there is a place for people like me in Southern Baptist life? Do you believe that any of the views I take should disqualify someone like me from service as a Southern Baptist missionary or denominational employee? Why or why not?

2. If I do not change my views concerning the matters we have been discussing here, do you believe it would be better for me to serve with some group other than the IMB? Why or why not?

3. If I understand you correctly, you allow for certain cooperation with non-Baptists in certain ministry projects. Where you (and recent adjustments to IMB policy) draw the line is specifically in regard to cooperation in “church planting.” As someone who has participated actively over the last 17 years in “church planting” ministry, I want to know: At what point do we cross the line from evangelistic and disciple-making ministry into “church planting” ministry? My experience has led me to conclude that this line is, in many cases, very blurry and hard to define. In actuality, practically all of what we do, as “church planters” on the mission field, involves, to a large degree, evangelism and disciple-making. I would like to know, if you can help me understand it, at what point do we specifically cross that line, and what are the reasons for drawing the line of cooperation at that particular point?

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Trip to South Asia

Today, I am flying out for a 3-week-long ministry trip to South Asia. Together with my brother Steve, and his wife Cindi, we will be cooperating with several indigenous ministries to train local pastors through the DVD large-screen presentation of the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute materials entitled What Every Pastor Ought to Know.

David Garrison, IMB Regional Leader for South Asia, has said this about the region in which he serves:

South Asia is a huge gaping hole in the Great Commission. With more lost persons per square mile and more Unengaged Unreached People Groups than all the rest of the world combined, this region of the world continues to warrant the kind of attention it has only begun to receive from the IMB and other corners of the Evangelical world…In spite of South Asia being home to one out of every four non-Christians on earth, it is also home to millions of radiant born again believers…We feel that the greatest potential for reaching the 1.4 billion lost of South Asia is to mobilize and train South Asia's indigenous Christian population.

As you can well imagine, I am very excited about this trip, and the possibilities for strategic ministry it represents. All told, we are supposed to have training conferences with approximately 1,200 pastors.

I hope to be able to give some more specific information once we return, and perhaps even some pictures. But for now, for security purposes, it is probably best not to be more specific. I would appreciate very much your prayers, that the Lord would use us and keep His hand upon us during this time.

Also, I hope to have internet connection, at least from time to time, while I am gone. If so, I will do my best to continue to post, including my next letter in the Yarnell-Rogers Dialogue on the Great Commission.

"Evangélico" or "Protestante"?

In the midst of discussion on Evangelical unity and inter-denominational cooperation, a false stereotype is often portrayed by some that assumes compromise on essential issues.

My friend, brother in Christ, and missionary colleague in Spain, Enrique Montenegro (missionary from the Church of God in Argentina), has written the following incisive commentary on the use of the terms "Evangélico" and "Protestante" in relation to recent news on the Anglican church and the ordination of homosexual priests. The cultural context in Spain has led to a vigorous debate among some regarding whether it is better, as Bible-preaching Christians, to identify ourselves as Evangelicals or Protestants. I post this article with the hope that it will not only provide insight into the particular missionary context in Spain, but also help to correct some general misconceptions regarding working together with Great Commission Christians. (By the way, I totally agree with what Montenegro says here.)

What follows is my translation of Montenegro’s original text in Spanish…

I have always openly declared myself Evangelical and have rejected the term "Protestant" for the mere fact that, in the first case, I identify with the message, content and commandment of Jesus to "preach the Gospel" (Spanish = Evangelio), and the second term identifies us with one moment in history in the life of one part of the Church. From a contemporary perspective, anchored in the past.

But upon reading this article in "EL PERIODICO" (a leading newspaper in the Cataluña region of Spain) about the acceptance and ordination of homosexual priests and bishops in the Anglican church (see links to the articles below), in this case and only in this case, I must say that I am a protestant. Today, I identify myself as a Protestant because I protest the improper use of the identification of the Anglican church as evangelical. A church that is most assuredly Protestant, and without a shadow of a doubt is not Evangelical (as demonstrated by its sense of ethics and morality, and the content of its message), and even less so in practice.

I protest because the above-mentioned institution, rather than protesting the practice of homosexual behavior, even among its own leaders, not only refuses to condemn it, but also protests against those of us who dare to raise our voice to proclaim that there are news of Salvation for them as well.

I protest against the press, which, whenever they refer to the immoral actions of these churches, that identify themselves as Protestants, throws them in the same sack as us, calling them Evangelicals.

I protest against those brothers and sisters that constantly insist on declaring that our identifying label is "protestant", when our message, identity and content clearly is not so.

I protest against those within the Evangelical people who have a representative voice and something to say in regard to this, but prefer to remain silent and not commit themselves.

I protest those who could and should clearly condemn homosexual practices, but hardly even take sides to make a few ambiguous statements on the subject.

I protest against those who, although they still call themselves Protestants, are not consistent with their own name by raising their voice in protest for these immoral actions.

I protest those who take on an evangelical identity, but do not fulfill the duty of clearly proclaiming the gospel (evangelio) in order to counteract the poison of this type of Protestantism.

Last of all, I ask forgiveness of my brothers and sisters for becoming protestant, even if it was just for a moment. I promise that I will keep on being evangelical, and I will not renounce being consistent with our identity and mission, that is none other than proclaiming the Gospel (Evangelio).

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."

At least, that’s how I see it. What do you think?

http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=442384&idseccio_PK=1021

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/224485/0/pablo/epistola/romanos/

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #16

A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Dearest David,

Your last three letters clarify the basis of your desire for unity among those who claim to be Great Commission Christians. If I am not misreading, the thesis in letters 13 ("Obeying the Commands of Jesus") and 14 ("John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7") is that Christians should not divide over "secondary matters" or "disputable matters." You then provide the example of the use or not of the "common loaf" in your addendum letter ("The Illustration of the Hypothetical ‘Common Loaf Denomination’").

Clarification Regarding "Faith" and "Order"

Before proceeding to answer your thesis, please allow me to clarify one important issue: the distinction between faith and order that apparently caused some concern. Although I recognize the common theological distinction between faith and order, the thrust of my last letter (#12, "Enduring Submission to the Great Commission") was that the distinction never excuses disobedience to Jesus Christ. The only reason that I introduced the terminology of "faith" and "order" is because it is an established one that many theologians find useful and may help you in our conversation. (It actually does not help my argument.)

Moreover, another reason I raised the distinction is that it appears to be part of your own argument. The distinction that you use, following Gill, is between "what really matters" or "the grace of faith" on the one hand, and "secondary matters" or "disputable matters" on the other hand. You then proceed to define these "secondary matters" in terms of "order" with your subsequent references to "baptism by immersion" and "common loaf." David, as far as I can see, you have followed the very distinction that I introduced, but circuitously rather than directly.

The distinction of "faith" and "order" seems to be, though I might be misinterpreting you here, at the bottom of your search for a "hierarchy of values." I sought to limit the usefulness of this common distinction with this sentence: "Speaking and expositing about the essential of one’s ‘faith’ in Christ while dismissing the essential of obeying the ‘order’ established by Christ is utterly sinful." Unfortunately, I do not seem to have won you over to my position in this regard, for you still seem to treat at least some dominical issues of "order" as "secondary" and perhaps even "disputable."

Where Do You Stand?

With that clarified, perhaps you could help me interpret your letters better. Tell me if I am wrong, but you seem to waver on the issue of whether matters of "order" are important or not. On the one hand, you say such things as, "[W]e will not be judged according to our observance of all the different rules and regulations given to us by God in his Word." Again, you say, "However, when it comes to obedience of some commands of Jesus, at least from a certain perspective, it would appear the intent of the heart, despite the degree of correctness of our understanding, is indeed what really matters." This suggests that disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands is not something with which disciples should be overly concerned.

On the other hand, you then defend believers-only baptism in a comment thread on the blog of Micah Fries, who copied your "Common Loaf Baptists" post. I will remind you of your assertion there: "As far as timing and mode of baptism are concerned, I would be inclined to agree that a ‘baptism’ that is not after a true conversion, or that is not by immersion, is not an authentic baptism." This suggests you believe that disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands, at least with regard to the order of baptism, is something with which disciples should be very concerned.

David, if I were to make a guess, it would be this: you, my friend, are still searching out exactly what you believe in many of these matters! Such doctrinal growth is admittedly part of the Christian life, but my fear is that you have been brought to a precarious position by some of the worrisome trends in modern missionary thought and practice. These worrisome trends include, among many others, a confusion as to what exactly constitutes a Great Commission Christian, the invention of a distinction between "Baptist" and "baptistic," the affirmation or denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, confusion as to what it really means to cooperate with other Christians, and lack of clarity regarding a Baptist hierarchy of values.

The Definition of a Great Commission Christian

First and most germane to our ongoing conversation, please consider the definition of Great Commission Christians. It seems that the hasty move to recognize other evangelicals as Great Commission Christians has introduced thoughts and practices that undermine the biblical mandate. Rather than rehearsing the historical basis of this destructive error in Southern Baptist life, David, let me propose that we seek to answer the following question: Does a Great Commission Christian have to obey the Great Commission of Jesus Christ in its entirety and in its God-given order, or may we summarily dispense with some aspects of it, or practice it contrary to the God-given order, or emphasize something else?

The problem in postmodern missionary practice in the Southern Baptist Convention is largely due to the unwillingness to maintain the beliefs that our biblicist forefathers held in this matter. In other words, David, let us be clear that on the basis of the long-standing Baptist interpretation of the Great Commission, the following groups specifically do not qualify to be called Great Commission Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians (and other Reformed Churches), Non-Baptist Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. I will not provide an exhaustive list, for that would require a dictionary, but suffice it to say that any other Christian group that believes or practices what these Christian denominations distinctively believe and practice may not be legitimately classified as Great Commission Christians, even if some of them may be classified as "evangelicals."

The reasons that these Christian churches do not deserve to be classified as Great Commission Christians are that they violate Christ’s will in one or more of these three ways: 1) They do not obey the entirety of the Great Commission. 2) They do not follow the order of the Great Commission. Specifically, many of them place baptism prior to the making of disciples. 3) They do not emphasize the faith delivered by our Lord, but add other requirements. For instance, some of them elevate or transform the gifts of speaking in tongues or of healing, and then seek to sway other Christians to their unbiblical positions.

"Unrepentant Sinners" and "The Baptist Renaissance"

The errors of these other Christian churches are why some Baptists are more than willing to refer to them as "unrepentant sinners." When you disobey Christ, you are a "sinner." When you refuse to change your ways, you are "unrepentant." Thus, those who refuse to repent from their disobedience of Christ are "unrepentant sinners." This terminology seems to rub evangelical ecumenists in an especially noticeable way, which is probably why some of us readily use it. It helps bring forward important issues that are being buried in the rush of some naïve and errant children of the free churches to convert to Azusa Street, Canterbury, Geneva, Rome, and Constantinople.

The use of this language is not a claim, however, that such people are not Christians. Rather, it is a claim that they need to repent and follow Christ alone and in full. Moreover, the use of this language is not a claim that Baptists are superior to other Christians. Rather, it recognizes that God has given Baptists further illumination with regard to His Word. This compels us to help others understand His Word better. The gift of further illumination of God’s Word carries with it a greater responsibility to teach that Word with conviction and humility. Baptists are not perfect Christians, but Baptists are responsible for obeying and proclaiming with conviction what they do know, and for seeking to know even more from God’s inerrant Word.

Moreover, Baptists would do well to listen humbly to other Christians in order to learn what we may. This does not stifle communication with other Christians, but calls for it. However, this is a call for informed communication and convictional witness rather than sentimental gullibility in the name of "Christian unity." This is probably the one area where most of my detractors have totally misread me. Indeed, they might be surprised to learn that when living in a foreign country, I learned to disagree agreeably while maintaining an ecclesial distance alongside a spiritual harmony with other believers who were not Baptists. I may appreciate evangelical Anglicans and Presbyterians for their understanding of the Gospel, but I have learned not to surrender the biblical order in the name of Christian unity even when living in a difficult context where Christians are a small minority.

When I speak of a "Baptist Renaissance," I am not compelled by Baptist hubris, but by a dynamic biblical conviction. I am a Baptist because I believe that our churches are the closest examples to the churches that Christ established in the New Testament. This does not mean we are perfect, for we are decidedly not! One need only consider the continuing erosion of our fidelity to Christ in the matters of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church discipline, and the priority of proclamation to know better. What it does mean is that the Baptist tradition is a purer and deeper tradition than any existing alternative, for it is intentionally grounded in the oldest Christian tradition, that of the apostles and of Christ Himself. If I may continue the city metaphor, we should bypass these other cities and be content with Jerusalem as our home.

A Positive Conclusion

David, I mentioned four other issues wherein there appears to be some indefiniteness in your theology: the distinction between "baptistic" and "Baptist," the affirmation or denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, the true meaning of cooperation, and this idea of a hierarchy of values. Rather than discuss what seems to be an equivocal treatment of these ideas, let me conclude with a positive review of some of your other ideas.

First, please allow me to laud you on your love for other people, especially other Christians. I wish that all of us had that deep love for "each stone" that you have. You, my friend, are a treasure. Second, please note that I generally agree with your review of Romans 14, although I disagree with your characterization of John Gill, and I wonder at what exactly you would classify as "disputable matters." Believers-only baptism by immersion is beyond dispute (and here Gill would agree with me), and that includes not only the subject of baptism, but the mode of baptism, too. According to Paul, the mode of baptism as immersion is what makes baptism symbolically powerful. Baptism by immersion is the only mode that properly represents the death and resurrection of our Savior (Romans 6:1-6).

Third, although I actually agree with your preference for the "common loaf" as better fulfilling the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10, I do not think it is as debilitating a problem as baptism by sprinkling or by pouring. The fact is that the common loaf symbolizes church unity while baptism by immersion symbolizes the Gospel itself. Finally, please allow me again to thank you for the privilege of interacting with you and your readers. I love you more every day, my brother in Christ, even when I question your theology, especially your ecclesiology. In the midst of our discussions, I find that my own theology grows under the influence of your love. Then again, I also think your daddy, were he here, would often agree with me more.

In Christ,

Malcolm

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers