A Reply to Nathan Finn's "Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord's Supper"

For some reason, the BaptistTheology.org site, run by Southwestern Seminary, seems to be directed especially at defending supposed Baptist "denominational distinctives," and, consequently, discrediting the views of those, like myself, who take a more open view of interdenominational cooperation among evangelicals, on various topics.

The most recent article, or "White Paper," to appear on BaptistTheology.org is "Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper," by Nathan Finn. I am somewhat familiar with Mr. Finn, by way of his blog, The Fullness of Time. I have found Mr. Finn to be, in general, a gentleman and a scholar, and appreciate the objective and irenic tone present in his writing. I would venture to say that I would be in total agreement with 95% of his views on theological issues, and am quite confident I could have wonderful Christian fellowship with him. However, it just so happens that some of the topics on which he chooses to write are those on which I happen to differ with a certain segment of Baptists, who, in my opinion, are attempting to make a certain definition of so-called "denominational distinctives" a rallying point for a further narrowing of parameters of cooperation in Baptist life, both in the States, and on the international mission field.

Earlier on this blog, I took a public stand indicating my belief in what I would call "semi-open communion," which is the view that sincere believers, who have never been baptized as believers by immersion, but who, on the basis of their study of Scripture, have come to the conclusion that infant baptism is biblically justified, may be admitted to participation in the Lord’s Supper, as long as they, on the basis of a self-examination of their conscience, feel they are being obedient to the Lord’s commands. This would not include those who have been specifically excluded, by way of legitimate church discipline, from participation in the Lord’s Supper.

Lest anyone misinterpret what I am saying, let me make crystal clear here my unreserved commitment to the biblical doctrine of "believers' baptism by immersion."

Since Mr. Finn’s paper on "Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper" is 15 pages long, I will not copy the whole text here. In order to understand the full context of both his points, and my answers, below, I would recommend reading here the entire paper first.

Without drawing this out more than I have, it would be impossible for me to comment on every detail of what Finn has written. Also, I have not bothered to comment on a great deal of the content of the paper, because I have no substantial disagreement with many of the points covered. There are also a few points that I have bypassed, because I did not consider them to be of relative significance in relation to the rest of those on which I do comment.

Having said that, here are some excerpts of what I consider to be some of Finn’s most significant points, and my answers to them…

Finn: While many Protestant denominations also refer to these practices as sacraments, most Baptist churches prefer to call them "ordinances," emphasizing Christ’s command that each be an ongoing practice in local churches.

Rogers: While I would agree that the term "ordinance" is appropriate, and even though, at this point, it does not seem to me to be a major point worth arguing over, I would point out a slight discrepancy here, in that, I do not see where in the Bible it ever indicates that these "ordinances" are to be an ongoing practice specifically in "local churches." In my opinion, this is, at best, an inference, and at worst, eisogesis.

Finn: In fact, many have argued that the major difference between Baptists and the great Reformation traditions is the Baptist emphasis on a believers’ church versus a "territorial" church or "tribal" church.

Rogers: I definitely agree that biblical teaching seems to favor a "believers’ church" ecclesiology. At the beginning of the "Baptist" movement, those publicly identified as "Baptists" (along with other Anabaptistic groups) almost certainly took the lead in promoting the concept of a "believers’ church." However, in today’s more diverse ecclesiological landscape, I do not see that it is fair to imply that "believers’ church" ecclesiology is in anyway the sole domain of those who answer to the name "Baptist."

Finn: Proper baptism must be performed under the auspices of a true church, and the proper administrator of baptism is a representative of a local church.4 (footnote references "What Makes Baptism Valid?" by Dr. Thomas White)

Rogers: I am not ready to concede this point quite yet. Dr. White himself has admitted that his paper was not "focused on defending Scripturally that the ordinances do in fact belong to the local church," and has indicated his intention to write another article in which he further develops this point. (see the comment section on this post).

Finn: First, baptism represents the Christian’s initiation into the church.

Rogers: I do not necessarily see Mr. Finn arguing differently here, but just in case, I would point out that this is "initiation into" the Universal Church, and not the "local church." I would agree, however, that by logical deduction, when we are baptized into the Universal Church, we simultaneously become members of the local expression of the Church, or the "local church" if you will, in the locality in which we live.

Finn: Second, communion represents the unity of the church. Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

Rogers: Once again, I would counter that the reference to the "church" here, from a biblical framework, is primarily to the "Universal Church," rather than the "local church." That is, in communion, we are primarily celebrating our essential unity with the Body of Christ around the world, and through the ages, not just our unity with the other members of our particular local congregation.

Finn: Third, notice also that these verses indicate that communion, like baptism, represents our union with Christ. But whereas baptism represents our initial union with Christ at conversion, the Lord’s Supper represents our ongoing identity with the Savior as his committed followers.

Rogers: I would add here, that our union with Christ, as head of the Church, necessarily implies our union with all those who share a common relationship with us as part of the Body of Christ, recognizing the same Christ as Head of that Body.

Finn: Many scholars believe that the term "body" is not referring to the individual but rather the entire congregation—the corporate dimension.

Rogers: For this very reason, I believe it is important that we "discern the body" correctly in its extent. For me, the "body" we are "discerning" is made up of all of the saints throughout all of the ages.

Finn: Finally, the Table looks in anticipation toward the end of the age and the coming marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:6–9).

Rogers: Because of this point, I also believe it would be ironic, if not tragic, to systematically exclude from the Lord’s Table here on earth those with whom we believe we will share it at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Finn: This practice of requiring immersion before communion has been variously referred to as "close," "closed," "restricted" or "strict" communion. Because all of these terms communicate the practice negatively—and Baptists certainly do not like to think of following biblical precedent as a negative act—I have opted to normally refer to this practice more positively as "consistent communion."

Rogers: In my opinion, this position is not "consistent" with biblical teaching, and thus, I take exception to this term.

Finn: The fact is almost all Christian traditions require baptism before one can participate in the Lord’s Supper. The quarrel does not concern the practice itself, but concerns the fact that Baptists do not recognize sprinkling, pouring or even some biblically irregular immersions as valid. The difference is not in the practice of restricting communion to the baptized, but in not recognizing other modes of baptism as biblical.

Rogers: For me, whether or not other denominations or traditions require "baptism" or "sprinkling" or "christening" for church membership, is relatively irrelevant. The question is does the Bible require it or not. I would agree, however, that those who are living in a continued state of unrepentant sin and open disobedience to the Lord’s commands should not be considered as legitimate participants in the Lord’s Supper.

Finn: What I am claiming is that consistent communion has been the majority practice in Baptist history.

Rogers: Once again, for me, what Baptists of other times may or may not have practiced, is relatively irrelevant. The crucial question is what does the Bible teach.

Finn: We can attribute this move toward open communion to a variety of causes. Among moderate/liberal Baptists, consistent communion is rejected out of a desire to be ecumenical. Many moderates also claim that consistent communion is associated with Landmarkism, a view of Baptist life that refuses to recognize non-baptistic churches as true churches. Many Reformed Baptists reject consistent communion out of a desire to allow other Reformed Christians (most of whom are Pedobaptists) to participate in the ordinance… Conservative Southern Baptists sometimes reject consistent communion because of a desire to be welcoming to other Christians who are visiting their church. It seems likely that many others practice open communion out of either theological ignorance or methodological laziness.

Rogers: I myself believe in what some may term "open communion" and others, upon truly understanding it, might prefer to term "semi-open communion." But, I do not at the same time "plead guilty" to any of the above five motives adduced for holding to this view. My sincere reason for holding to this view is quite simply because I believe that it is most consistent with biblical teaching.

Finn: If the universal practice of the New Testament was believer’s baptism by immersion, then it only stands to reason that churches practiced consistent communion; there were no "baptisms" by sprinkling or pouring.

Rogers: Precisely because of this point, I believe we are stretched to find any example of how the leaders of the Early Church would have handled the question of someone who was genuinely convinced of the biblical legitimacy of infant baptism. Although I can very well imagine them attempting to convince them of the error of their belief, I believe the evidence is inconclusive that they would have excluded them, as a result, from participation in the Lord’s Supper.

Finn: The case for consistent communion can also be made from specific texts. In the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18–20, the proper order of the ordinances is implied in Jesus’ Command… the order is baptism before observance; baptism precedes communion.

Rogers: I believe this interpretation of this verse "proves" more than what Mr. Finn would be comfortable with. If I understand him correctly, by the same token, we should not continue to "make disciples" of those who have already been baptized, since "disciple-making" precedes baptism in chronological order. Or, perhaps Mr. Finn equates "making disciples" with "making converts."

Finn: Acts 2:41–42 states the proper order even more clearly: "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

Rogers: Once again, I have no problem admitting that baptism before participation in the Lord’s Supper was the normal New Testament practice. The problem is the New Testament historical references do not deal with how the New Testament Church might have responded to someone who was convinced that the Scripture taught "infant baptism."

Finn: Only immersion truly communicates the believer’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection. This means in Baptist churches that practice open communion, a Pedobaptist may be adequately representing his ongoing union with Christ by participating in communion, but he has never had his initial union with Christ properly represented through immersion. As a result the theological relationship between the two ordinances is at best disjointed, and at worst it is entirely overlooked. Only consistent communion churches adequately represent the believer’s union with Christ in their observation of both ordinances.

Rogers: While I would agree that, by failing to submit to believers’ baptism, the Pedobaptist has not adequately represented his/her union to Christ, I would argue that we would symbolically be denying the reality of his/her essential spiritual union to Christ by not admitting a sincere, though mistaken, Pedobaptist, to the Lord’s Table with us.

Finn: The Argument from Baptist History

Rogers: Once again, the practices and beliefs of Baptists in other times are for me, relatively irrelevant. The question is: Were they biblically justified in the position they took or not?

Finn: Objections to Consistent Communion. First, as noted earlier in this paper, unity is only one theme present in the ordinance. The supper is as much about growth in grace, commemoration of Christ’s death and resurrection, and mutual accountability as it is the unity of the body.

Rogers: While I would agree that the Lord’s supper is about "growth in grace," "commemoration of Christ’s death and resurrection," and "mutual accountability," it is still also about "the unity of the body." It is not biblically consistent to act as if "three out of four ain’t bad."

Finn: Second, consistent communion is practiced by most Pedobaptist churches (excluding the liberal/ecumenical churches), at least as they understand the ordinances. In other words, Baptists place no more restrictions on the Table than non-Baptists; we simply disagree with Pedobaptists about what constitutes biblical baptism.

Rogers: Once again, from my point of view, this is not about what Pedobaptist churches may or may not believe and practice. It is about what the Bible teaches.

Finn: Third, far from showing a lack of brotherly love, close communion advocates restrict communion to the baptized out of love for both biblical truth and the Pedobaptist who rejects that truth. It is the hope of consistent communion Baptists that the practice will be used by the Holy Spirit to convict Pedobaptist Christians that believer’s baptism by immersion is the only true baptism.

Rogers: I agree that, out of love, we should try to convince Pedobaptist Christians of the need for believers’ baptism. I just do not think that also implies excluding them from the Lord’s Supper as a device to "drive home the point."

Finn: A fourth criticism, again closely-related, is that the ordinance is the Lord’s Supper, and hence it is inappropriate to exclude any of the Lord’s children from the Table. This really gets at the crux of the issue. Many open communion Christians argue that the Lord’s Supper is a Christian ordinance, given to the church universal. As such, it can be practiced by nearly any group of Christians who have some sense of commitment to each other.

Rogers: I agree that the issue of "Christian ordinance" or "church ordinance" is an important issue in regard to this question. But I am not sure if the whole thing "rises or falls" based on our view of this. In any case, Acts 2.46 says the believers "broke bread from house to house." If we agree that this "breaking of bread" included the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, then each of these "house" celebrations of the Lord’s Supper must have been in individual autonomous "house churches." Personally, I am more convinced that the New Testament churches functioned more like what we today would call a "cell church," in that, all of the believers in a particular city came under the spiritual oversight of one united group of recognized elders, met together as a large group whenever possible, and also met together in assorted small groups scattered throughout the city, mostly in homes.

It may perhaps be argued that each of the separate home meetings were "authorized" by the elders of the "city church" to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, and thus, it was still carried out, effectively, as a "church ordinance." This may well be the case, but, in my opinion, is based upon conjecture, and, even if it were to be demonstrated, still does not add anything to the argument against "open communion."

Finn: Ecumenism, even among evangelicals, should not be achieved at the expense of New Testament practice.

Rogers: While I agree that "Ecumenism, even among evangelicals, should not be achieved at the expense of New Testament practice," I would counter that division among evangelicals should not be justified on dubious interpretation of New Testament practice.

Finn: A final argument against consistent communion is that it "de-churches" other Christian traditions, rendering them more or less invalid or false churches… In fact, I will candidly admit that many otherwise-healthy Baptist churches are "irregular" in that they do not consistently practice church discipline, a clear aspect of New Testament congregations.

Rogers: It would seem that, in interest of "consistency" on this point, it would be necessary to exclude believers from "Baptist" churches that do not practice church discipline from the Lord’s Table as well.

Finn: Conclusion. The issue is not about pleasing Pedobaptists or our open communion fellow Baptists. The issue is pleasing Christ by following the pattern he has given to us in the New Testament. Our Baptist forefathers were often persecuted and at times even martyred for their understanding of the ordinances. What a tragedy it will be if contemporary Baptists dishonor their memory—and the name of Christ—by compromising on a consistent view of the relationship between baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Rogers: I hope it will be evident from what I have written here that I am not interested in pleasing Pedobaptists, "Open Communion" Baptists, or "Closed Communion" Baptists, so much as I am interested in being faithful to the teaching of the Word of God.

Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute

After a special 4-day trip to the States, I am writing this in the airport in Amsterdam, waiting on my connecting flight to Madrid. I was in the States in order to participate in a special promotional event for the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute, which was held on what would have been my father’s 75th birthday.

One of Adrian Rogers’ biggest dreams, in the last few years before he died, was to take the years of wisdom and experience the Lord had given him as a pastor, and transmit it to younger pastors, both in the United States and around the world. He said he knew he was in the "transfer zone," and the time had come to "pass on the baton" in the race of faithfulness we are all called to run. On several occasions, in my father’s final months, he was able to do just this, by way of a 3-day seminar called "Maturity, Ministry & Management—What Every Pastor Ought To Know" under the auspices of the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute (ARPTI). His dream was to have continued on during his retirement years, dedicating a significant part of his time and energy to this strategic ministry.

By God’s grace, one of the final ARPTI seminars that was offered was also professionally filmed, and the entire three days of teaching, 20 hours altogether, have now been made available by way of a set of 10 top-notch, high quality DVDs. My brother, Steve, who had partnered with my father in the creative and administrative aspects of ARPTI before his death, has taken on the calling of continuing on this ministry of training pastors. Even though my father is no longer able to be there personally at the ARPTI seminars, now, by way of large-screen video projection, the actual dynamic of a live ARPTI seminar has been captured, and has already been tested out before a live audience of participants, with very encouraging results.

The 3-day ARPTI "Maturity, Ministry and Management" seminar is divided into three main sections, covering the following topics …

Introduction — What Every Pastor Ought To Know
Session I • The Pastor’s Job Description—Elder, Shepherd, Bishop
Maturity —The Pastor as Elder
Session II • The Pastor’s Personal Integrity
Session III • The Pastor’s Spiritual Priority
Session IV • The Pastor’s Marital Fidelity
Session V • The Pastor’s Sexual Purity
Ministry —The Pastor as Shepherd
Session VI • The Sermon’s Exposition
Session VII • The Sermon’s Preparation
Session VIII • The Sermon’s Illustration
Session IX • The Sermon’s Presentation
Session X • The Sermon’s Invitation
Management —The Pastor as Bishop
Session XI • The Pastor’s Pastoral Assignment
Session XII • The Pastor’s Spiritual Authority
Session XIII • The Pastor’s Personal Leadership
A Few More Thoughts — Something Extra
Session XIV • Practical Ideas as well as Questions & Answers

The target audience is both bi-vocational pastors who have not yet had the benefit of a full-fledged seminary education, as well as experienced, seminary-trained pastors who are looking to refresh themselves and "sharpen their tools" in key personal and practical aspects of ministry.

One of the most exciting developments for ARPTI has been a recent partnership with Global Pastors Network to make this teaching available in many different languages and venues around the world in the coming years, as part of a massive strategic alliance to win 1 billion souls for Christ and plant 5 million new churches in the next 10 years. Translation in Spanish is already well underway, and should be available soon.

If you are interested in learning more about the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute, or would like to enquire about the possibility of hosting a ARPTI event, you can get more information here.

Denominational Distinctives

Back at Southwestern Seminary in 1989, I remember one of my professors talking about how the younger generations do not have much denominational loyalty, and how it used to be, whenever someone moved to a new town, they always looked for a church of the same denomination, but now, denominational affiliation was not near as important a factor as it used to be. Then, this professor talked about our need, as Southern Baptists, to educate our young people about our “denominational distinctives” or “Baptist identity,” lest we wake up to find ourselves losing members and influence as a denomination.

I remember thinking to myself: “This guy, and others like him, are fighting a losing cause. It’s true. My generation does not have much use for denominational labels.” Of course, there are sociological reasons for this. The spirit of post-modernism, moral relativity, and tolerance are certainly “in the air” and contribute to this dynamic. There is a growing distrust of institutions, and especially of institutionalized religion.

But, as an “insider,” to a certain extent, in the “Conservative Resurgence,” I don’t see this as an issue of “conservative,” “moderate” or “liberal.” Yes, there are “liberals” who are strong proponents of the “ecumenical movement” a la the World Council of Churches, et al. But there are also those, like myself, who are strong defenders of the inerrancy of the Bible, and are generally conservative in doctrine, who see as part of their commitment to the authority of the Bible, a concomitant commitment to the biblical doctrine of the spiritual unity of the Body of Christ. At the same time, there are “conservatives,” “moderates” and “liberals” who are all more “denominational” in their mindset.

For some time now, there has been a “battle” to define “real” Baptists. Some emphasize such “Baptist distinctives” as “the priesthood of the believer,” “soul competency,” and “freedom of the will.” Others choose to place more emphasis on such things as “closed communion,” “cessationalism,” and “total abstinence.”

Now, however, that the “Conservative Resurgence” in the SBC has, for all practical purposes, been “consummated,” there are those, it seems, who are not content without a battle, and who have maneuvered to make “denominational distinctives” or “Baptist identity” the “next assignment” of the “Conservative Resurgence.” This can be seen through the smattering of conferences and seminars organized by Baptist institutions, entire seminary courses on these issues, articles in Baptist publications, as well as public communication (including blogs) by Baptist leaders. When all is said and done, there are a lot of Kingdom resources being used, essentially, to defend and promote a certain denominational mindset. It seems like for more and more people, “Baptist identity” is becoming more and more of a “hill on which to die.”

I, personally, don’t see what’s the big deal. I support the Cooperative Program, because I think it is a good way to be good stewards with the Kingdom resources with which God has entrusted us. I am grateful for the support I receive as a missionary, and for the help I received from the SBC in paying for my seminary education. As a “biblical conservative,” I have no problem with emphasizing the teaching of biblical doctrine. I think we do well to talk about, and teach “biblical ecclesiology.” I have no problem with teaching “believers baptism by immersion,” nor any of the other doctrines in the Baptist Faith & Message (*with the exception of “closed communion”). We must, in fact, teach the “whole counsel” of Scripture. I am not arguing for reducing our teaching to a minimalist “lowest common denominator.”

What I don’t get is why it always has to be posed as “Baptist identity” and “denominational distinctives.” Why can’t we just teach the Bible? Why can’t we just major on being “Christians”? Also, why do we insist on putting unnecessary barriers in front of lost people (who don’t give a flip about our “denominational distinctives”)?

One day, when I stand before the judgment seat of Christ, I don’t know exactly what He will ask me. He may well ask me about how good a job I did at being faithful to His Word. He may well ask me about how good a job I did at being obedient in fulfilling the ministry tasks He gave me to do. He may well ask me how good a job I did at loving lost souls. And he may well ask me how good a job I did at loving my brothers and sisters in Christ. But I seriously doubt He will ask me how faithful I was at defending my “denominational distinctives” and promoting “Baptist identity.”

Implications of the IMB Tongues Policy: The McKissic Incident

I have been comptemplating what I might write about this important issue here on Love Each Stone. But in the meantime, Alan Cross, at Downshore Drift, has just posted pretty much exactly what I would have written, if I had taken the time, and had the "smarts" to do it.

I strongly recommend you go now to Implications of the IMB Tongues Policy: The McKissic Incident and read what Alan has to say.

The Power of Prayer(walking)

On August 23, fellow "m-blogger" Ken Sorrell, posted the following on his blog Returning to Biblical Missions:

Last week during our Strategy Coordinator Church Training, I was asked a question that was both new to me and caught me somewhat offguard. The question was basically, "Why do we believe that Prayer Walking is a valid missions activity or strategy since we have no biblical evidence to support such a practice?" Others privately mentioned to me that they had heard of conversations in the states that believe it is not appropriate for volunteers or missionaries to be part of this application of a prayer strategy.

In the comment section, I wrote the following:

Ken,

I believe there is no biblical warrant to say God hears our prayers any more on a "prayer walk" than in our "prayer closet." But for some reason, it seems like we are able to hear God better (SEEMS LIKE) when we are observing with our physical eyes what we are praying about and seeing with our spiritual eyes. And I cannot explain exactly why, but we have experienced some pretty incredibly specific answers to prayers that were prayed in the context of various prayer-walks and prayer-walking teams with which we have been involved. I mean really incredible stuff. I'll probably have to save that for a whole post sometime. Also, we have had prayer-walk teams from the States go to various towns and meet the pastors and believers there, listen to their testimonies and prayer requests, and then pray together (many times while I translated back and forth) with them. The encouragement this offered to the local believers, as well as the inspiration and encouragement to pray offered to the prayer-walkers, was invaluable.

As anticipated in this comment, I would now like to give testimony to several of the extraordinary ways the Lord has used prayer-walking in our missionary ministry in Spain…

Back around 1998, when I was still missionary pastor of the Baptist church in Badajoz, one Saturday, we announced to the church members that we were going to have a prayer-walk in the neighborhood around the church. A small group showed up, made up almost exclusively of the most dedicated "prayer warriors" in the congregation. At one point on the prayer-walk route, Mari Carmen, in my opinion a very spiritually mature and sensitive lady, commented that she felt led by the Holy Spirit to pray that, if at that time there were believers living in Badajoz, who for some reason or another were not active in a local church, God would lead them to return, and get active in church.

If you knew the context of the evangelical churches in Badajoz, you would realize that this request was quite unusual. In Badajoz, there were basically 3 evangelical congregations, and for all practical purposes, all of the evangelical believers already knew each other. Given this context, it was somewhat unlikely that there would be believers in town that we did not already know.

However, the next Wednesday evening, at our weekly prayer meeting, an elderly couple walked in, and said that they were believers who had been converted years ago when they lived in Barcelona. But since moving to Badajoz 10 years ago, they had drifted away from the Lord and had never gotten involved in church. As we began to ask them more, we discovered that they lived at the very corner where we had stopped and lifted that request to the Lord. That was approximately 8 years ago. To this day, Francisco & Antonia, the elderly couple, are still faithful, active members in the church, and have been a great blessing to many people. One of their grandsons eventually married the daughter of the Spanish pastor who followed me at Badajoz. This couple (the grandson and the daughter of the Spanish pastor) have now joined our IMB colleagues as part of their church planting team in the nearby city of Cáceres. Another grandson has recently become the youth director, together with his wife, at the church in Mérida we planted after moving from Badajoz. Just coincidence? You may choose to believe so, but you will never convince me.

But wait. The story doesn’t end there. Several years later, we invited a team of volunteers from our home church, Bellevue Baptist, in Cordova, Tennessee, to come and "prayer-walk" together with us throughout all the region of Extremadura. This dedicated group of spiritually mature brothers and sisters in Christ were willing to give of their money and time to come with the sole purpose of getting to know the believers and the work in Extremadura first-hand, and intercede before the Father "on site with insight" as we journeyed together from town to town, interviewing, and praying together with various Christian leaders.

As I was giving them some orientation for our time together, I told them the story of Mari Carmen, and her prayer that God might bring any believers who were not in church back to church, and how God had miraculously answered. Later that week, in the midst of our prayer journey itinerary, I spontaneously decided to stop briefly in Fregenal de la Sierra, a small town of about 7,000 inhabitants, which had been the birthplace of Cipriano de Valera, one of the translators of the Reina-Valera Bible, which is basically the equivalent of the King James in Spanish. I told the group about Cipriano de Valera, and that we did not know of any evangelical believers living in this town at that time. Upon hearing that, one of the ladies in the prayer-walk team, remembering the story of Mari Carmen, decided to pray the same thing—that if there were any believers living in Fregenal, that they would make themselves known and get involved in church. I remember thinking to myself, "Good intentions, but she just doesn’t understand. If there were believers living in this town, there is no way we would not already know about it."

Fast-forward several months…. News gets to us that a Christian couple named Paco & Pepa, together with their teenage daughter, had been living in Fregenal for years, but had never sought out and gotten involved in a church, since there was no church in their town. They had since gotten in contact with the missionaries in the neighboring town of Zafra (about 15 miles away), and begun to attend services there, as well as open up their home for evangelistic Bible studies in Fregenal.

But wait. There’s still more. Encouraged by the Lord’s blessing, the following year, we decided to invite the same prayer-walk team from Bellevue back for another prayer journey throughout Extremadura. I was able to share with them the miraculous answer to prayer in Fregenal, and we were able to go back to Fregenal, and meet and pray together with Paco & Pepa, who were at that time hosting an evangelistic campaign in their town. After that, we continued on to Jerez de los Caballeros (pop. 10,000), a very historic town that had once been under the governance of the Knights Templar, and, to our knowledge, had never had any evangelical presence. As we prayed in Jerez, another member of the team felt led by the Lord to make the same request—If there were any believers living there, they would make themselves known, and get involved in church and in serving the Lord. Once again, I thought—Well, we’ll see…

Fast-forward several months again... Julio, the new pastor at Badajoz, receives a phone call from Karlo, a young dentist from a Baptist church in Peru, who had moved to Jerez de los Caballeros several months earlier. He was looking for a church to attend. Upon learning there was no church in Jerez, he began to attend the church in Badajoz (about 60 miles away). The year after that, we were able to go back with still another prayer-walk team (made up of many of the same people) and pray together with Karlo, in Jerez de los Caballeros. He confirmed to us that roughly about the same date we had been there the year before, he had sensed from the Lord the need to seek out a church, and get involved in ministry. Today, Karlo and his fiancée are meeting together with believers in another town, and reaching out, giving testimony for the Lord, not only in Jerez, but also in several other towns in the vicinity that do not have any evangelical church, with the goal of seeing new churches established.

Back to the original question: Is prayer-walking a valid missions activity or strategy? I’ll let you decide…

The Practice of Unity on the Mission Field

For 10 years of my life (1994-2004), God gave me the privilege of living and ministering in a very special place in the world called Extremadura. Extremadura is one of the 17 autonomous regions of Spain. Located in the Southwest part of the county bordering Portugal, with a total population of approximately 1,100,000, it is one of Spain’s least economically developed as well as most spiritually unreached areas.

For 5 years, I had the privilege of being the missionary pastor of the Baptist church of Badajoz, the largest city in Extremadura, and for another 5 years, leader of the church planting team in Mérida, the capital city. God blessed my family and me in some special ways during our time in Extremadura. We are thrilled to see the congregations in both Badajoz and Mérida continuing on and growing in grace. But one of the greatest blessings of our time in Extremadura was what God taught us there regarding the unity of His people expressed in very practical ways.

Scattered around Extremadura, there are about 20 small evangelical congregations of various groups and denominations, including Baptists, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, Non-denominational Charismatics and Non-denominational non-Charismatics. There are a total of about 500 evangelical believers. Although there are occasional differences of opinion and misunderstandings, there is a degree of fellowship and unity among practically all of the various evangelical workers and churches, that I believe serves as a shining example to the Body of Christ around the world.

-One Saturday every two months, under the auspices of the Evangelical Council of Extremadura, the great majority of the various pastors, missionaries and Christian workers in Extremadura get together for a day of sharing God’s Word, prayer, and reporting what God is doing in their various congregations. Simultaneously, there are also adjunct women’s meetings. The location of the meetings rotates among the various churches. At midday, everyone goes out to lunch together at a local restaurant.

-On one special day in early September each year, the members of the various churches get together for an all-day picnic and time of fellowship, complete with preaching, singing, fun, games, and celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

-Once every two years, during Easter week, there is a region-wide retreat with the participation of all the churches, with special guest speakers, and programs for the youth and children.

-During our time in Extremadura, on several occasions, believers from all the churches came together for the Extremadura-wide "March for Jesus," giving a public testimony of both our unity and love for Christ.

-In both Badajoz and Mérida, there are monthly pastors’ prayer meetings, in which the pastors of the various churches get together to share personal and ministry-related prayer concerns and lift them up together before the throne of the Father.

-During the several years I had the honor to serve as Council Member in charge of Ministry to Pastors, I was able, together with a planning committee, to organize a region-wide retreat for pastors and wives, with the participation of Campus Crusade Family Life ministry, as well as the Spanish Baptist Union home missions director. I was also able to sponsor a special all-day meeting in which each pastor, missionary and church leader had the opportunity to present their plans and goals for church planting, and dialogue regarding how to make the best use of our shared vision and resources for reaching Extremadura for Christ.

As a result of all of these different activities, but especially thanks to the friendship and fellowship of many precious brothers and sisters in the Lord, I today am a richer man.

I believe that what I was able to experience in my 10 years in Extremadura serves as a wonderful model for how the unity of God’s people can be expressed in very real and practical ways. I imagine there are certain settings and circumstances that are more conducive to this than others. And I am sure that God will work in different ways in different places and among different cultures. But I am also sure that God’s will for his people is that which is expressed in Psalm 133:

How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity! It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron's beard, down upon the collar of his robes. It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the LORD bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.

Pray for Extremadura

"Getting Every Last Drop" out of Triage

* A lot of what I say on this post makes more sense if you have read "Milking" Triage and "Milking" Triage even further first.

On the mission field, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not you get to choose the team you will be on, and whether or not everyone "signs on" to the team "core values" from the beginning. I imagine this principle transfers to most any walk of life. But as a missionary, missions is the one with which I am most familiar.

Aubrey Malphurs, in the book Values-Driven Leadership, talks about the need for Pastoral Candidates and Pastor Search Committees to each identify their own "core values" beforehand, and to openly talk about them in the interviewing process, in order to avoid unnecessary friction and misunderstandings in the future.

On a missionary team, when it becomes apparent that things aren’t working out, things can get messy, and feelings can get hurt. From what I understand, situations like this are actually one of the leading causes of missionaries leaving the mission field.

For this reason, I believe it is much better to define expectations from the ground up. But sometimes circumstances just play out differently. In the midst of all of this, the different parties concerned can choose to react in different ways. We can go our own way. We can agree to disagree. We can hold grudges forever. And we can get "stuck"…

A "serendipity" on the mission field has been seeing how people, who for one reason or another we decided it would be best not to work with on the same team, have since come to be counted among our best friends. Then, there are others with whom, although you try your best to treat them courteously, there is no real basis for a true friendship.

My question is: how does all of this I have described on a "micro" (individual team) level play out on a "macro" (entire denomination) level? In the SBC, some have felt the rules have been changed on them in the middle of the game. At times, though, for the overall good, it is necessary to make difficult decisions. And, unfortunately, there is sometimes "fallout."

Some of you church history students out there will have to let me know if I am off-base here or not…

It seems to me the original church "creeds" had to do with "level one" triage concerns. If you could not agree to everything in the "creed," you were considered "anathema." (I know, I know, the word "creed" or "credo" just means "I believe"). The Baptist Faith and Message (whatever year you please) consists of both "level one" and "level two" triage concerns. I wonder if it would help us to heal as a denomination to clearly communicate to those with whom we have gone our separate ways due to "level two" triage issues that we do not consider them to be "anathema."

"Milking" Triage even further

The idea of "triage" seems to have made quite a "splash" in the Baptist blogosphere. Some interesting insights have been contributed by:

Wade Burleson: A Theological Triage Test
Tim Rogers: Triage and the SBC
Eddie Beal: Theological Triage or Which Hill Will You Die On

Wade’s Triage Test got me thinking about a Personal Conviction Survey my wife and I were given about 17 years ago as we were then preparing to be missionaries with the interdenominational Bible Christian Union (since merged with TEAM) in Spain. On this survey, there are 92 different issues listed, and for each issue the opportunity to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the following two statements:

A. I could have personal fellowship with a Christian who believes or practices the following…

B. I could work officially together (on a church-planting team) with a Christian who believes or practices the following…

1. A woman who wears makeup.
2. A woman who wears jewelry.
3. A man who wears an earring.
4. A person who dances and goes to modern dances.
5. A person who does not engage in modern dance, but does square dance.
6. A person who goes to ballets and encourages his/her children to take ballet lessons.
7. A person who belongs to a church which is a member of the World Council of Churches.
8. A person who believes that the World Council of Churches is a good organization.
9. A person who believes that the earth could be millions of years old.
10. A person who believes that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.
11. A person who believes that a Christian can lose his/her salvation.
12. A person who believes in theistic evolution.
13. A person who drinks alcoholic beverages in moderation.
14. A person who believes it is wrong to ever drink alcoholic beverages.
15. A person who does not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
16. A person who seeks/practices the "spectacular" gifts of the Spirit (tongues, interpretations, prophecy, etc.)
17. A person who believes that the "spectacular" gifts of the Spirit are not (and cannot be) available today.
18. A person who believes it is wrong for a local church to have a pastor (believing, rather, in leadership through a plurality of elders).
19. A person who believes that a local church must have a pastor.
20. A person who believes in baptismal regeneration.
21. A person who does not believe in the total depravity of man.
22. A person who believes that there may be some way of salvation apart from faith in Christ, especially for those people who have never heard the Christian gospel.
23. A man whose hair covers his ears, partially or entirely.
24. A man who wears his hair so long it could be (and sometimes is) tied in a pony tail.
25. A person who practices artificial birth control.
26. A person who defends abortion on demand.
27. A person who is against abortion for any reason at all.
28. A person who does not believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ.
29. A person who does not believe in the reality of Hell.
30. A person who believes in purgatory.
31. A person who does not believe in the eternal punishment of the lost, but believes in the annihilation of the lost.
32. A person who believes that the rapture must take place before the tribulation.
33. A person who believes that the rapture cannot take place until after the tribulation.
34. A person who says it doesn't matter that much when the rapture takes place in relation to the tribulation.
35. A person who believes that there may be errors in the Bible, even in the original writings.
36. A woman who believes it is right for her to publicly participate in a worship service (give testimony, pray out loud, announce a hymn, give a prayer request, read Scripture, etc.)
37. A person who thinks it is wrong for a woman to publicly participate in a worship service.
38. A woman who thinks it is acceptable for a woman to teach God's Word to men.
39. A person who believes that salvation is by grace through faith, plus works.
40. A person who believes that all infant baptism is valid, including infant baptism practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Protestant churches.
41. A person who accepts infant baptism as practiced by Protestant evangelicals (e.g., evangelical Presbyterians).
42. A person who accepts believers' baptism by immersion only.
43. A person who feels that all modes of baptism are valid, provided the person being baptized is a believer.
44. A person who believes that the communion service must be held every Sunday.
45. A person who believes that only baptized believers should be admitted to (and partake of) the communion service.
46. A person who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
47. A person who believes in "soul sleep."
48. A person who believes that the King James version is the only legitimate translation of God's Word.
49. A person who believes that dispensational hermeneutics is the only way to properly interpret the Bible.
50. A person who believes that covenant theology is the only acceptable theological system.
51. A person who does not believe in the Trinity.
52. A person who believes that all babies who die in infancy (before they know the difference between right and wrong) will be saved.
53. A person who believes that it is acceptable for a genuine believer to remain within the Roman Catholic Church.
54. A person who believes that it is acceptable for a genuine believer to remain within a liberal Protestant church (denomination).
55. A person who believes that physical healing is included in the atonement.
56. A person who uses playing cards (the traditional deck used commonly in gambling).
57. A person who plays card games of any kind (Uno, Rook, Mille Borne, etc.)
58. A person who believes that footwashing is a New Testament ordinance of the church.
59. A person who listens to/plays "hard rock" Christian music.
60. A person who lets his/her children play/listen to "hard rock" Christian music.
61. A person who does not believe in the existence of Satan.
62. A person who "lifts up holy hands" during a time of public praise/prayer.
63. A person who believes in the actual presence of Christ in the communion elements.
64. A person who believes it is acceptable to clap during singing in a worship service.
65. A person who believes that individual communion cups are the only proper way to administer communion.
66. A person who believes that it is not necessary or important to be closely associated with a local church.
67. A woman who wears slacks in public.
68. A person who believes that women can and should be ordained as pastors/elders.
69. A person who believes that a divorced Christian should be allowed to hold a position of spiritual leadership.
70. A person who believes that a divorced Christian should never be allowed to hold a position of spiritual leadership.
71. A person who goes to movie theaters.
72. A person who believes in the immaculate conception of Mary.
73. A person who believes that guitars or drums can be used in a public worship service.
74. A person who promotes Billy Graham and actively participates in his campaigns.
75. A person who believes it is wrong to have a musical instrument in a public worship service.
76. A person who believes that inter-racial marriage (e.g., black/white) is acceptable.
77. A person who is inter-racially married.
78. A person who believes that all people in the world worship that same God even though they call Him by different names.
79. A person who believes in the necessity of a "second work of grace" subsequent to conversion.
80. A person who believes that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is subsequent to conversion, not simultaneous with conversion.
81. A person who is homosexual.
82. A person who feels that Christians should be allowed to be homosexual.
83. A person who is a "conscientious objector" (e.g., against the bearing of arms in war or serving in the armed forces).
84. A person who believes that Saturday (the sabbath) should still be the day of worship for the Christian.
85. A person who believes that Christians today are not bound to the tithe principle (e.g., at least one-tenth of our income should be given to the Lord).
86. A person who smokes.
87. A person who thinks it is all right for Christians to smoke.
88. An amillenialist.
89. A person who believes that black people are under the "curse of Cain" or the "curse of Ham."
90. A person who believes that believing Jews should be gathered into Messianic congregations, not local Christian churches.
91. A person who is volitionally dependent on drugs (prescription or non-prescription).
92. A person who believes that women must cover their heads in a public worship service.

I am not asking you to send me your "score" on this survey. It is interesting to me, however, that the majority of those who responded to Wade’s Triage Test, said they scored either a perfect "30" or close to it (indicating a relative degree of openness regarding what is necessary to be a "fully cooperating Southern Baptist"). This is no doubt skewed by the amount of people interested in interacting with Wade on this who happen to also be generally sympathetic to his own views on these issues.

I would be willing to bet, however, that if we were to compare the responses of all of the same people responding to Wade’s Test to their responses on this survey, there would not be quite the same degree of agreement. Yes, there are certain points on which I would hope we would all agree, like, for instance not "fellowshipping" with someone "who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ." But, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of something like working on a church planting team with someone else, reality is, not everyone can work with everyone else.

Some would point out that this is precisely why we need denominational structures, confessions of faith, etc. And to a certain degree, I would agree with them. However, in a group as broad as the SBC, although we may spell out our views on some of these things, we are never going to reach 100% agreement on every one of these issues.

In recent years, we have collectively identified "liberalism" (I know, I know, we’re back to the question of labels here, but bear with me) as a problem. As a result, we have "drawn a line in the sand" regarding certain questions. In my opinion, that line has to be drawn somewhere or another. At the same time, I believe there are people with whom I would have a hard time working on the same church planting team, but with whom, at the same time, I can perfectly well fellowship, and even with whom I have no problem joining together cooperatively within the same denominational mission structure.

Ironically, in my experience with both interdenominational and SBC missions, I have found many times there are people outside of the SBC who would be more compatible church planting team members than some within the IMB. Does that necessarily mean that either I or those "non-compatible IMBers" are in the wrong organization? I don’t think so.

What it does mean is we need to look reality squarely in the eye, think objectively about all of this, and look for the most pragmatic and, at the same time, Christ-honoring solutions possible.

And one more thing. Let’s try to be extra careful to not eliminate from "fellowship" any of those whom Jesus Himself invites to the table.

"Milking" Triage

First off, kudos to Micah Fries for calling my attention on his blog to a Baptist Press article just released by Al Mohler entitled A call for theological triage & Christian maturity. I believe that Micah correctly assesses the importance of the ideas expressed by Dr. Mohler as a framework from which to base a good bit of the discussion related to "parameters of cooperation," especially as it relates to current issues in the SBC.

I would recommend you to read Dr. Mohler’s article in its entirety here before proceeding. But if you prefer to save the time, I will summarize what it says as follows…

Basically, when dealing with controversial theological issues, we do well to divide between the relative urgency of each in relation to the effect they play upon the foundation of our faith.

According to Dr. Mohler…

First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture… These first-order doctrines represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself.

The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident… Christians across a vast denominational range can stand together on the first-order doctrines and recognize each other as authentic Christians, while understanding that the existence of second-order disagreements prevents the closeness of fellowship we would otherwise enjoy.

Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations… Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.

Since these ideas also play into a good bit of what we have been talking about on this blog, and relate to the main topics of this blog (i.e. missiology and ecclesiology, and especially how the two relate to each other), I would like to "park" here a little while, and try to "milk" this for what it’s worth (which I believe is quite a lot).

First off, while I appreciate Dr. Mohler’s observation that "the mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist" and that "liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance" as well as that "the misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines" and that for the fundamentalist "third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided," I think a lot of the issues that face us today in the SBC have to do with where we draw the line between second and third-order doctrines.

I would also ask where, along this spectrum, do we as Southern Baptists place the doctrine of the unity of the church. Early Christians held it in high enough esteem as to be among the few key doctrines included in the Apostles’ Creed: (I believe in… the holy catholic church, the communion of saints). As Baptists (and I believe, rightly so), we do not interpret this phrase the same as others, such as the Roman Catholic Church. Some among us, most notably the Landmarkists, would perhaps change this phrase to "I believe in the local church." What I am afraid of, though, is that we often, in practice if not in theory, sweep this crucial doctrine under the carpet in interest of promoting the more convenient practice of denominational unity.

Two thousand years of church history have created some situations that make it very difficult for us to go back to pure New Testament ecclesiology. Some, such as Watchman Nee, have proposed idealistic church models that would be difficult to put into practice, given the context of the vast array of denominational groupings dotting the ecclesiological landscape of the West. But, at least from what I gather, it is working fairly well in China.

What is the alternative for us? In my opinion, it is accept reality for what it is for the time being, but be as careful as we can to not make issues for which biblically we have no warrant to consider as any more than "third-order" doctrines into "second-order" doctrines.

This is getting long, so I’ll have to leave further "triage milking" for another post. But, in the meantime, I’d be interested to hear your reactions and responses to this…

Unity in the Body of Christ and Unity in the SBC

A lot is being said on the blogosphere lately about degrees of inclusiveness or exclusiveness in the Southern Baptist Convention, and how this relates to the unity of the Body of Christ.

See Wade Burleson (and comments) here, here , here, and here; Nathan Finn here; Bart Barber here and here, and Jeremy Green here.

From my point of view, unity in the Body of Christ at large is a more important concern that "trumps," if you will, unity in the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other denomination or Christian group, for that matter. Our unity in the Body of Christ, however, does not depend on everyone else "crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’" just like we do. I recognize that my understanding of the Word of God is imperfect, and that, as a result, I am not always going to see eye to eye with other sincere brothers and sisters in Christ, who may well love the Lord and his Word just as much as I do. But this does not keep me from loving them, accepting them, fellowshipping with them, and cooperating with them in ministry.

However, the Body of Christ is also very big and very broad. This fact makes it so that it is not always practical nor desirable to directly cooperate with every member of the Body of Christ in every ministry project. Out of a desire for practical stewardship of the Kingdom resources God commends to us as His children, we sometimes form "strategic alliances" in order to more effectively do the work He has given us to do.

I believe the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Cooperative Program, is one such "strategic alliance." However, I believe it is an error to view the SBC or any other grouping of Christians as a microcosm of the Body of Christ at large. I believe we commit the sin of schism whenever we treat the members of one grouping of believers as more authentic or legitimate members of the Body of Christ than another, just because of the grouping with which they happen to affiliate.

Within any "strategic alliance," however, there are pragmatic reasons that lead us to do things the way we do them. We join together, for example, in order to sponsor an orphanage. And we look for other believers who have similar ideas in order to better work together in sponsoring the orphanage. We don’t look to partner with those who have no particular interest in orphanages. Neither do we look to partner with those who have radically different ideas from us regarding how orphanages should be run. However, we are open, to a certain extent, to new ideas, and "thinking outside of the box," but not to working with people whose "core values" are too much in conflict with ours. All in the interest of doing a better job with the orphanage.

The "ministry project package" we as Southern Baptists work together to support is obviously a whole lot more complex than sponsoring an orphanage. It is for this reason that we need conventions, and messengers, and trustee boards, etc. As a group, we must agree, through democratic processes, on how we are going to make the best use of the economic, human, creative and spiritual resources we all contribute to see accomplished the various ministry projects we have joined together to accomplish.

Sometimes, this process brings to light the reality that, in the interest of doing a better job, and moving forward with a reasonable amount of agreement, it is best that some members of the Body of Christ find other "ministry project support groups" with which they can better collaborate. But this does not mean that we begin to treat these brothers and sisters as less authentic or legitimate members of the Body of Christ, just because they do not see eye to eye with us regarding the administration of our particular ministry project. We allow them to go their way, but continue to love them, continue to accept them, continue to fellowship with them, and even remain open to the possibility of cooperating with them, whenever circumstances warrant a strategic cooperation in order to get a ministry project for which we share a common interest or commitment accomplished.

Those who deny the faith, and who fall into heresy that would lead to question even their membership in the Body of Christ at large, are a whole different story. With these, we are bound by Scripture to point out the error of their ways, and to exclude them from fellowship.

The SBC, Monoculturalism, and World Missions

In June, I had the privilege of attending the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro. With the exception of the one session of the previous year’s Pastor’s Conference in Nashville in which my father preached for the last time before a "convention" audience, it had been about 19 years since I had last attended the SBC annual meeting.

As I have already alluded on this blog in an earlier post, there were many things about this year’s convention that caused me to be "proud" and thankful. One thing, however, that impacted me, after 16 years of living in Spain, was the rather unique cultural perspective represented by the SBC as a whole. My point at this juncture is not to criticize that cultural perspective so much as to recognize it for what it is: one particular cultural perspective among many, not only in the world as a whole, but also in the evangelical Christian world.

At the same time, we as Southern Baptists give a very high priority, and rightly so, to making disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ among all the peoples of the world, representing a vast array of cultural perspectives. The problem, in my opinion, comes when we limit ourselves as Southern Baptists to our particular cultural perspective in our efforts to contribute towards the task of the worldwide church down through the ages in discipling the nations.

Notice I did not say "the task God has given to us as Southern Baptists to disciple the nations." Because I firmly believe that task has not been commended to us alone, in isolation from other parts of the Body. That is why I am grateful current IMB administration has, for the most part, moved us in a direction to be more sensitive to this reality.

I am concerned, however, about a general drift, on the part of some within the SBC to move us to not only a narrow view of the authority of Scripture (something I think is good and necessary) but also, at the same time, a narrowing of our cultural parameters, both within the SBC, as well as in our cooperative relationships with other parts of the Body of Christ around the world.

At times, I believe, we get confused between what is essential doctrine, and what are culturally-based biases, in the way we go about our missionary ministry. One example that comes to mind is the infrastructure of Baptist Unions around the world built on the model of the Southern Baptist Convention, complete with their own Sunday School Board, WMU, etc. A large part of the literature used and promoted in not only Baptist, but Evangelical churches in general, has been translated from English. Perhaps this is a "necessary evil." Perhaps, if we were to take away the contribution made to the work by "imported" infrastructures, models and literature, the work would be in much worse shape than it is. In any case, what’s been done has been done.

What I would suggest, though, is that, in the future, we seek for more and better ways to creatively work in cooperation with other parts of the Body of Christ that offer a different cultural perspective than our own. Not compromise on essential doctrine. But be very careful to separate correctly between what is essential doctrine, and what is cultural preference.

As Southern Baptists, we have a lot to offer towards the task of fulfilling the Great Commission. We represent a vast supply of financial, human, creative and spiritual resources. However, it is going to take a lot more than the "cooperative" efforts of Southern Baptists by themselves to win a lost world for Christ and effectively make disciples from out of all the people groups and cultures of the world.

Life-changing Experiences with Operation Mobilization

Some of you who read this blog may ask yourselves "How did a 'good Baptist boy like me' come to espouse the views on working with other evangelical groups and denominations (GCCs) that I have expressed?" I believe the following account gives a good bit of insight into the answer to that question…

Back in 1979, as a college freshman who had recently made a decision at summer camp to follow God’s call regarding missionary service, I was made aware of an organization called Operation Mobilization (OM) that sponsored summer mission campaigns in Western Europe (*and since that time, in other parts of the world as well). This idea seemed very appealing to me, and I went, together with a friend, on the OM summer campaign, he to work with Asian immigrants in the UK, and I in Austria.

I was impacted by a lot of things during that summer. It was exciting for me to meet, first from the United States and Canada, and next from all over the world, young people like myself who were interested in serving God in world missions. Although, they were all soundly evangelical, they were also from different denominations and church backgrounds.

The following summer, I decided to go back again on the OM summer campaign, and this time spent one month in Italy, and another month in England, travelling as OM International Coordinator George Verwer’s "go-fer." Several years later, after graduating from college (Baylor ’83) and one year at Mid-America Seminary, I figured out I was burned out on studies, and decided to go back again on the OM summer campaign (this time back in Austria), and eventually extended my stay with OM another two years, on board the mission ship, MV Doulos (’84 -’86).

My two years on board the Doulos was an experience I will never forget. During this time, I shared life together, in close living quarters, commune-style, with approximately 330 crew-members, all missionary volunteers, from more than 40 different countries.

During my two-year stint with the Doulos, I had the privilege of visiting 23 different countries in Europe and West Africa. I believe the fact that we came from different countries and church backgrounds added to the effectiveness of our witness. Although our common language, for the sake of communication, was English, the ministry of the Doulos was not a representation of any one particular culture, but rather the testimony of God’s power to transcend cultural barriers.

I was also impacted by the opportunity to visit churches, missionaries, and ministries along the way representing the entire panoply of evangelical life. I have especially fond memories of the times I shared, as part of the advance line-up team, in Lomé, Togo, West Africa, with the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board workers there, and their warm friendship and hospitality. At the same time, I was perplexed when one FMB missionary couple informed us they would not be able to work with an OM evangelistic team during the ship’s visit, due to policy restrictions on ministry cooperation with non-SBC groups. To this day, I am not sure whether or not that particular couple had a personally narrow interpretation of policy, but I had never run into that type of restriction from any of the other mission agencies and groups with which we had attempted to work.

I also had the opportunity to observe first-hand how the different cultures, in the different countries we visited (in my case, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and West Africa), responded differently to the presentation of the Gospel message we gave. In general, the response was much more enthusastic to our evangelistic efforts in Africa than in Europe, and more so in Southern Europe than in Northern Europe. At the same time, it was difficult to avoid the impression that many who made public professions of faith during our ministry in West Africa were quite superficial in their motivation.

Every Thursday night, starting at 8 pm, on the Doulos, there was a ship-wide "night of prayer", with non-obligatory attendance lasting until 6 am the next morning. One of the many things that impacted me from two years of weekly "nights of prayer" were the presentations of and prayers for the ministries of organizations other than Operation Mobilization. The emphasis was on the advance of the Kingdom of God, and the work of God through many varied groups and organizations around the world was a valid subject of prayer.

I remember specifically praying for the ministry of Youth With A Mission (YWAM), and hearing the story of how when both OM and YWAM were praying to begin their first ship ministries, and when the deal for the original ship that YWAM was hoping to purchase fell through, YWAM gave all of the money that had been raised for the purchase of their ship to OM in order that they could purchase the MV Logos (the sister ship and predecessor of the Doulos).

While I was on OM, the OM policy on "tongues" was that, although OM team members come from different denominational backgrounds, with different beliefs and practices regarding spiritual gifts such as tongues, public exercise of "tongues" was not allowed, in order to avoid conflict on this issue. Although there may have been cases of which I was not aware, during my three summers and two years with OM, I never knew "tongues" to be a cause of problems or divisions in the ministry.

When you live on a ship for 2 years with 330 other people, you get to observe their life pretty close up. Although, it was never announced from what denominational background people came, in conversations along the way, you oftentimes find out. Certainly, the following observation lacks the rigor of any type of scientific investigation, but my general impression, based on observation of Christian character and testimony of people from charismatic (tongues-speaking) and non-charismatic (non-tongues-speaking) backgrounds on the ship, was that speaking in tongues was not a significant factor either way with regards to the Christian character and testimony of the various ship crew-members. I was equally impressed by the consistency of Christian character and testimony (and sometimes lack of consistency) exhibited by those known to speak in tongues (albeit privately) and those known to not speak in tongues.

One thing I might add to this, however, that has shaped my view of what I think of the validity of current tongues-speaking, is that I was strongly enough impressed by what I observed of the consistent Christian character and testimony of several who were known to speak in tongues that I still today find it very difficult to believe that these people were fabricating their supposed tongues-speaking experience. My personal study of the Word of God has led me to conclude that all of the spiritual gifts of New Testament times are still operative today. But my experience and interaction with other people who have claimed to practice these gifts has helped to confirm this conclusion in my mind.

I could go on a lot longer about my experiences with OM, and with the Doulos. Although God’s path for my life (after another four years with another interdenominational mission agency, Bible Christian Union—now merged with TEAM) has since led me back to my Southern Baptist roots, currently as a missionary with the IMB, I am immensely thankful for the wider perspective I believe my experience as a young man gave me of the Evangelical world at large, and the benefits of working together with the entire Body of Christ in the task of fulfilling the Great Commission.

George Verwer

On my "book tag" list, I listed The Revolution of Love by George Verwer, as "one book that changed my life." Actually, I could have listed various of George’s books, including Hunger for Reality and No Turning Back. It was actually George, through his famous book recommendations, that inspired in me a love and thirst for Christian literature in the first place. But probably even more life-changing than his books and the books he has recommended has been the personal time I have been able to spend with George Verwer.

The now retired founder and ex-director of Operation Mobilization (OM), and currently self-described "World Missions Advocate," George Verwer has been one of my main mentors and influencers in my Christian life. I hope to dedicate a whole other post to my life-changing experiences on three OM summer campaigns and two years on board OM’s mission ship, the M.V. Doulos. But this post I want to dedicate to a man, who in 1955, as a 16-year-old New Jersey teenager, surrendered his life to Christ at a meeting in which Billy Graham was preaching in Madison Square Garden, and has gone on to influence thousands and thousands of young people around the world for the cause of world missions.

In the summer of 1980, I had the privilege of serving as George’s interim "go-fer" or errand boy, and got to know him close up. George is a man who makes no pretense. You will rarely see him with a coat and tie. He most often wears his warm-up jacket with the imprinted map of the world. His messages are full of humor, frequently last more than an hour, and more times than not defy homiletical analysis. Yet he speaks with a candor and conviction matched by very few. He speaks openly of his struggles with sexual temptation. He shares straight from his heart about his personal battles with extremism, and lack of patience. At the same time, he is a man whose lifestyle of simplicity and radical commitment to the fulfillment of the Great Commission are an open book for all to see.

George Verwer is a man who is a friend of true Christians of all stripes and colors. He is at home in meetings of all sorts of denominations, organizations and ethnic groups. It is probably more through George than anyone else that I gained an appreciation and love for the greater Body of Christ around the world. In the times I was privileged to hear him in my younger days, he would humorously refer at times to the narrow-mindedness of the "Big B Baptists," as well as the doctrinal latitude of the "evan-jellyfish." But then, he would turn around and, in totally sincere self-deprecation, say that Operation Mobilization was a "b-grade mission."

I still remember the mornings in the summer of 1980 I would knock on George’s door in Southwest London to go jogging with him, and how as we jogged, he would picture the route in his mind as the globe of the world, and we would stop and pray for different areas of the world, current events, and assorted ministries, all along the itinerary.

George Verwer also amazes me in his commitment and ability to stay in touch personally with hundreds of people with whom he has had contact down through the years and around the world. Though it has been 20 years since I have been part of Operation Mobilization or directly connected with his ministry, I never know when I am going to get a phone call from George, or a book in the mail, or a personal note encouraging me in the ministry.

I strongly recommend you to "surf" through the following links, and to glean for yourself whatever you can from this living legend of world missions and example of authentic Christianity, George Verwer.

To get you started and "whet your appetite" I will leave you with the following quote from "The Revolution of Love"…

There are thousands, even millions, of people who claim to be ‘orthodox Christians’ because they cling to a set of beliefs in accordance with the Bible. They are aware that they do not practice much humility, but they do not think that makes them any less orthodox. They are aware that they do not really love other Christians (especially those who are different from them), but that does not cause them to think their teaching is not biblical.

They may admit that they know nothing of serving others and considering others better than themselves, and yet they consider themselves Bible-believing, orthodox Christians.

They could not be more wrong! This is not Christianity but a travesty of Christianity—thinking we can be orthodox without having humility, thinking we can call ourselves Bible-believing Christians though our lives do not show love or the other fruits of the Spirit. In fact, I believe that this is the greatest error that has ever hit the church of Jesus Christ!

George Verwer, World Missions Advocate

George Verwer's Blog

George Verwer's biographical sketch

On-line messages from George Verwer

I especially recommend Being Big-Hearted, a message given a few years back to a group of Christian workers in South Asia. Although the sound quality is not the best, and he does not get into the heart of the message (which is essentially the same as the 2nd chapter of "The Revolution of Love") until after the first 25 minutes of introduction, the listen is well worth it.

Book Tag

Well, well, well. I've been tagged too, and by none other than "Mr. Baptist Blog," Marty Duren.

Here goes...

1. One book that changed your life: The Revolution of Love, George Verwer.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once: Let the Nations be Glad, John Piper.
3. One book I’d want on a desert island: Other than the Bible, Knowing God, J. I. Packer.
4. One book that made me laugh: Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller. (What can I say? I know Marty and Art Rogers picked this one too, but I haven’t read many funny books.) :^(
5. One book that made me cry: Seeker Small Groups, Garry Poole. (because of the heart-touching testimonies of people who came to Christ).
6. One book that you wish you had written: The Purpose-Driven Life, Rick Warren. (not just because of all the money Rick has made off of it) ;^)
7. One book you wish had never been written: Old Landmarkism: What is it?, J. R. Graves.
8. One book that you are currently reading: The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin.
9. One book that you’ve been meaning to read: The Best Question Ever, Andy Stanley.

I now tag fellow "m bloggers": Stepchild, mr. t, Ken Sorrell and "George Klineberg" (Guy Muse already got tagged along with me).

"Contaminated DNA"?

In the name of furthering Church Planting Movements, in contexts where there are already other existing churches, it has sometimes been expressed that it is important to "protect" new believers and new churches from "exposure" to already existing churches, so that they don’t get "infected" with their "contaminated DNA." It is often stated that "traditional" churches, with their own building, and paid leadership, can never be truly "reproducible". And I would agree that missions research (as well as common sense) has overwhelmingly confirmed these as reproduction-limiting factors.

Perhaps among certain Unreached People Groups this isn’t even an issue, as there are no traditional churches to get in the way and expose the new believers and churches to their "contaminated DNA." But in areas like Western Europe, where the churches are few, but they DO exist, I wonder if "strategically shunning" is the most biblical and loving thing to do. And, as I intimated in my last post, if your initial "end-vision" does not embrace the unity of the overall Body of Christ in your region, I question whether, from a biblical, and Christ-honoring point of view, that end-vision is ambitious enough.

As North Americans, we have a tendency to be entrepreneurial in the way we do things. This can be a very good character trait that God can use greatly for the advance of His Kingdom. But whenever our entrepreneurial tendencies run roughshod over or snub the efforts of our national brethren, or even of other foreign missionaries who are not quite so much on "the cutting edge" as us, I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves whose kingdom it is we are seeking to build.

Am I inferring we ought to do away with CPM methodology? By no means. I remain to this day a strong supporter of "New Directions" at the IMB and of CPM methodology in general. But I am afraid that some of us, in our zeal to be among the few to achieve a bona fide CPM, and our quest to be faithful to God’s call upon our lives, have forgotten that He will one day ask us about some other things besides whether or not we were responsible for being the strategic catalyst behind a CPM.

End-vision

One of the concepts we were taught at IMB Strategy Coordinator training when I attended in Germany back in 2001 was what was referred to as "end-visioning". The definition of "end-visioning" from our manual reads as follows:

Viewing the phases within a linear process from the end to the beginning in contrast to the normal means of viewing them, which is in succession from the beginning to completion.

The "end" we are "end-visioning" in our missionary strategy has a very signficant impact on the various steps we take in order to arrive at that "end". Many times in missionary work, we find what is at hand, what we like to do, what we are able to do, and start doing that without any real "vision" of what is the ultimate "end" to which we are working.

The whole concept of Church Planting Movements is very much tied in to the idea of "end-visioning". If we are to be the best stewards of the resources with which God has entrusted us, it is no longer good enough to just evangelize and plant churches one at a time. In order to get to the ultimate goal in mind, whether it be described as the "saturation" of a country or a people group with New Testament churches, or self-perpetuating, indigenous "church planting movements," there are certain steps that should be taken. It is also important the order in which these steps should be taken. And the best way to determine this is to start at the end, and to trace your steps back from there, until you reach the beginning.

From a biblical viewpoint, the example of Paul in Ephesus and Asia Minor as cited in Acts 19.10 is held out as a commendable "end-vision": And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. I personally love Paul’s strategy in Ephesus. Many of our present ministry goals are modeled after the "school of Tyrannus" (v. 9).

But, as I have meditated more on missionary strategy from the perpective of "end-vision", I have become convinced that Paul’s ultimate "end-vision" for Ephesus and Asia Minor was not merely that "all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks." I believe the real "end-vision" of Paul is better captured in Ephesians 4.1-16, especially verse 13: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

As I understand it, according to this, neither Saturation Church Planting nor Church Planting Movements, in and of themselves, are an ambitious enough "end-vision". They are important steps along the way to the "end-vision", but they are not the complete "end" to which we are working. Paul’s "end-vision" for the work in Ephesus and Asia Minor was nothing less than complete spiritual unity, discipleship, and maturity of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in that geographical area.

If this is the "end-vision" we have in mind, it will dramatically affect the steps we take to reach it. We cannot settle for methodologies that will perhaps help produce numerical growth, or even spontaneous multiplication of indigenous congregations, if these same methods in any way short-circuit the ultimate "end-vision" of unity, discipleship and maturity of the believers.

DAWN

One signficant example of a Strategic Alliance for evangelical mission work in many countries of the world is DAWN.

I lifted the following from the DAWN Europe web-site…

DAWN is an acronym for "Discipling a Whole Nation". It is a strategy developed to fulfil our Lord's command to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt 28:19,20). To do this DAWN seeks to mobilise the whole body of Christ in a nation to provide Christ-centred cells, congregations or churches for every village and neighbourhood of every class, kind and condition of person in the nation.

The purpose of DAWN is to see saturation church planting become the generally-accepted and fervently practised strategy for completing the task of making disciples of all peoples in our generation. Our concern is that the body of Christ in every land ought to be praying and working for the discipling of that whole nation, including all its people groups.

Our conviction is that this is accomplished most effectively when the whole church of a whole nation is committed to the goal of having at least one Christ-centred congregation within easy access of every person in the nation. There should be a living, growing, Christ-centred congregation for every 1,000 people or smaller community unit.

With a witnessing congregation in every neighbourhood, every person will have the opportunity to make an informed, intelligent decision for or against Jesus, and will have a place of fellowship where he or she could be discipled should they become a believer.

DAWN recognises that the job of discipling a nation is too big for any one denomination. It provides an answer by bringing a unity of purpose to a diversity of styles and means.
DAWN seeks to further national movements of saturation church planting and encourages research, intercession and strategy.

DAWN works to see existing churches take on their God-given responsibility for the community around them, and to see new churches planted into communities where there is no church.

The basic vision of DAWN, as I understand it, is to get all of the churches, denominations, and mission organizations working in a country to set common goals for the discipleship of the entire country, through saturation church planting; and then to pray and work together to divide up the task between them, keeping abreast of what each one is doing, and coordinating efforts whenever practical in such a way as to avoid overlapping each other, and use the best stewardship possible of the various resources available.

DAWN is not a substitute for denominational efforts, but rather a channel for all Great Commission Christian groups to do more effectively what they are already doing. The article that can be viewed here shows how the work of individual denominations are actually the heart of DAWN’s strategy.

For what reason I do not know why, but I have heard that DAWN has become taboo in the US with NAMB. If anyone out there can enlighten me as to why this is the case, I would be most interested to know. I personally am very excited about the possibilities of DAWN for Spain, and other countries around the world, and hope that we as IMB workers will be in the middle of projects like this, and not on the outside looking in. I believe our IMB administration would be in agreement with this. But I am picking up bits and pieces here and there that lead me to believe that some in SBC circles in the States are not. Anyone know why?

Strategic Alliances

A few months ago I had the privilege of attending a 3-day workshop on "Strategic Alliances" sponsored by COMIBAM ("Cooperación Misionera Iberoamericana" or "Ibero-american Missionary Cooperation"), an initiative to facilitate the cooperation of evangelical missionary organizations and movements in all of the countries of Latin America, as well as Spain and Portugal. At this meeting, there was a cross-denominational representation of evangelical workers from various countries. Out of a group of about thirty, I was one of two from the United States.

The working definition of "Strategic Alliance" we used was the following:

A close working relationship between individuals and/or organizations that agree to work together for a specific purpose because they can accomplish more working together than separately.

There are many different types and degrees of Strategic Alliances. The SBC Cooperative Program, for example, is, in my opinion, one very effective Strategic Alliance. Local ministry teams on the mission field are another type of Strategic Alliance. The important thing is that all over the world, among the larger Body of Christ, there are countless opportunities for Strategic Alliances that allow us as God’s people, to "accomplish more working together than separately."

The Roman Catholic Church is, in a sense, one giant worldwide Strategic Alliance. In addition to the many important doctrinal errors they embrace, which, in in my opinion, essentially invalidate a good part of the authenticity of their supposed Gospel witness, I feel that the monolithic Roman Catholic ecclesiological system in the end squelches the creativity and spiritual vitality that flow out of the baptistic or "free church" concepts of local church autonomy and soul competency.

However, the RCC in some ways has a distinct advantage over many of us as evangelicals, in that, their "universal" concept of the Church and its worldwide organization allow them in some aspects to have a leg up on us in wise stewardship of resources. If, for example, the material needs of one parish are especially pressing, the rest of the diocese will contribute from their overall budget to help out. By the same token, if the needs of the "Church" in one part of the world are especially pressing, those who call the shots at the Vatican have the ability to see that an appropriate amount of help arrives from their vast treasure of resources to those who, at least theoretically, need it most.

As disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe it is a given that we should strive to be the best stewards possible of the resources he entrusts to us for the extension of his Kingdom. The Roman Catholic system, while offering some important advantages, in the end, due to the reasons mentioned above, is, in my opinion, not the best solution. For many of the same reasons, I believe that the organizational ecumenical movement embodied in the World Council of Churches is not the best solution either.

Up to recently, we as Southern Baptists participated as members of the Baptist World Alliance. In any Strategic Alliance, the time comes when one must decide whether what is gained is greater than what is given up. If I have understood correctly, those who made the decision to withdraw from the BWA did so for many of the same reasons we as Southern Baptists do not participate in the WCC, that is, a lack of overall doctrinal and philisophical compatibility to justify such cooperation. As I do not have access to all of the information that went into making this decision, I prefer to withhold judgment at this time as to whether it was a good decision or not.

What I do believe is that, in order to be the best stewards possible of God’s Kingdom resources, we as Southern Baptists need to do everything possible towards becoming less isolationist and more "World Christians" in our mindset. We must continue to be willing to dialogue with Baptist Unions and Conventions in other parts of the world about wise allocation of resources. We must be open to their suggestions. In my opinion, we must also continue to dialogue and cooperate with other Evangelical organizations, with headquarters in the USA or elsewhere, with a view towards "accomplishing more working together than separately." As mentioned in a previous post, we are all "playing on the same team" with the same ultimate goal in mind. Thus, it behooves us to think together as a team, and allocate our joint resources in such a way so as the overall objectives of the team are most benifitted. We need to seek for more and more ways to think creatively "out of the box," with more and more of a heart to see the entire world won for Christ, and more and more disiciples made from more and more peoples of the world.

As pointed out on another previous post, there are also pitfalls along the way, such as unhealthy dependency, to be avoided (see also Ken Sorrell’s posts on the R.I.N. Strategy of Missions). What we don’t need to do, though, as a result, is "stick our heads in the sand," continually narrowing our parameters of cooperation with other Great Commission Christians, defending our denominational distinctives, and building up our denominational and many times ethno-centric programs.