Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #12

*Malcolm Yarnell and I have agreed together to post this second consecutive letter of his now, before my next letter, which will respond to both letters #11 and #12. --David

Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Dearest David,

The first evidence we have that Matthew 28:18-19 was identified as Christ’s "Great Commission" in the English language was apparently by Francis Johnson. He was a leading Separatist who exerted influence upon the earliest English Baptists, being the professor of John Smyth at Cambridge. In discussing Christ’s "last and great commission," Johnson stressed that all of Christ’s commands must be obeyed, no matter what others might say or do.1 The second reference to it was made my Robert Parsons, a Roman Catholic apologist for the papacy. But he believed the granting of the keys in Matthew 16 was the delegation of a plenitude of power to Peter, the presumed first bishop of Rome and his supposed papal successors. The final, evangelistic commission of Christ was not in Parsons’s mind.2

Intriguingly, it was a leading Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, who was the first to repeatedly and forcefully develop the idea that Matthew 28:16-20 is the Great Commission from which the Christian churches should live their lives.3 While Keach would agree with Johnson on the importance of obeying every one of Christ’s commands, the very order of the Great Commission was also inviolable to Keach. His response to a paedo-Baptist proponent should inform all who call themselves Baptists today,

Sir, All that are to be baptized, are, by virtue of the great Commission of our Saviour, to be first taught and made Disciples by teaching; and take heed you add not to his Word, nor attempt to invert the Order of the Charter and gracious Grant of the King of Heaven and Earth; nor go about, as you do, to make void his Commands by your own Traditions.4

I have exposited the Great Commission from Scripture elsewhere, and refer your readers, David, to that work,5 and to your own comments upon it. Rather than rehearsing that exposition, please allow me to focus in on at least one important implication of verses 18 and 19. This implication is what drives a lasting wedge between evangelical Baptists and other evangelicals. It is an implication that cannot be dismissed in the name of obeying Christ’s prayer for unity in John 17. Unity based on disobedience to Christ is not really unity in Christ but a spurious unity. "Bridge building" efforts, even if sentimental in emotion and loving in intent, that ignore the Great Commission of Jesus Christ are to be summarily rejected by true Christ followers.

The leading implication of the Great Commission proper that we must stress here is that it is Christ’s enduring commandment to the church. Indeed, Johnson is utterly correct in pointing out the Apostles planted the first churches upon the authority granted by Christ and according to the commands given by Christ. Johnson taught that Christ prescribed to the Apostles both "faith and order," and that Christians must be careful to stress both aspects in their teaching.6 We need to keep in mind here two ordered but coordinate essentials: First, obeying Christ’s "order" will not save you if you are not first born again by "faith" in Christ. In other words, we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone as a gracious work of the Spirit alone. Justification by God is necessary and prior to Christian obedience.

Second, however, true "faith" is immediately accompanied by obedience to the "order" of Christ. Speaking and expositing about the essential of one’s "faith" in Christ while dismissing the essential of obeying the "order" established by Christ is utterly sinful. The tendency known as Antinomianism, characteristic of especially the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, is to be identified by true Christian disciples as a perversion worthy of immediate rebuke and disciplinary exclusion by the truly ordered churches of Jesus Christ. Keach and the overwhelming majority of early Baptists (and their Anabaptist forefathers) understood this and acted upon it. This is why they would not hold communion with apostates or Independents or Presbyterians or Anglicans or Roman Catholics. Though these others might claim to be true Christians, they certainly did not (and do not) act as such.

I would agree wholeheartedly with our Baptist and Anabaptist forefathers. We must obey the Lord’s commission ourselves totally, even when others arrogantly or ignorantly refuse to submit entirely to Christ’s commands. Our forefathers suffered extreme persecution, including imprisonment, torture and horrendous execution from the hands of these other "Christians." It would be a betrayal of their witness to the truth that Christ’s Great Commission is to be obeyed in its entirety and according to its own order for Baptists to adopt open communion with those who subvert, pervert, or invert our Lord’s commands.

Yes, we need to unite around the essentials of the Christian faith, but we also need to unite around the essentials of the Christian order. Those Baptists who relegate the Christian order to a non-essential status significantly undermine the Great Commission of our Lord and Savior. Christ’s commands are essential for Christian obedience. Moreover, those Baptists who seek communion with disobedient Christians or naively refer to them as "Great Commission Christians" should repent.

We show love to others by pointing them to the grace available even to disobedient Christians (including ourselves) in Christ and by pointing them to the enduring nature of Christ’s orderly command. Let us love other Christians and ourselves by maintaining a distinct witness to the truth of the Great Commission and challenging all Christians to truly follow Christ. And if they will not follow Christ with us, let us weep over their hard hearts and pray that we do not likewise in this or any other area. Let us follow Christ, not men, even good men with whom we naturally desire Christian communion.

In Christ,

Malcolm

__________________________________

1"I proceed yet further to show that Christ that Prophet requireth not onely acknowledgment in word, but obedience indeed to all his ordinances given to his Church. This we learne both of Christ himself and of his Apostles. Of Christ himself, in his last and great commission given to his Apostles, when he sent them into the world, to publish his faith, and plant his Churches therein. In which he straitly charged them to teach all his people baptized in his name, not to acknowledg onely but, to keep and observ whatsoever he had commaunded them: and that even to the end of the world: not making any exception of Christian or heathen Magistrates, of theyr allowance or disallowance, or of any other worldly respects whatsoever. The Apostles also as they were commaunded, so they performed: both planting the Churches in that faith and order which Christ prescribed them, and requiring of the Churches so planted and of all other after them to the end of the world to keep that faith and order wherein they were sett, and to admitt of no other whatsoever, but to keep that without spot and vnrebukeable, untill the appearing of owr Lord Iesus Christ. And thus much concerning this matter." Francis Johnson, A treatise of the ministery of the Church of England (1595), 32.

2Robert Parsons, The warn-word to Sir Francis Hastinges wast-word (1602), 29.

3Benjamin Keach, The glorious lover (London, 1670), 256; idem, Pedo-baptism disproved (London, 1691), 1; idem, An appendix to the answer (1692), 1; idem, The ax laid to the root (1693), 21; idem, A counter-antidote (London, 1694), 1, 29; idem, Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness (1696), 54, 97, 229, 240, 305; idem, The Jewish Sabbath abrogated (London, 1700), 175-76. Cf. John Bunyan, Differences in judgment about water-baptism, no bar to communion (1673), 73.

4Keach, The rector rectified and corrected (1692), 78 (cf. pp. 27, 51).

5See http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/TheHeartofaBaptist_001.pdf.

6Unfortunately, Johnson refused to follow the implications of his teaching and opposed the reintroduction of Christian baptism in the English churches.

Introduction

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

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

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sbc IMPACT!

On Sept. 1, a ground-breaking new group blog entitled sbc IMPACT! is set to begin.

According to the launch announcement:

sbc IMPACT! is the vision of a group of Southern Baptist bloggers who desire to host a truly edifying, thought-provoking, civil community for the examination and discussion of issues that affect Southern Baptist churches.

Instead of dwelling upon SBC politics and personalities, sbc IMPACT! will be a place where issues, even the tough issues, can be discussed and debated in a God-honoring manner. It will be a place where Southern Baptist ministries, churches, and missionaries can be highlighted and lifted up. It will be a place where differing views can be stated in an atmosphere of dignity and respect.

In short, the contributors at sbc IMPACT! want to work to bring Christ-like character, honorable speech, and real ministry to the discussion of Southern Baptist issues in the blogosphere.

I am excited and honored to form part of the list of regular contributors, along with editors Geoff Baggett and Rob Ayers, as well as fellow contributors Hariette Peterson (SelahV), Bowden McElroy, Tony Sisk, Roger Ferrell, Les Puryear, and Cyle Clayton.

Since arriving in the States from Spain a little more than a month ago, I have not posted quite as often as usual here at Love Each Stone, due to the busyness of transition, and, intermittent internet access. I hope to get back to my regular rhythm of posting here soon, though, as well as my additional contributions about once every 10 days at sbc IMPACT!

For the meantime, I invite you to go ahead and check out the launch announcment for sbc IMPACT!, as well as the Purpose Statement and Standards for Posting and Commenting, which are already on-line.

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #11

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

Dear David,

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:19).

The Great Commission proper begins with a verse many often brush over, perhaps because they consider it uncouth. A subject that some modern Christians consider inappropriate for conversation is neither "sexuality" nor "selfishness," which no longer seem to cause our culture to blush, but "authority." But this aversion to speaking about power counters our Lord’s own attitude.

Western culture considers power to be somehow unseemly, inherently evil, taking Lord Acton’s dictum much too seriously—"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We have even turned an ungodly attitude—anti-authoritarianism—into an ideal worth pursuing, and the opposing mantra becomes "freedom" or "liberty." This is strange, for "freedom" may be synonymous with "power," as seen in the Greek word here, exousia, which may be translated as "freedom," "power," or "authority." Usually, by "freedom," we really mean uninhibited personal power, a truth that unmasks anti-authoritarianism to be nothing more than a deceptive personal power grab.

The Lord had a different attitude towards power, one we should hear and receive. Our Lord made a most audacious claim—"all authority has been given to me." He then compounded it by saying his authority was so total it included every power "in heaven and on earth." Is this indicative of a deluded megalomaniac, of which the world has seen too many examples? Or is the claim of Jesus that he rules the world and all spiritual reality, too, shockingly true? Scripture certainly believes so, as do true Christians.

The Creation of the Powers. The New Testament presents a theology of power that is nuanced and sobering. Every power in existence is created and instituted by God (Rom. 13:1). Even the power that proud Pontius Pilate wielded in the crucifixion of our Lord ultimately came from God—Rome may have been the instrument, but God assigned it to be this way (John 19:11). We thus learn that all created powers result from a gift, but the gift of authority may not be used in any way and for any purpose the created instrument pleases. While every power is given by God He desires it to be used for His glory and according to His commands. Indeed, every created being is held accountable for the use of its appointed authority.

The problem is that angels and men have used their granted powers for evil rather than good. This situation does not negate the sovereignty of God, but it shows an incredible complexity. Due to angelic and human rebellion, there exists a massive web of opposing and cooperating powers and authorities and freedoms. This web is so complex and turbulent that it sometimes appears to limited man that chaos has triumphed and that all claims to authority are arbitrary.

The Redemption of the Powers. Thus, when Jesus Christ came, the unique authority He displayed was considered unusual: His teaching was marked by power that others lacked (Mark 1:22). Luke tells us that Jesus was filled with the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:14), that He cast out demons with authority (4:36), that power went out from Him when he performed a miracle (8:46). Even after crucifixion, He was reputed to be a prophet mighty in word and deed (24:19). The "kingdom of God," which Jesus rules, is a motif too large to consider here, but we know that His kingdom is not of this world, that it has already come, and that it will triumph. The kingdom doctrines of Jesus are what finally turned the priestly, royal, and imperial authorities against Him (John 18:36; 19:11-21). The crucifixion was the apparent victory of the world and its ruler over the Messiah.

And yet, to the great confusion of the world, the "stumbling block" and "foolishness" of "Christ crucified" is actually "the power of God" at work (1 Cor. 1:18-23). This is the primary conflict between the way that true Christians think and the way that the world and false Christians think: Christian power is displayed in humility, the humility of a cross. The Jews and the Greeks of the biblical period, and the Secularists and the Muslims of modern times, and those "Christians" who slander and persecute others, cannot fathom the truth that God was rectifying all powers in the cross. The defeat of Jesus through an ignoble death is the victory of God over the power of sin.

The Consummation of the Powers. But the story does not end with the humiliation of the cross. On the other side of the cross is the resurrection, the juridical vindication of the crucified one (Acts 2:36). Indeed, Christians are called to take up their own humiliating crosses, because our hope is that we too will be finally vindicated (Phil. 2:1-11; 1 Peter 5:6). And beyond our present time, is the return of Jesus Christ in power to reign physically over all the earth and then bring final judgment (Rev. 19-20). After this, we are told by Paul that once Christ has subdued all the powers of creation, the Son in turn will deliver everything whole back to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). At present, we are in a massive battle between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. But there is no need to worry: our Lord has all authority, and He will triumph.

"All" in this passage, by the way, means "all." Jesus Christ claimed all earthly and spiritual power for Himself. He may do and command anything and everything He wants. And He has decided to show mercy to the world by saving those who will believe in Him. Moreover, He has given specific instructions as to how to make His mercy known to all the world: He wants His disciples to be going, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching everything he has commanded to all people everywhere at all times. The universal nature of the Great Commission, of which you spoke in your last letter, is true.

However, in light of the universal nature of the authority of Christ, Christians should be very careful to follow His instructions exactly. In these days, when too many Christians are trying to separate the essential from the non-essential in Christianity, it should be said loudly and clearly: Every command of Christ is essential for true disciples of Christ to obey. There is no part of the Great Commission that is non-essential for a Christian church. If churches want to be defined as Great Commission churches, then they should follow Jesus Christ and treat His words as of final, specific, and utmost authority. Should they not?

In Christ,

Malcolm

PS I apologize for my extended delay in submitting a new letter to you and your readers, David. Unfortunately, after returning from shepherding the Oxford group, my car was hit by another that pushed me into the path of a truck. The car was totaled, and I suffered a concussion. First, catching up with the workload at the seminary, and then trying to work, read, and write with fatigue and nausea has put me behind. Thank you for your patience and prayers. I have learned experientially that I have so little power and that God has all power. I feel utterly helpless without Him.

Introduction

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

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

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Back to Jerusalem Movement and Unity

A couple of months ago on a post called Chinese Church DNA, I linked to a 7-minute video clip and the website of the Back to Jerusalem movement, which is the vision of Chinese believers to send out missionaries to “preach the gospel and establish fellowships of believers in all the countries, cities, towns and ethnic groups between China and Jerusalem,” including the majority of the most unreached countries and people groups in the world, located within the 10-40 window. After that time, when I was in Northern Ireland for an IMB-sponsored marriage retreat, I happened to see a copy of the Back to Jerusalem book (not to be confused with Ray Register’s recent release with the same title) in a Christian bookstore there. After reading through it, I believe it is must reading for anyone seriously interested in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

While we continue to pray urgently for our Korean brothers and sisters held as hostages in Afghanistan, I think it is enlightening to consider the following Back to Jerusalem quote from Brother Yun, imprisoned himself on four different occasions, and a victim of prolonged suffering and torture:

Don’t pray for the persecution to stop! We shouldn’t pray for a lighter load to carry, but a stronger back to endure! Then the world will see that God is with us, empowering us to live in a way that reflects his love and power.

Back to Jerusalem (p. 69)

Most assuredly, the perspective of our brothers and sisters in places like China is a bit different from ours in the United States. I have actually heard that believers in China are praying that God would allow us in the West to experience persecution, in order for him to refine us, and teach us some of the same lessons He has taught them. I myself could not even begin to speak with the same authority of experience of knowing what it means to suffer for sake of the gospel as these dear brothers in Christ. And, by no means am I suggesting that we should not continue to pray for the deliverance of our Korean brothers and sisters. However, I think it is important we listen to people like Brother Yun, and try to learn from them what God is teaching them. In this light, I think the following paragraphs on the Back to Jerusalem movement and unity from house church leader Peter Xu Yongze are especially signficant:

In the 1970s and early 1980s, we were all one church. There were no significant theological differences between us and no blockages to our fellowship. We had all been deeply touched by God’s Spirit. We went to prison together, were beaten together, and bled together. We also preached the gospel together.

But by the early 1990s many leaders who were once close brothers in the work of the gospel had become critical of each other. We had always stated that we in China would never form denominations like those in the Western church, yet we had all gone different ways and built walls between us. The Back to Jerusalem vision had been present for many years, but the house churches were not yet ready to fulfill this call. The Lord knew we could never be effective in our witness to Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus while we remained weak and divided.

God used Brother Yun to bring unity among the leaders of various house church networks. This was no easy task for years of silence between us had created unseen walls of bitterness and hostility. Many house church leaders believed their group possessed the truth and that other groups had gone astray and drifted into error. When Brother Yun first spoke to us about unity, he got a cold reception.

But God performed a series of miracles that led to a meeting of the leaders of several house church networks in 1996. It was the first time many of us had seen each other for years. At that first meeting the Lord broke through our stubbornness and pride and there were many tears of repentance. We all confessed our bitterness to each other and asked for forgiveness.

I stood up in the first unity meeting and said, “We don’t want to follow our own pet doctrines any more. We want to learn from one another’s strengths and change in whatever way the Lord wants us to change in order to make us stronger and closer to Jesus.”

Although not all differences were ironed out, the leaders came to appreciate their fellow leaders and saw they had far more in common than they had reasons to remain separate. They also found that their theological differences centred on things that weren’t essential to the faith.

Each group clearly heard how God was moving in wonderful ways among the other groups represented in the meeting and gave glory to God. We decided to speak in each other’s churches and to share Bibles and resources between us so that one or two groups would not end up receiving the majority of the help from overseas Christians, while other groups got nothing.

On the second day, all the leaders took communion together. It was the first time in more than fifty years that the leaders of China’s church had taken the Lord’s Supper in unity.

I believe that meeting in 1996, and the ones that followed, were some of the most important events in the history of Christianity in China, because the Back to Jerusalem movement would never have got off the ground while the house churches remained divided. It was no coincidence that it was after 1996 that the details of the Back to Jerusalem vision began to fall into place.

"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." (Ps. 133:1-3)

When we talk of this unity, it needs to be understood that the reason we came together was not for the sake of unity in itself. It was unity for the sake of fulfilling the common vision God had given us – the vision of taking the gospel back to Jerusalem, thus completing the Great Commission and hastening the return of our Lord! That is why we started our unified gatherings. Although the various house churches still have different interpretations of some Scriptures and different practices, we recognize that we all share the common goal of sharing the good news with every person inside China and beyond.

When believers are united around a common goal, we can head there together, putting aside our petty differences. When we lose sight of our common vision, we stop looking forward and begin to look at each other. Soon we see each other’s weaknesses and faults, and instead of fighting for the kingdom of God we start fighting each other.

It’s quite simple to tell a strong church from a weak one. A strong church is one that is a spiritual baby-making centre. Souls are being saved and discipled around the clock and the church is a hive of activity. There is no time for believers to sit around and argue with each other. They are too busy just trying to clean up all the mess these newborn babies make while simultaneously trying to prepare more bottles of milk to keep them fed! As the father of two small children, I well know what a struggle this can be!

Some churches are full of people who think it is their calling to keep other people in line so that they don’t get polluted by the world. This may sound like spiritual activity, and the people who make the most noise about it may look pious, but if their words produce no spiritual life, it is all a waste of time. It is far better for us to concentrate on preaching the gospel and let God police his church.

(Back to Jerusalem, pp. 76-79)

Pray Urgently for our Korean Brothers & Sisters in Afghanistan

If you have been following the news, you are, no doubt, aware of the plight of our 21 Korean brothers and sisters in Christ who still remain as hostages of Taliban militants in Afghanistan. Already, 2 of the original 23 mission team volunteers--pastor and team leader Bae Hyung Kyu, and fellow team member Shim Sung Min--have been counted worthy to suffer martyrdom at the hands of their tormentors, and are in the presence of the Lord. The fate of the remaining 21 hangs in the balance, as their captors continue to threaten to take their lives as well.

We all need to pray urgently for these our fellow servants in the Lord's work, that God would strengthen them and give them courage to remain faithful to Him in the midst of this fiery trial. Pray for their deliverance, safety, and health. Pray for the bereaved wife and 9-year-old daughter of Pastor Bae, as well as the family members of the other hostages. Pray God would use the testimony of these His servants to dramatically proclaim the message of the sacrificial love of Jesus to many lost souls in Afghanistan, as well as other places where the news of their suffering spreads. Pray God would multiply the fruit of their labor of love in Afghanistan, and give courage to the Christian workers, and national believers with whom they were working. Pray that God would send conviction of sin to those who are holding them hostage, and lead them to repentance and knowledge of the truth. Pray as the Holy Spirit guides.

This story from Baptist Press does a great job of summarizing the most important details of this tragic situation. I strongly recommend that you read it prayerfully and carefully.

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #10

The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

As I read Matthew’s version of the Great Commission, the term “all”, used both explicitly and implicitly throughout the passage, stands out to me as significant. First, I think it is significant that, occurring after the death of Judas, and before the incorporation of Matthias to the company of the twelve, all of the apostles are present and are evidently recipients on an equal basis of the commission given by Jesus in this moment. As you correctly observe in your last letter, there appears to be some divergence between the degree of pure worship, and the corresponding degree of doubt, offered by each disciple. However, I think it is significant that the legitimacy of each disciple as a recipient of the Great Commission is not called into question, regardless of the respective level of doubt or purity of worship. The Great Commission is given, without reservation, to all.

I also see as significant the declaration that all authority has been given to Jesus, as Lord and Guarantor of the Great Commission, and graciously imparted to his disciples. As recipients of the Great Commission, we do not depend on any human institution for the authority necessary to do the job with which He entrusts us. The authority with which we act, as disciples of Jesus, is the authority of Jesus himself. Just as the Father sent Jesus, anointing Him with the Holy Spirit to “preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, release the oppressed, and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” so also He has sent us, with the same anointing, to fulfill the same calling (John 20:21; Luke 4:16-21).

Next, I see a great amount of significance in the fact that we are to make disciples of all nations. As I understand the Great Commission, once an individual, as a result of the obedience of previously existing disciples of Jesus in proclaiming the gospel, comes himself to be a disciple of Jesus, this new disciple, in turn, becomes a recipient of the same Great Commission, with a newly conferred responsibility to make disciples of others. As a result of this, I believe we can legitimately state that the scope of the Great Commission includes both the making of new disciples among all the nations, as well as the raising up of a Body of native disciple-makers called out from among all the nations of the earth. I, from a missiological perspective, find particularly interesting and exciting the increasing incorporation into the missionary work force of cross-cultural ministers from places that have traditionally been viewed more as mission fields than as mission sending bases.

Next, I see in Matthew’s narration of the Great Commission an emphasis on the universal scope of the message we are to proclaim and instill into the disciples we are called to make. The disciple-making process does not end at the moment of the disciples’ public identification, through baptism, with their new relationship of trust in the saving grace, and submission to the lordship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also embraces the comprehensive teaching of obedience to all the commands of Jesus regarding the revolutionary life principles embodied in the gospel of the Kingdom of God. As I indicated in a previous letter, I believe the ultimate scope, or “end-vision”, of the disciple-making process, is magisterially captured by Paul in the following words from Ephesians 4:13: “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

In the New Testament, we have specific commands, as Jesus’ disciples, regarding separating from false teachers and “every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching [we] have received from the [biblical writers]” (Galatians 1:6-9; 1 Thessalonians 3:6). At the same time, however, there are certain areas in which the duty to separate is not quite so clear. Never, for instance, do we find a command to separate from authentic disciples of Jesus due to variant understandings of disputable matters of Christian teaching and practice that have a secondary or tertiary connection to the central truths of the gospel. What we do find, rather, is the admonition to accept all those whom Christ has also accepted (Romans 14-15:7). In addition, the disciples, upon seeing someone casting out demons who was not one of their group, were warned by Jesus to not stop him, because “whoever is not against [us] is for [us]” (Luke 9:49-50).

Finally, we have the promise of Jesus that, as we seek to be faithful in the task of carrying out his Great Commission, He is with us “always, to the very end of the age.” Until the advent of the modern missionary movement, for many centuries, Christendom had, for the most part, misinterpreted the Great Commission, regarding it to have been given exclusively to the original apostles. However, the wording of Matthew makes clear that Christ’s presence would accompany his followers throughout all of history, as all of us, as legitimate heirs of the commission communicated verbally to the eleven, seek to be faithful stewards of the task entrusted to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The error of the Roman church, as well as of many other Christian denominations, has been to institutionalize the realization of the Great Commission, leaving it in the hands of ecclesiastical hierarchies, who use their misappropriated authority to “bind” where Christ has not previously “bound”, and, at times, to “loose” where Christ has not previously “loosed” (Matthew 18:18).

As Baptists, I believe we have much for which to be grateful as beneficiaries of a rich heritage of a by-in-large trustworthy transmission of the commands of Christ and faithful obedience to the Great Commission. However, I believe we must, at the same time, be ever vigilant to not allow pride for our heritage to prevent us from opening our hearts to cooperation with other true brothers and sisters in Christ who may not have had access to the same teaching and tradition as us. In keeping with the principle of semper reformanda, we must also endeavor to remain humble enough to receive instruction from other groups of Christians, who may have also received light from God in their own understanding of Scripture, without ever, at the same time, compromising on our submission to the authority of the inerrant Word of God as our supreme guide in faith and practice.

Blessings,

David

Introduction

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

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

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stateside Assignment

Today, my family and I fly out from Spain for our year-long Stateside Assignment (STAS). During this year, if we can be of help to you or your church in any way, letting you know about our ministry, the work of the IMB, and what God is doing in Spain, Western Europe, and around the world, please let us know. We appreciate your prayers for us in this time of transition for our family in the days ahead.

*I hope to have my next letter to Malcolm Yarnell up in the next couple of days.

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #9

Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Dear David,

In Matthew 28:17, we read that sincere disciples of Jesus Christ may concurrently serve yet hesitate: “When they saw Him, they worshiped, but some doubted.” The eleven, gathered where Jesus called, somehow indicated the confused contents of their hearts. Upon seeing their resurrected Lord, they worshiped Him, and they doubted.

They worshiped. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to review the riches of European art at the National Gallery in London. One Renaissance artist captured the wondrous intensity of emotion probably experienced by the apostles upon seeing the resurrected Jesus. The apostles’ eyes seem to reflect a flood as the truth of Christ’s previous claims swept over them. And Christ thrusts the hand of Thomas into His side.

The gospels tell us that Jesus foretold his betrayal, trial, and execution. Though horrible, such a prophecy was believable. But the other aspect of Jesus’ prophecy—that he would arise from the dead—was inconceivable to the disciples. Peter even rebuked Christ for speaking of these things (Matt. 16:21-23). And now, here He was, before their very eyes and beheld by their very hands.

And the truths of Christ’s claims were now vindicated in His resurrection. He is indeed a prophet who speaks God’s Word. He is indeed a priest who reconciles sinners with God through His atoning death. He is indeed a king who has power to rule. And Thomas, we are told, went from verbal disbelief to proclaiming that Jesus is “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). And so, the disciples were compelled by faith to worship.

But they also doubted. The Greek distazo here has been the subject of some debate. Was it a mild hesitation or a deeper level of doubt? Did all of them worship while some among them doubted, or did all worship while expressing some doubt? Were the eleven the only disciples present or were there others, too? Perhaps the best conclusion is that the eleven disciples both worshiped and doubted at some level and with some differential.

Like the man begging Jesus for the spiritual freedom of his son, we too sometimes mix doubt with faith: “Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief” (Mark 9:24). The disciples—the very apostles from whose writings we learn the faith today—were described by Christ as having “little faith” (Matt. 17:20). In the New Testament, faith is not only immediate and justifying, but progressive and sanctifying.

If we who are Christians are honest, we will admit that our faith, though real and salvific, is yet being perfected. Moreover, some Christians and churches will simply be further along than others in certain ways. Christians typically worship but hesitate, some with greater or lesser fidelity. Sometimes, hesitation is expressed in half-hearted obedience. Other times, it is indicated by an unwillingness to believe all that God in His Word proclaims.

This is the cause of much dissension between churches. There is often hesitation on the part of one group of sincere Christians in direct opposition to the faithfulness of another group. This does not always cast doubt upon their salvation (though it might) but may reflect incomplete fidelity to Christ in discipleship.

For instance, Presbyterians refuse to obey Jesus Christ in an orderly manner and “baptize” (actually, just bathe) their babies. Paedobaptists may be sincere Christians but they doubt Christ’s command and hesitate to institute it correctly, thereby deceiving their own children. Again, Pentecostals and some Charismatics may refuse to judge their profound experiences according to the clear teaching of God’s Word by hesitating to reject unbiblical doctrines. Yet again, many ecumenists typically refuse to discern the body of Christ and out of well-meant but misplaced sentimentality doubt they should discipline Christians who institute practices not in accord with Scripture. And as for us Southern Baptists, we should honestly admit that we have fallen off of late in our efforts to display complete obedience to the Great Commission.

Christians who sincerely worship may do so hesitantly or doubtfully. Those who are more advanced in the faith are therefore compelled by love patiently yet with conviction and fortitude to call their brothers and sisters in Christ out of half-hearted obedience and into entire discipleship by both word and deed, through their instruction and their example. Correcting an errant Christian should be done only from Scripture and with a gentle and humble heart, recognizing that all of us are subject to error (Gal. 6:1-3).

The sincere worship of the disciples was tainted by the presence of some doubt. Disciples need one another for the purpose of accountability and discipline, and Jesus Christ has established the local church precisely for this purpose. The visible local church is entered through baptism, manifested in the continuing practice of the Lord’s Supper, maintained through the redemptive application of church discipline, and grown through the common proclamation of the Word. Jesus Christ specifically established the local church and builds it through the instruments that he gave to her. She would do well not to ignore nor to alter nor to declare “non-essential” or “tertiary” His commands.

When Christians focus upon unbiblical institutions and means, they introduce novelties that may detract from Christ’s design. When they go so far as to overturn the divine order through anti-biblical hierarchies and synods, they pervert our Lord’s design and undermine His purpose. In response to your last question, David, let me be clear that I have no difficulty with para-church organizations, as long as they constantly remember that they are merely dispensable servants to those divinely-ordained bodies known as the local churches. Executive agencies, mission boards, and seminaries must serve the local churches, and when they destabilize or detract from those Christ-ordained institutions, they need to be reformed or suspended.

In Christ,

Malcolm

PS Please pardon my delayed response to your last letter, but I have been distracted with other responsibilities.

Introduction

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

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

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Verwer: Denominations or Denominationalism?

"As I have ministered around the globe over the past 50 years people again and again have asked me and written me about what I am trying to share in this letter. There has been more hurt, disunity and discouragement in connection with this than we can ever know. Please try and take the time to read what I am sharing and pass it on to others."

George Verwer

Denominations or denominationalism?

In the ministry of mobilisation we are faced with many obstacles and complexities. One of the toughest is the denominationism which is usually combined with deception and pride.

I am pro denominations (not all of them), but anti-denominationalism. By that I mean the attitude that makes you believe that yours is the only true church group or at least better than all the others. There is a huge lack of reality and humility among such people, especially now with over 27,000 denominations. One group publicly teaches that all others are wrong and the only way is the way they believe and teach. This, of course, becomes cultic and manipulative. There are believers in such groups and we must exercise love and patience because that is all they know.

It is even sadder that many denominations don't believe that God works much outside their group or local church. By the way, some of the stronger church groups don't want to be called a denomination which is part of their judgementalism against other denominations. One group recently produced in their denominational magazine two articles against what they call para-church agencies making all kinds of false statements. This is especially sad as they have some good churches and lots of wonderful Christians. I find these articles (and they are not new) very divisive and hurtful. It is something that I have noticed around the world for the past 50 years.

Without realising they write off as second-class or worse,

1. all mission agencies
2. most Christian radio and TV
3. most Christian camps and youth ministries
4. the Christian Film industry and most internet teaching and evangelism
5. most all Christian literature and Bible Agencies
6. almost all Christian book shops
7. most Christian Conference conventions like Keswick
8. most Christian Relief & Development Agencies
9. all international networks like WEA or Lausanne
10. all missionary aviation agencies
11. all ship ministry agencies
12. most evangelistic agencies like Billy Graham and Luis Palau
13. Student Movements and Organisations like UCCF, Campus Crusade, the Navigators
14. Christian Arts & Music ministries
15. most Bible colleges or seminaries and other Christian institutions
16. most drug and alcohol rehabilitation agencies
17. many evangelistic efforts like the Alpha course

The list can go on.

It is almost impossible to honestly maintain such a position as it denies so much of what God has done over these 2000 years and what He is doing right now. I know of cases where young people felt the call of God to join a mission event for a summer and were told by their local church leaders that it could not possibly be of God. Can you imagine the confusion and discouragement that comes from such behaviour? As Bible believers we are a minority and on a narrow way. Why do some get joy out of making it more narrow?

The good news is that increasing numbers of churches and whole denominations believe that most, not all, Christian biblical 'so-called' para-church agencies are a vital part of what God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are doing in the world today. There is only one church and all true believers are part of that church.

Walls have come down when those of us in such groups repent of not esteeming more highly local churches and denominations. I did that publicly once in front of 500 mission and denominational leaders from around the world. One of the most crucial things to remember is that many of the mission agencies are responsible for planting thousands of local churches and even whole denominations, like SIM in Nigeria birthing a whole huge dynamic denomination. We could give many other examples.

I have received beautiful letters from people who have apologized for their attitude toward 'para-church' groups and who have changed their viewpoint.

As mobilizers, let's get involved in breaking down the barriers and praying for more workers to be released into the harvest. Let all of us who know Jesus and are heavenbound realise that we need each other.

I submit this hoping that it will increase humility, reality and a great unity of purpose in reaching all peoples with the Gospel.

George Verwer

PS Please feel free to pass this on in any format.

George Verwer
PO Box 17
Bromley, Kent
BR1 3JP UK

Email: george@verwer.om.org or georgev@swissmail.org

Spanish Evangelicals Respond to Catholic Document on "the Church"

From a missiological point of view, I believe it is interesting to be aware of how our national brethren on the “mission field” respond to current events. I myself heartily endorse the following statement from the Spanish Evangelical Alliance, which I have translated from the original Spanish…

With respect to the recent document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on “aspects of church doctrine” which reaffirms that the Church of Christ is one and that it subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, we believe that it treats Protestant Christians as third-class believers. This bothers or worries us very little inasmuch as, for us, the figure of the Pope and the Vatican has a value that does not go beyond that of mere human opinion.

However, with the intent to clarify, we believe it is convenient, as the Spanish Evangelical Alliance, to make the following comments:

1.- This is a repetition of the Vatican declaration "Dominus Iesus" from the year 2000, with perhaps the only shade of difference being a greater doctrinal clarity.

2.- With this document, as we have already mentioned in previous occasions, the monopolizing character of the religious institution that comprises the Church of Rome—for whom the only way that leads to the unity of Christians is not authentic dialogue and the search for truth in the Bible, but rather forming part of the Roman Catholic Church—becomes more evident than ever before.

3.- It is very significant that the document only considers the orthodox churches as “churches,” while it calls those that have sprung forth from the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century simply “Christian communities.” This difference in treatment, which does not surprise us at all, constitutes an evident disdain towards Protestantism that now becomes “official”, being included in a public Vatican document.

4.- We reiterate that, from our perspective, there is only one Christian Church, the one made up of those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior of their life, and the Gospel as a maximum reference point of faith and conduct.

This integral experience (faith and reason) is not the monopoly of any Christian church as a human institution (neither of the evangelical or protestant church), since the Church—just as the Bible says—is a living spiritual body whose head is Christ, not the Pope, nor the religious hierarchy, nor any determined dogmas or traditions.

5.- On the other hand, we offer our maximum respect to an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church, of which we are not a part, and for whom we recognize the right to establish the definitions, norms and doctrines that it considers, according to its understanding, to be correct.

This is not an obstacle for adding, by way of conclusion, that we have always seen so-called ecumenical dialogue as staging based more on gestures directed towards the gallery than a dialogue of true reconciliation. Could it not be that, with this document, even the stage lights themselves are turned off?

Signed: Pablo Martínez Vila (President of the Spanish Evangelical Alliance); José de Segovia (President of the Theology Commission of the Spanish Evangelical Alliance); and Pedro Tarquis (Spokesperson of the Spanish Evangelical Alliance)

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #8

A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

Inasmuch as my last letter was a bit on the lengthy side, this one will be a bit briefer than usual. The reason for this is, primarily, I don’t have a whole lot with which to contend in what you say in your last letter.

I certainly agree with you, for instance, that the “end-visioning” process must be subject to the dictates of Scripture, just as I indicated when I first alluded to it: “‘end-visioning’ involves envisioning, before God, out of a framework instructed by Scripture…”

Also, while I maintain my opinion regarding Carroll’s understanding of the universal church, I find nothing with which to object in the quotes you give in your last letter from Andrew Fuller.

I do think it is perhaps a bit unfair to equate Fuller’s use of the term “accommodation” with the modern-day missiological concepts of “contextualization” and “relevancy.” The term “accommodation,” as I understand it, implies a compromise of the truth for the sake of pragmatic expediency. While it is most certainly possible to compromise truth for pragmatic expediency in the name of “contextualization” and “relevancy,” I do not believe it is necessary. As missionaries, one of the primary practices we must seek to maintain is to divide correctly between eternal, unchanging principles and guidelines of the Word of God, and cultural applications of these same principles, which will almost always vary from context to context.

I would agree with you, however, in placing the general principles from 1 Cor. 14—“Let all things be done to edifying,” and “Let all things be done decently, and in order”—in the first category. I would also agree that, while the actual methods used for communicating this relationship and commitment may vary between cultural contexts, there is a very real sense in which a local church does indeed “covenant” together to carry out the various “one another” admonitions of the New Testament. Where I am not sure if you agree with me on this, and where I would go even further, is in saying that, as members of the universal church, we also have an implicit “covenant” relationship one with another, and a corresponding responsibility to carry out the same reciprocal attitudes and practices with each other.

I would also agree with you and Fuller regarding the need to submit to the positive rules of Scripture, such as those related to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. By no means would I want to give the idea that our practice regarding such things is entirely a matter of personal preference.

If there is a real difference in what we are saying on the specific points referenced in your last letter, it seems to me it is, more than anything, a matter of emphasis. You seem to want to emphasize the local aspect of the church, while, at the same time, if I am interpreting you fairly, downplay the universal aspect. My aim, however, is not to downplay the importance of the local church, and church planting, in the task of obeying the Great Commission, but rather to give proper emphasis to the place of the universal church and Christian unity, which, due perhaps, in part, to the influence of Landmarkism in our Southern Baptist heritage, and the ecclesiology of some of our forefathers, such as Carroll, has, at times, languished. I am especially concerned, in light of what I consider to be biblical teaching on Christian unity, by traces I have observed of two related but different tendencies that might best be described by the terms “denominational isolationism” and “denominational imperialism.”

I am very much encouraged, however, by your reply to Tim Cook in the comment string of Letter #5. Although it still seems that we have a different understanding of the present-day reality of the universal church, we can at least agree that our union in Christ as fellow believers “means that we must seek ways to cooperate with one another.” I think I am not making too big of an assumption to conclude this includes not only fellow Baptists, but also all others who have truly entered into union with Christ by grace through faith, by virtue of the sacrificial atonement of Jesus at Calvary.

Such being the case, I am optimistic that perhaps our real differences on these issues are not at a foundational level, but rather in different understandings of the best way, in practical day-to-day situations, of how to apply these principles.

Perhaps the most problematic part of your last letter for me, however, is found in the wording of the last paragraph, especially your statement: “I would state emphatically that the local church is the only body that Christ has established to proclaim the Word that saves the world.” Perhaps, I am not understanding you correctly. But it seems to me that you are here, in essence, disqualifying the missological legitimacy of all so-called “para-church” organizations. If such is not the case, I would be very open to consider your alternative explanation. For the meantime, though, I must withhold my definitive response to your question, until I feel I have a better grasp of the implications involved.

Having said that, I understand you would like to move the direction of our conversation towards a more direct consideration of Matthew 28:16-20. That sounds like a great idea to me. I will allow you to propose the specific matters to be discussed from this passage in your next letter.

Blessings,

David

Introduction

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

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

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #7

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

Dear David,

The length and subject matter of your last letter will delay the examination of the biblical evidence for the Lord’s command traditionally known as the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20). Your letter raises more issues than I can answer in our agreed format, so I will not respond point-by-point, but to the general idea you raise. It is striking that the conversation transitioned from the concrete reality of the local churches to the eschatological reality of the universal church. I would like to address the concepts you have offered and then ask a question. (We will not address your interesting interpretation of Dagg.)

You introduced a strategic process utilized by the International Mission Board [IMB] called “end-visioning.” Envisioning the means to a goal is certainly one way to organize human efforts, and somewhat acceptable for church matters, but only if the humanly-derived means chosen do not contradict or detract from divinely-ordained means. Since you do not accept the ecclesiology, at least with regard to the universal church, exposited from Scripture by the founder of your alma mater, perhaps you will allow me to draw upon the pastor-theologian who shepherded the modern missions movement. Surely, we can both agree with him in describing what is normative and what is dispensable in the missionary effort.

Andrew Fuller held the rope of support that allowed William Carey to take that half-year journey to India that began the modern world missionary movement. According to one biographer, “the work of his life was the organization, management, and support of the Baptist Missionary Society,” the first body of its type. In April 1804, Fuller addressed some issues regarding church planting for the Brethren at Serampore (“Thoughts on the Principles,” in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 3:451-59). Fuller recognized that some issues Christians face today are not directly addressed in Scripture. However, this does not mean we are entirely free to improvise according to the “very defective and erroneous” ideas of fallible men. “Some, under the pretence of accommodating Christianity to times and circumstances, may render it a mere temporizing system, to be just what its professors may find it their interest or their inclination to have it be.” What Fuller calls “accommodation,” we often call “contextualization” or “relevancy,” useful concepts subject to misuse. The head of the first Baptist missionary agency warned that, “if men will abuse it, they must take the consequence.”

Fuller advised the Indian churches on the basis of Scripture. He began by affirming that there are “general outlines or principles” revealed in the New Testament for planting churches. These general principles are derived from 1 Corinthians 14: “Let all things be done to edifying.—Let all things be done decently, and in order.” In other words, our methodological decisions should be driven by edification, building up individuals in the holy faith; decency, in relating to one another and the world; and, orderliness, properly organizing ourselves for worship and witness. He notes that the first churches were begun with edification, decency, and order: “When a number of Christians agreed to walk together in the faith and order of the gospel, they became a Christian church.” (Although he does not use the word, “covenant,” there is little doubt this was in mind.)

Fuller was also very clear that the New Testament actually offers positive rules that must be followed. In other words, a church must follow specific rules established by God in addition to the general principles He established. Only when the Lord’s rules and principles are obeyed does freedom come to innovate. With regard to specific rules, Fuller says, “On the other hand, there are some things pertaining to the Christian church which are entirely positive; and, being clearly revealed, require to be obeyed with the same punctilious regard to the ‘pattern’ given as was observed by Moses in constructing the tabernacle. Such are baptism and the Lord’s supper. They were ‘ordinances’ of God, and required to be kept ‘as they were delivered,’ Matt. iii.5; Luke i.6; 1 Cor. xi.2.” Fuller brooked no deviation from the New Testament methodology.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are two examples of means or methods that are not up for innovation or dismissal. Baptists have long believed that we must follow Christ’s commands, not according to our preferences, but according to Christ’s instructions and the apostolic example, as revealed only in the Bible. This is why we plant churches, baptize only believers, do not serve the Lord’s Supper to unbelievers or those under discipline, and are adamant about the verbal proclamation of God’s Word to a lost world. These practices are not subject to negotiation: they are commanded! Fuller again: “In whatsoever therefore the Lord hath condescended to instruct us, we are not at liberty to prefer what may appear fit and right to us….”

Envision (if you so desire, while being careful of the source of the vision), but (if ever so tempted) please do not neglect the necessary means established by Scripture. Fuller apparently never addressed the priority of local churches versus the universal church, because he and the missionaries he led were focused upon planting local churches, not the amorphous construction of an invisible church. The envisioning approach you have raised was simply not in their vocabulary, because of their desire to obey His Word. “Again, The first missionaries to a heathen country would be employed in the planting of churches, wherever proper materials were found for the purpose….” They believed that missionaries are sent to plant churches composed of “proper materials” (i.e. converts). Emphasizing the universal church as the primary goal of the missionary’s efforts, while downplaying a focus upon planting local churches, is a recent innovation. One wonders how we can know that the proper materials of the universal church are really there, if local churches do not result from a missionary’s work.

We cannot dispense with the necessary means ordained by Jesus Christ in order to meet the end we envision, even if we believe it is His end. An emphasis on the universal church may just be a preliminary matter, while your primary emphasis is upon the local church, but the drift of our conversation is misleading, if that is the case. David, let us affirm the existence of the universal church, just as the Baptist Faith and Message unambiguously does. However, let us not lose our focus upon the local church while we affirm the universal church. You believe the local church is “a tool…(albeit a very important one).” I would state emphatically that the local church is the only body that Christ has established to proclaim the Word that saves the world. It is not one among many tools but the necessary and unique body that should receive the minister’s care. Should it not?

In Christ,

Malcolm

Introduction

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

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

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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