Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 10

As previously noted on this blog, in the year 1806, William Carey had written: "Would it not be possible to have a general association of all denominations of Christians, from the four quarters of the world, held there once in about Ten Years? I earnestly recommend this plan ... I have no doubt but it would be attended with many important effects; we could understand each other better, and more entirely enter into one another's views by two hours' conversation than by two or three years' epistolary correspondence."

Down through the years, there have been various attempts to follow through, in one way or another, with Carey’s recommendation. Arthur P. Johnston writes, in his important book, The Battle for World Evangelism, published in 1978:

"For well over a hundred years the missionary conference has made a great contribution to world evangelism. Christian missionaries have crossed denominational and national lines in every continent to seek inspiration and instruction, in order to better accomplish the task the Lord of the Harvest committed to them. Whether at home or abroad, Christians have gathered together in local churches, as denominations or as individuals concerned with the advance of the Gospel. These conferences have not only provided missionary manpower and financial support on the home front, but missionaries and national leaders of evangelism have also acquired deeper insights into the will and continuing work of the resurrected Lord (Acts 1:1)."

Conferences such as those recommended by Carey, and commented on by Johnston, have occurred, for example, in 1825 in Bombay, 1877 and 1890 in Shanghai, 1888 in London, and 1900 in New York. The World Missionary Council held in 1910 in Edinburgh launched what was to become an increasing ecumenical emphasis, culminating in the formation of the World Council of Churches. In an effort to return to the evangelical roots of the world mission enterprise, two important conferences were held, one in Berlin in 1966, and another in Lausanne in 1974. At the latter conference, the well-known Lausanne Covenant on World Evangelization was adopted, and there was somewhat limited Southern Baptist participation, most signficantly, a strategy paper presented by Keith Parks, on “The Great Commission”.

However, at the Global Consultation on World Evangelization by AD 2000 and Beyond (GCOWE), held in Singapore January 5-8, 1989, Southern Baptist participation came more to the forefront. Keith Parks, by then president of the Foreign Mission Board, addressing the participation of himself and then FMB-vice president, Bill O’Brien, made the following comment, in front of the entire assembly …

There have been one or two references to the Southern Baptist participation here. We Southern Baptists are all delighted to be here. Actually, I do not feel that our coming has been such a dramatic shift from the usual for us, but some may think so.

The following are some significant quotes representing the general spirit of GCOWE…

Luis Bush, President of Partners International, and member of the GCOWE Program Planning Task Force, from Preface: “Working Together Towards 2000” …

Let the barriers between organizations and denominations not keep us from cooperating in the task of world evangelization. The task of world evangelization by the year 2000 is too great for any single organization or denomination to adopt on its own.

From the Great Commission Manifesto, Jan. 8, 1989, Singapore …

…We humbly confess our pride, prejudice, competition and disobedience that have hindered our generation from effectively working at the task of world evangelisation. These sins have impeded God’s desire to spread abroad His gracious provision of eternal salvation through the precious blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. We turn from these sins and failures to express our belief that God has graciously opened to us a window of opportunity for completing the magnificent task He has given us. We boldly seize this crucial moment, more impressed with God’s great power than any force arrayed against us…We see afresh that cooperation and partnership are absolute necessities if the Great Commission is going to be fulfilled by the Year 2000. For the sake of those who are lost and eternally separated from God, we have dared to pray and dream of what might happen if appropriate autonomy of churches and ministries could be balanced with signficant partnership…

Thomas Wang, International Director Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, from “The Call: Cleansing for the Countdown” …

Sometimes when I am asleep, I seem to hear God ringing a bell up in heaven telling the churches of the world, “Gentlemen, time is up pretty soon. It’s time to get serious, to renounce your petty arrogance, pride and prejudice. It’s time to get together, to have open, bigger hearts. It’s time to shift into high gear. You have been delaying for two thousand years. Most of that time you have spent fighting among yourselves—fighting for turn, fighting over ownership, fighting for boundary, fighting for self-exaltation. Gentlemen, it’s time for you to become a little more serious.

From A Kaleidoscopic Global Plan, 3rd edition, November 28, 1988, put together by a Working Group composed of 15 interdenomi- nationally representative members, including David Barrett, an Anglican missions researcher, who in 1985, upon the invitation of Keith Parks, had moved his World Christian Encyclopedia research center to the Foreign Mission Board headquarters; and David Garrison, later to become the author of Church Planting Movements, and a leading strategist at the IMB under Jerry Rankin.

From the section on “GREAT COMMISSION CHRISTIANS” (from what I have been able to gather, and I’m open to correction, the term “Great Commission Christians” first came into widespread use at this conference) …

Accept all Great Commission Christians as co-laborers. We are not going to get anywhere fresh until we realize that we in the churches and agencies do not link up with, and are in fact all out of touch with millions of others who are clearly also Great Commission Christians. We should accept those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, in accordance with the Scriptures, and who desire to bring others to faith in him as well, in obedience to Christ’s Great Commission. We don’t have to judge their discipleship, nor to agree with them on lesser matters. Concentrating on the central matter of obedience to Christ the Lord, with hundreds of millions of others so confessing, we form a mighty “force for evangelism”, one single force of Great Commission Christians dedicated to obeying that Commission.

Seek out new relationships with other Great Commission agencies and networks. Today’s agencies should deliberately seek to relate to other Christian agencies that work to fulfill the Great Commission, especially to those in other countries or in distant parts of the world. We are not talking about harmonizing or coming to terms with other doctrines, dogmas, modes of baptism, theologies, methodologies, missiologies, eschatologies, ecclesiologies, nor mergers nor organic church union. We are not talking about structural mergers or pan-Christian unity. We are talking about Great Commission solidarity in all its forms. We are talking only about cooperating in obedience to the Great Commission and its 7 mandates.

I am thrilled that Southern Baptists were able to play an integral part in GCOWE and the entire AD 2000 movement. As the largest evangelical denomination in the world, with the largest international missions agency, we ought to be represented at these types of events. I also believe very much in the general thrust of this movement, as evidenced by the above-mentioned quotes. However, certain things that transpired at Singapore were not quite to the liking of all Southern Baptists, myself included.

For one, Roman Catholic representatives were given a significant platform, and were to some degree embraced as partners in the task of world evangelization. Read, for example, the personal reflections of conference participant David Kitonga …

One issue was whether consultation participant—including such widely diverse groups as the Catholic AD 2000 Movement and evangelicals working in Latin America—could resolve to work together. The differences in opinion suggested that some evangelicals are sensitive to this issue and prefer to move more cautiously as they consider cooperation with the traditionally non-evangelical groups, such as the Catholics;

and, Luke Heng Sze Chhoa …

During the consultation, a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Gino Henriques from India, expressed his personal experience of renewal through the power of the Holy Spirit and Bible study. He now is actively involved in the promotion of a new-life-in-Christ movement and of Bible studies for the Roman Catholic churches in East Asia. I recall vividly Fr. Henriques’ testimony, which touched many hearts, especially that of the president of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board, who was so moved that he instantaneously embraced Fr. Henriques.

Perhaps even more vexing to many Southern Baptists was the “jab” Keith Parks made in relation to what was later to become known as the Conservative Resurgence, in his message entitled “Bold Mission Thrust” …

In 1976 we launched this “Bold New Thrust,” renewing our commitment to share the gospel in our nation and in our world—just at the time when as a nation we were celebrating our 200th anniversary. The thing started off so well that I personally believe Satan decided he ought to do something about that. Starting in 1979, there developed in our denomination a controversy that has diverted our attention from the main task of sharing the gospel with the world. All of us regret this development and are praying that somehow, in some way, we can have the spiritual maturity to move past arguing and fighting among ourselves in a greater concentration of effort toward winning the world for Christ. Part of our problem has been that our denomination functions in such a fluid way that those who led in shaping the “Bold Mission Thrust” have now moved off the scene. Those who have taken their places were not a part of the original ownership and are not, perhaps, as committed to the concept. The result is spiritual apathy, prayerlessness, and self-centeredness—things we’ve talked about here, which are a real part of our problem in trying to do what we committed ourselves to in terms of the “Bold Mission Thrust.”

I believe it was due in great part to these unfortunate events that Southern Baptist participation in the AD 2000 movement, and cooperation with other evangelical groups for world missions, got somewhat of a “bad rap” with some significant Southern Baptist conservative leaders. Shortly thereafter, Keith Parks would no longer be president of the FMB, and the FMB would become known as the IMB. I, for one, am glad that new leadership, under new president Jerry Rankin, had the vision and presence of mind to not “throw out the baby with the bath water” regarding all of this, so to speak. But I’ll leave that for another post…

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 9

One of the most important Historical Documents for us as Southern Baptists is the Baptist Faith and Message. Most readers of this blog will be aware there are three different versions, adopted subsequently in 1925, 1963, and 2000. Among the issues dealt with in these statements is included the issue of Cooperation, both with other Baptists, as well as with Christians of other denominations.

The reading of the 1963 and 2000 statements on the subject of Cooperation is exactly the same:

XIV. Cooperation

Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

Exodus 17:12; 18:17ff.; Judges 7:21; Ezra 1:3-4; 2:68-69; 5:14-15; Nehemiah 4; 8:1-5; Matthew 10:5-15; 20:1-16; 22:1-10; 28:19-20; Mark 2:3; Luke 10:1ff.; Acts 1:13-14; 2:1ff.; 4:31-37; 13:2-3; 15:1-35; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:5-15; 12; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Galatians 1:6-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Philippians 1:15-18.

On the subject of Cooperation, the 1925 version is only slightly different, and reads as follows:

XXII. Co-Operation

Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure co-operation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over each other or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Individual members of New Testament churches should co-operate with each other, and the churches themselves should co-operate with each other in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent program for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary co-operation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. It is permissable and desirable as between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such co-operation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and his Word as revealed in the New Testament.

Ezra 1:3-4; 2:68-69; 5:14-15; Neh. 4:4-6; 8:1-4; Mal. 3:10; Matt. 10:5-15; 20:1-16; 22:1-10; Acts 1:13-14; 1:21:26; 2:1,41-47; 1 Cor. 1:10-17; 12:11-12; 13; 14:33-34,40; 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:1-15; Eph. 4:1-16; 3 John 1:5-8.

It is clear, on the basis of these statements, that Southern Baptists, in general, believe in cooperation, not only with other Baptists, but as well, with Christians of other denominations. The difference between us may be found in our interpretation of the phrase: "when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament." Certain types of cooperation that, for me, involve "no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament," for you, may indeed involve "violation of conscience" or "compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament." It is thus my understanding, that, while the general concept of cooperation with other Christians, Baptist or otherwise, is indubitably affirmed as a principle accepted by Southern Baptists, the specific application of this principle depends on differing interpretations of the wording of this statement.

It is interesting to me, however, that, in spite of the clear reference in the Baptist Faith and Message, in the article explaining the point on Cooperation written by Southern Seminary Professor on Christian Missions and Evangelism, Mark Terry, and linked on the sbc.net page referencing the Baptist Faith and Message, there is comparatively very little mention to cooperation with believers outside the Southern Baptist Convention.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 8

In 1994, when my wife, Kelly, and I went through IMB orientation, one of the presenters who came to talk to the group of new missionaries was Glenn Iglehart, Director of the Department of Interfaith Witness at the old S.B.C. Home Mission Board. I was frankly a bit surprised and concerned to find out we had someone as openly ecumenical as Iglehart come to speak to us about “Interfaith Witness”. At this time, Jerry Rankin was still quite new at the IMB, and many changes which were to take place later still had not come into force. The following quotes from Iglehart’s chapter on “Ecumenical Concerns among Southern Baptists” in the book Baptists & Ecumenism, edited by Iglehart and William Jerry Boney, give some good background information on Southern Baptist involvement in the ecumenical movement. It is important to remember that this book was published in 1980, before we had really seen a whole lot of the effects of the Conservative Resurgence upon the S.B.C.

Two decades of openness to things ecumenical were launched in 1889 by T. T. Eaton, editor of the Kentucky Baptist state paper, The Western Recorder, and pastor of the Walnut Street Baptist Church in Louisville. Although Episcopal Bishop Charles H. Brent is usually named as the one who first proposed a Faith and Order Conference at the close of the 1910 International Missions Conference, Eaton had made the same proposal eleven years earlier. In an editorial discussing the broadening interest in Christian unity, he stressed that the only path to Christian unity was on the basis of scripture. Therefore, he proposed that “representative men and competent scholars” from the various Christian denominations come together to “consider the differences of belief from the Bible standpoint.” The next summer at the 1890 annual meeting of the S.B.C., the Convention adopted a resolution presented by Eaton suggesting that such a meeting of representative scholars be held, and that the results “be widely published in all denominational papers, so that the Christian public may be thoroughly informed” and that “progress may be made toward true Christian union.” (p. 50)

In 1904, the Convention declined to become involved in the preliminary efforts that led to the formation of the Federal Council of Churches. (p. 51)

The Foreign Mission Board had been a member of the interdenominational Foreign Mission Conference of North America since 1893, but statements adopted in the 1910’s revealed their rising doubts of the value of this ecumenical linkage. After the S.B.C. action in 1919, they stopped sending representatives to the conference that same year. (p. 53)

In 1932, and again in 1937, the Convention declined to send “delegates” to the upcoming World Conference on Faith and Order, citing that the S.B.C. had no ecclesiastical function.

The Foreign Mission Board in 1938 began sending representatives again to the Foreign Mission Conference of North America and continued to do so until dropping out when the Conference went into the N.C.C.C. in 1950.

Having established a precedent in both position and rationale in declining to join conciliar forms of ecumenism, the Southern Baptist Convention used the same pattern in 1938, 1940, and 1948 statements. The 1938 statement was almost a copy of the 1914 Pronouncement. The 1940 and 1948 statements declined invitations to consider membership in the World Council of Churches. (p. 54)

A third event in 1965 that would have a great effect on the future of S.B.C. relationships with other Christians was the creation within the Home Mission Board of a Department of Work Related to Nonevangelicals. This department had an initial focus on four groups: Catholicism, Judaism, world religions, and sectarian movements. Its intent was primarily apologetics, but the writings of its first director, Joseph R. Estes, showed a concern for accuracy and irenicism, especially with Catholics. Baptist publications sought to interpret the new initiatives of Roman Catholics after Vatican II, and to address ecumenical subjects. The interest in ecumenism was further illustrated by the founding of an Ecumenical Institute in 1968 by Wake Forest University, a Baptist school. Brooks Hays, former Arkansas member of Congress, was named its first director. In 1969, the Ecumenical Institute conducted the first Roman Catholic-Southern Baptist dialogue. In their summer meeting of that year, the Baptist World Alliance executive committee established a new standing Commission on Cooperation with Other Christians. Thus in the denomination and within the wider Baptist family, Southern Baptists came to look more carefully at the ecumenical challenge. (p. 56)

Since 1975, the Department of Interfaith Witness of the Home Mission Board has promoted two-church dialogue between SBC and Roman Catholic local congregations. A growing number of churches each year have engaged in these two-session meetings, which include a typical worship service in each congregation followed by a fellowship hour and presentations on the distinctive beliefs of each communion. A follow-up committee representing the two congregations plans for other joint ministries and meetings. In 1979 more than four thousand persons took part in these ecumenical events. (p. 57)

However, the lack of official membership has not meant the total lack of contact between the S.B.C. and the W.C.C. and N.C.C.C. Almost all Convention program agencies engage in professional ecumenical contacts with their counterparts in the conciliar as well as other modes of ecumenical organizations. The W.C.C. Commission on Faith and Order has had S.B.C. members since at least 1961, and there have been S.B.C. observers at all of the recent W.C.C. General Assemblies. There have been occasional S.B.C. observers at meetings of the N.C.C.C. Governing Board. Other examples of agency relations to the N.C.C.C. include: the Home Mission Board’s Language Missions Division has worked with Church World Service in Vietnamese refugee resettlement; the Sunday School Board has been related to the International Sunday School Lessons unit; the Home Mission Board’s Department of Interfaith Witness works with the N.C.C.C. Task Force on Christian-Muslim Relations, and the Advisory Committee on Christian-Jewish Relations; and there are three Southern Baptists on the N.C.C.C. Faith and Order Commission. In all of these relationships, the S.B.C. programs and persons fit into the N.C.C.C.’s provisions for non-member bodies to participate in their interests and programs. (pp. 58-59)

A major catalyst for ecumenical vision and activity among Southern Baptists has been the Department of Interfaith Witness. It has the largest fulltime staff (eight) of any Protestant denomination for trans-denominational and trans-faith relations. Its goals are to share the claims of Christ with the non-Christian, to advocate the importance of personal faith among Christian groups, and to challenge deviations from biblical teaching in Christian sectarian movements. But this activity also promotes genuine ecumenical contacts with Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. The aim of this program is not to make all persons Baptist but to express concern that all might be believing and active Christians. This program is decidedly denominational in orientation but is also openly ecumenical. (p. 59)

As Southern Baptists stand at the threshold of the 1980’s, their diversity is seen in their attitudes and actions related to other Christians. The vast majority are very denominationally oriented, and their energies are totally consumed in channels of mission and ministry solely related to their own denomination at local church, association, state, and national levels. Others, and their number increases slowly, have a broader view of the Christian task and the Christian family with whom they relate, and they are open to relating with other Christians, especially in local communities. Even on the national level, Southern Baptist agencies are gaining more experience and thus more confidence in relating ecumenically to other Christian bodies, which will have long-term effect.

The prospects of membership of the S.B.C. in the N.C.C.C. and W.C.C. are still slim, given the stereotyped image these bodies have in S.B.C. life of being theologically and socially liberal in nature. This will not, however, prevent more contacts and relationships that are felt to be mutually beneficial.

The SBC is built upon a sense of mission, of sharing God’s good news with all persons in the world. That this mission shall be perceived as including the sharing of the Baptist witness with other Christians in other denominations and searching with them for truth beyond any present denominational structure is a hope for which Southern Baptist ecumenists pray. (p. 60)

I think it is important to point out that when I (and I believe many others like me) talk about Baptist cooperation with other Evangelicals in World Missions, I am not talking about ecumenism in the same way Iglehart (and others like him) talk about it. I am talking about cooperation (not ecclesiastical union) with other evangelical groups (not Roman Catholics or liberal Protestants). I certainly do not believe we need to cooperate in evangelism with groups whose official teachings would not lead you on the path to salvation (by grace through faith alone).

I believe it is important to not forget that, at least from certain sectors, up until quite recently, we as Southern Baptists have been dangerously open to ecumenism a la the N.C.C.C. and W.C.C. I, frankly, have been concerned with attitudes on the part of some former co-workers regarding possibilities of working together with Roman Catholics in Spain. I am happy that Dr. Rankin has strongly affirmed the IMB’s commitment towards continuing to view Roman Catholics, as well as any who do not embrace a biblical plan of salvation, as worthy “targets” of our evangelistic efforts.

That is why when someone like Malcom Yarnell suggests that I have embraced “ecumenical ecclesiology” (see previous post) I feel a need to clearly explain what I am talking about.

See also...

SBC Resolution on Missions, May 1912
SBC Resolution on Cooperation with Other Christians, May 1961
SBC Resolution on Southern Baptists and Ecumenism, June 1996

Trustee Jerry Corbaley's Defense of IMB Policy on Tongues

IMB trustee Jerry Corbaley has recently posted on his blog a rather lengthy defense of the new IMB policy disallowing missionary candidates who profess to have a "private prayer language" from missionary service.

I have sent a correspondingly lengthy reply to his comments page, which I hope will soon appear there. In the meantime, I am including my reply as the first comment on this post here (Go to comments).

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 7

From a historical point of view, it would be an error to attribute the proclivity of Southern Baptists towards avoiding cooperation with other evangelical groups solely to the Landmarkist Movement. The Landmarkists, while emphasizing specifically Baptist distinctives, and eschewing cooperation with non-Baptists, have at the same time traditionally defended, more than perhaps anyone, the autonomy of the local church.

Regarding the new IMB policies related to new missionary candidates and "private prayer language", and baptism, it is somewhat ironic that Landmarkism is being referenced as a major influence, in light of comments such as the following by J. R. Graves, in an article pubished in 1858 in The Tennessee Baptist…

We do not believe that the Foreign Board has any right to call upon the missionaries that the churches send to China or Africa, to take a journey to Richmond to be examined touching their experience, call to the ministry, and soundness in the faith. It is a high-handed act, and degrades both the judgment and authority of the Church and presbytery that ordained him, thus practically declaring itself above both.

In light of the recent developments in the IMB, I have been going over recently the book The Southern Baptist Convention and its People 1607-1972, written by Robert A. Baker, and published in 1974 by Broadman Press. One of the chief developments that Baker traces throughout the book is what he calls "denominational consciousness". It is my conviction that this "denominational consciousness", while at many times, directly at odds with Landmarkism, has had the overarching effect of promoting a denominational unity, based many times on common methodology and structures, which largely has come at the expense of a more evangelical unity, based on a common relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and a common commitment to biblical essentials.

Consider, for instance, the following quotes from Baker…

"It will be recalled that the three principal societies in the North were organized in such fashion as to minimize denominationalism while emphasizing the appeal of a particular benevolence. The society method stressed independency; the convention method stressed connectionalism or denominationalism… Had the South simply formed separate benevolent societies for each type of activity, it would have been possible for the various societies, conceived as they were, to relate to one another on the basis of their common task, whether located in the North or the South. It is doubtful that a denominational rigidity would have developed… The organization of a territorial convention, on the other hand, brought a geographical consciousness and a total denominational loyalty, still intensified by sectional passions, into structured form in the South." (pp. 242-43)

"In 1893 the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution which marked the beginning of [the Baptist Young People’s Union of America] in its structure. The resolution recommended that young people form societies that were "strictly Baptistic and denominational and be under the sole authority of the local church without interdenominational affiliation." (p. 275)

"James E. Tull is probably correct in suggesting that Landmark ideas had filtered into the bloodstream of Southern Baptists, for some of them are still evident; but the radical denominational enlargement and concentration beyond the local church level that took place in the early decades of the twentieth century in the structure and functions of the Southern Baptist Convention point unerringly to the disintegration and overbalancing of Landmark views. A strong Landmark undercurrent would have rendered impossible what took place in Southern Baptist organizational life between 1917 and 1972." (p. 284)

"… standardized methods and uniform structural patterns were developed by talented men in leadership and exploited through financial assistance to seminaries and state bodies, magnified in the literature used by almost every Southern Baptist church, and promoted through field workers, study courses, state papers, and all other media of Southern Baptist information. The effect on the life of Southern Baptists can hardly be estimated. New direct leadership was provided at the Convention level and channeled through parallel structures developed in the states and associations for each benevolence (i.e., Sunday School, Training Union, Vacation Bible School, etc.) so that churches were provided patterns, motivation, and nearby assistance in the promotion of all of these areas of service. These were large factors in developing the denominational consciousness of Southern Baptists that tied them to the structures, methods, and doctrines of the Southern Baptist Convention." (p. 296)

"Reference has already been made to the unifying effect of the work of the Sunday School Board. Another significant factor was Woman’s Missionary Union. Following the organization of their general body in 1888, they rapidly became a substantial cohesive force in their state and Convention-wide programs of devotion, missionary education, enlistment in missionary activity, and promotion. The impact of these and other influences on the constituency of the Southern Baptist Convention, unifying all of their denominational loyalties in a single general body and interlacing their religious activities in common denominational patterns, can explain the reluctance of Southern Baptist people to affiliate with even other Baptist churches of the same general doctrinal stance in states outside of the South." (p. 337)

What is my point in this post? To defend Landmarkism? No, I definitely do not believe that Landmarkism is the direction we need to go as Southern Baptists. However, at the same time, I recently added my name to the list of "adjunct signees" of the Memphis Declaration, indicating my agreement (along with the rest of the statement) with Point 6, a point most avowed Landmarkists would gladly sign as well:

We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.

Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.

My point is, it doesn’t matter if you are Landmarkist or Denominationalist, if your views on ecclesiology keep you from strategic cooperation and fellowship with other born-again, biblically conservative, evangelical Christians, you are going against the wishes of our Lord expressed in John 17.20-23 and 1 Corinthians 1.10-17, and may well be more of an obstacle than a help in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

State Baptist Newspaper Editorials

Just in case you missed them, here are a few links to some recent editorials on issues of interest to readers of this blog...

A Tale of Two Baptist Mission Boards by Kentucky Western Recorder editor Trennis Henderson

Rankin not Responsible for Latest IMB Controversy by The Alabama Baptist editor Bob Terry

Will the spirit of Memphis bring a fresh wind to Greensboro? by North Carolina Biblical Recorder editor Tony W. Cartledge

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 6

Roughly about the same time J.R. Graves was promoting "Old Landmarkism" in the United States, another Baptist leader across the ocean was dealing with what he considered to be doctrinal problems in his own denomination in a very different manner. I invite you to read now from Charles H. Spurgeon's sermon The Eternal Name, preached May 27, 1855, at Exeter Hall, Strand, England, the following excerpt...

I am not particularly anxious about my own name, whether that shall endure for ever or not, provided it is recorded in my Master's book. George Whitefield, when asked whether he would found a denomination, said, "No; Brother John Wesley may do as he pleases, but let my name perish; let Christ's name last for ever." Amen to that! Let my name perish; but let Christ's name last for ever. I shall be quite contented for you to go away and forget me. I shall not see the faces of half of you again, I dare say; you may never be persuaded to step within the walls of a conventicle; you will think it perhaps not respectable enough to come to a Baptist meeting. Well, I do not say we are a very respectable people; we don't profess to be; but this one thing we do profess, we love our Bibles; and if it is not respectable to do so, we do not care to be had in esteem. But we do not know that we are so disreputable after all; for I believe, if I may state my own opinion, that if Protestant Christendom were counted out of that door—not merely every real Christian, but every professor—I believe the Paedo-Baptists would have no very great majority to boast of. We are not, after all, such a very small, disreputable sect. Regard us in England, we may be; but take America, and Jamaica, and the West Indies, and include those who are Baptists in principle, though not openly so, and we surrender to none, not even to the established church of this country, in numbers. That, however, we care very little about; for I say of the Baptist name, let it perish, but let Christ's name last for ever. I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. You will say, Why? Because when everybody else sees baptism by immersion, we shall be immersed into all sects, and our sect will be gone. Once give us the predominance, and we are not a sect any longer. A man may be a Churchman, or a Wesleyan, or an Independent, and yet be a Baptist. So that I say, I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ's name last for ever.

While I am at it, I would like to highly recommend the reading of an article on the ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon, which can be found here, and which, incidently, reflects my personal views on the subject almost exactly. As you read each page, be sure to go to the bottom of the page and continue to click forward to the next page until you reach the end of the article. Take my word. I think the entire read will be well worth your time.

Memphis Declaration

Many, if not most of you who read this blog will no doubt already be aware of the "Memphis Declaration" released on Wednesday, May 3, by a group of 31 Southern Baptists concerned about directions within the Convention. For what it's worth, I wanted to publicly say that I wholeheartedly endorse this document, and recommend that you carefully and prayerfully read what it says here.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 5

In relation to recent developments having to do with the International Mission Board, the term "landmarkism" has been getting quite a bit of press. This post will be a bit long, with several different quotes from several different sources. But I believe it is important for understanding issues that we are facing.

In the past month, several bloggers have written from various angles about the topic of "landmarkism", including Wade Burleson, here, here, and here. I do not intend to just rehash what has already been written, but hopefully throw in a few new insights as well.

First of all, here is a quote from J.M. Pendleton's An Old Landmark Reset, the work widely regarded as launching the Landmarkist movement...

In this day of spurious liberality and false charity much is said about evangelical denominations and evangelical churches. What is an evangelical denomination? A denomination whose faith and practice correspond with the gospel. What is an evangelical church? A church formed according to the New Testament model. Pedobaptist denominations, therefore, are not evangelical. Pedobaptist churches, as they are called, are not evangelical. There is supposed to be a wonderful virtue in the epithet evangelical. It is used as a balm for many a wound, as a plaster for many a sore. Its application to a denomination is thought to bring the denomination at once within the pale of respectability and fellowship. It is used with injurious latitude of meaning. It gives currency to many doctrines and practices which deserve emphatic condemnation. "Evangelical Alliances," so called, may, for aught I know, have done some good work; but there is danger lest they infuse greater vitality and energy into the errors of those who enter the co-partnership. The religious nomenclature of the age requires serious revision. It is high time to call things by names expressive of their properties. The language of Ashdod should not be heard within the precincts of Zion. Nor should the language of Zion be employed in describing what belongs to Ashdod. More, perhaps, is meant by "the form of sound words" than most persons imagine. But to return from this apparent parent digression.

It is to be hoped that the day of these Union Meetings is passed away, never to return. It is time for it to be understood that Baptists and Pedobaptists can not "walk together," because they are not "agreed." The impossibility of "walking together" without agreement was recognized in the days of the prophets, and why should there be a vain effort to make an impossibility then a possibility now?

A few comments from me on Pendleton before some other quotes and comments...

In Pendleton's time, the term "evangelical" was not as clearly defined as it is today. Although there is still no universal agreement on what it means to be evangelical, at least we do have some pretty good starting places in the Statements of Faith of organizations such as the World Evangelical Alliance and the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. Although perhaps a bit more justified in Pendleton's time as well, we can no longer make a false dichotomy between "Baptists" and "Pedobaptists" (adherents to infant baptism). Today, there are many "evangelicals" who neither adhere to infant baptism nor choose to identify themselves as "Baptists". In any case, I would disagree with Pendleton's main point that doctrinal errors regarding baptism preclude cooperation in evangelism and missions with groups with whom we as Baptists agree on other essential doctrines.

By far, the most influential leader of the Landmark movement was J.R. Graves. Here are some relevant excerpts from his 1880 treatise, Old Landmarkism: What is it?...

Now the work I have undertaken to accomplish by this "little book" is threefold:

1. To establish the fact in the minds of all, who will give me an impartial hearing, that Baptist churches are the churches of Christ, and that they alone hold, and have alone ever held, and preserved the doctrine of the gospel in all ages since the ascension of Christ.
2. To establish clearly what are the "Old Landmarks," the characteristic principles and policy, of true Baptists in all these ages.
3. To demonstrate, by invincible argument, that treating the ministers of other denominations as the accredited ministers of the gospel, and receiving any of their official acts—preaching or immersion—as scriptural, we do proclaim, louder than we can by words, that their societies are evangelical churches, and their teachings and practices orthodox as our own; and that by so doing we do encourage our own families and the world to enter their societies in preference to Baptist churches, because, with them, the offense of "the cross hath ceased" ...
The name of Old Landmarkers came in this way. In 1854, J. M. Pendleton, of Kentucky, wrote an essay upon this question at my special request, viz.: "Ought Baptists to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers?" which I brought out in tract form, and gave it the title, "An Old Landmark Reset." This calm discussion, which had an immense circulation in the South, was reviewed by many of the leading writers, North and South, and they, by way of reproach called all Baptists "Old Landmarkers" who accepted his conclusions, and the impression was sought to be made that Brother Pendleton and myself were aiming at dividing the denomination and starting a new sect.

From this brief history it will be seen that we, who only deem ourselves "strict Baptists," are not responsible for the name, but our opposers. But that we have no reason to be ashamed of it will be seen by every one who will read this little book. Why should we object to the name "Old Landmarkers," when those ancient Anabaptists, whom we alone represent in this age, were content to be called Cathari and Puritans, which terms mean the same thing as Old Landmarkers? ...

At this writing, January, 1880—and I record it with profound gratitude—there is only one Baptist paper in the South, of the sixteen weeklies, that approve of alien immersion and pulpit affiliation ("The Religious Herald"), while already two papers in the Northern States avow and advocate Landmark principles and practice. I do not believe that there is one association in the whole South that would today indorse an alien immersion as scriptural or valid, and it is a rare thing to see a Pedobaptist or Campbellite in our pulpits, and they are no longer invited to seats in our associations and conventions anywhere South.

The heavy drift of sentiment throughout the whole South, and the "Great West" and Northwest, is strongly in favor of Baptist churches doing their own preaching, ordaining, baptizing, and restricting the participation of the Supper to the members of the local church celebrating it ...

First Inference—That the popular "church-branch theory" is a bald absurdity. That theory, as preached and taught by those who pride themselves upon being "undenominational Christians," is that all these different sects are "branches of the Church." Branch is a relative term, and implies necessarily a trunk or body; but they are unable to tell us what or where the trunk or body of the tree is! But the absurdity of the conception of a tree bearing natural branches of fifteen or twenty different kinds of wood, does not seem to occur to the people or their teachers!

Second Inference—The absurdity of the "church - army theory," which is the popular pulpit illustration with "undenominational preachers." This theory is, that all the different denominations compose but one great army, Christ being the "Captain," and the various sects the regiments, brigades and divisions, and their different creeds the different flags, etc. The illustration breaks down fatally when we remember that the parts of an army are all under the same laws and army regulations, and drilled by the same tactics, and not in conflict, each regiment with every other regiment in the army, as these different denominations, called churches, are—doing the army more deadly harm than the common enemy can do!

Third Inference from the premise is the equal absurdity of the "universal church theory." This theory is, that all the different and opposing sects, taken together, constitute the kingdom of Christ on earth, and all the true Christians in these sects constitute the "invisible, spiritual Church." This theory—of one kingdom, composed of a multitude of discordant elements, irremediably divided against themselves and engaged in destroying each other—is sufficiently noticed above. It is too preposterously absurd to be put forth by men who have any respect for the wisdom of the Divine Founder of the Church. Infidels could wish for no better argument against Christianity. I honestly believe that more infidels are made by those who preach, hold, and teach these absurd and unscriptural church theories than by all the speeches and writings of infidels themselves. Convince a man that it is true that Christ originated all these diverse sects, and is the author of their radically different and mutually destructive faiths, and he must be an infidel or a fool. If they mean invisible kingdom, the reply is, Christ has not two kingdoms or two churches, considered as institutions, for He has but one Bride, and will have but one "wife"—He is not a bigamist ...

It is asserted by the advocates of an "undenominational Christianity," that Baptists and Pedobaptists hold "in common all the fundamental doctrines and essential principles of Christianity, differing only in non-essentials."

This is a thorough misstatement of the known and palpable facts in the case, and calculated to deceive and mislead the unthinking.

Protestants are fundamentally opposed to each other; e.g., the Presbyterians will admit, and openly maintain, that their Calvinism is vitally opposed to the Arminianism of the Methodists, and Methodists will as freely assert that their Arminianism is fundamentally and essentially opposed to Calvinism. Presbyterians hold and teach that Arminianism is subversive of Christianity, and Methodists affirm the same of Calvinism. If one preaches the Gospel, the other certainly does not.

Every sound Baptist in the land will affirm that the fundamental doctrines and principles of Pedobaptism are utterly subversive of the whole system of Christianity. Therefore, it is not true that Baptists and Pedobaptists "hold in common" all the fundamentals of Christianity and are equally evangelical, in doctrine they differ radically.

My comments on Graves...

The arguments of Graves are so complicated and convoluted, it would not be worthwhile to try to make a coherent refutation of them here. Others have already done that much better than I ever could. The main point I wish to make is that the whole of Graves's reasoning seems to be based upon the assumption that it is possible as humans to come upon a near-infallible interpretation of the infallible biblical text, and that we, as Baptists, happen to be the ones who have come upon it.

There are a lot of things about which I am not sure. But I am sure about one thing. And it is this: I am mistaken about a lot of things. This does not in any way mean I have given up hope of discovering truth. But it does help to keep me humble on my path towards the discovery of truth.

I also strongly disagree with Graves's assertion that there is no such thing as a difference between essential and non-essential biblical truth. If this were the case, I would never be able to cooperate with you on anything, and you would never be able to cooperate with me. None of us, except perhaps a few "human robots" out there, agree on 100% of our interpretation of the Bible. However, there are some points of interpretation for me, about which I will not budge, because I consider them to be the very foundation of my faith. You take those away, and I am essentially left with nothing.

Now, before ending this already lengthy post, I would like to leave with you the following insightful comments regarding Landmarkism made by Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George in an article in the May 1999 edition of First Things Journal entitled "Southern Baptist Ghosts"...

In an age of intense denominational conflict, Landmarkism reinforced Baptist tendencies to isolation and separatism. If Baptist churches were the only true churches, it followed that Baptist ministers were the only true ministers, and Baptist "ordinances" the only true sacraments. This had practical implications. Many Baptist churches refused to practice open communion or accept the "alien immersion" of prospective members even from other credo baptist denominations. Many Baptist pastors also refused to hold "pulpit affiliation" with non–Baptist ministers. All of this ran counter to the historic Baptist doctrine of the universal church, invisible and indivisible, the one Body of Christ scattered throughout time as well as space. In his 1849 manual on Church Polity, J. L. Reynolds defined the church in this wider sense: "It is this community of believers, the household of God, the whole family in Heaven and Earth, that constitutes the Holy Catholic Church, the kingdom of Christ in its internal development."

Landmarkism posed a serious challenge to interdenominational cooperation between Baptists and other mainline evangelical traditions. Yet Baptists arguably had benefited more than any other group from the First Great Awakening (1740–1760), an inter denominational extravaganza if ever there was one. Interdenominational cooperation bolstered all the arms—education, benevolence, and missions—of the SBC. This sort of evangelical synergism became increasingly difficult with the rise of Landmarkism (which also coincided with the controversy over slavery, the separation of Northern and Southern Baptists, and the Civil War).

Around the turn of the century, the staunchest Landmark advocates separated from the SBC to form their own denominations, which continue to this day, largely centered in Arkansas and Texas. Many congregations within the SBC still practice closed communion and insist on re–baptizing new members who come from non–Baptist traditions. But the greatest influence of Landmarkism in Southern Baptist life is a deep–seated antipathy to anything that smacks of ecumenism.

The Controversy, however, has posed a new challenge to Baptist isolation and anti–ecumenism. Three of the most nationally visible Southern Baptist leaders over the past thirty years, each of them claimed as allies by SBC conservatives, are Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry, and Charles Colson. Yet each is primarily identified with the larger evangelical, i.e., interdenominational, constituency, not with internal Southern Baptist structures.

How can Southern Baptists with their strong Landmark suspicions relate to the wider evangelical community? One way to understand The Controversy is to see it, in some measure, as the "evangelicalizing" of the SBC. The evidence for this phenomenon is incontestable: the influx of non–SBC evangelical scholars into Baptist seminaries; the changing of the name of the Baptist Sunday School Board to the more generic LifeWay Christian Resources; the presence and high profile of non–Baptist leaders on SBC platforms, e.g., the closing message at the 1998 SBC delivered by Dr. James Dobson, a Nazarene; the aggressive participation of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission as an advocate for the conservative side of the culture wars conflict; new patterns of cooperation between SBC mission boards and evangelical ministries such as Promise Keepers, Campus Crusade for Christ, the National Association of Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, and World Vision.

The cooperation between Southern Baptists and evangelicals signals a new day, but it may also come with a price, namely, the diminution of Baptist identity and a sense of uprootedness from a particular tradition. This concern has been voiced by some SBC moderates who have long resisted the coopting of the SBC by evangelicals. For example, back in 1976, the "Year of the Evangelical" that witnessed the election of born–again President Jimmy Carter, an SBC moderate leader protested the easy identification of Southern Baptists and evangelicals: "We are not evangelicals. That’s a Yankee word. They want to claim us because we are big and successful and growing every year. But we have our own traditions, our own hymns, and more students in our seminaries than they have in all of theirs put together." While this sounds like simple old–fashioned Southern Baptist brag and strut, it reveals a more deep–rooted concern for an evaporating sense of identity in an increasingly post–denominational world.

The ghost of J. R. Graves still stalks the Southern Baptist Zion, forcing a new generation to face old questions about the marks of the church and the limits of Christian fellowship.

And now my closing comments...

I think Dr. George offers some very important insights. Although there may have been a time when it seemed like the "ghost" of landmarkism was no longer with us as Southern Baptists, it indeed seems to be making a last-ditch effort to rise again. I, for one, am glad for the "evangelicalizing" of the SBC. I believe that Biblical Christian unity is more important than a "deep-rooted concern for an evaporating sense of (denominational) identity." I do not believe in an ecumenism that compromises on essential biblical doctrine. And I do not believe we as Baptists necessarily have to give up our convictions on believers' baptism by immersion in order to cooperate with other conservative evangelicals in world missions. Sometimes the exact way of how to best do this may be a bit tricky to find. Sometimes, along the way, it may get "messy". But I believe the alternative is much worse.

BREAKING NEWS!! (updated)

Check it out at friesville::micah fries.

Yesterday when I posted this, I didn't have time to write anything else, but wanted to help get the word out about the good news that the "D's", the couple who had been asked to resign from their missionary job in West Africa by their IMB Regional Leader (see my post The Souls of Pickles and Church Planting in West Africa), have been officially "reinstated to the field" by IMB administration, according to Micah Fries's blog, Friesville.

I will add here the comment I already posted on Micah's blog:

Wonderful news!!! Hopefully this will prove to have been a good test case to show that we as Southern Baptists and IMB, in particular, have indeed left our chequered past of landmarkism behind us. Hopefully those trustees who feel otherwise will see the writing on the wall.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 4

Today's post takes us to the time of the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention. It would appear William Carey’s words regarding “the present divided state of Christendom” and Baptist involvement in world missions (see my last post) were prophetic. Tennessee Tech University student Jennifer Jones Greene, in a research project on the “Rationale for the Formation of the Southern Baptist Convention,” writes the following:

In the mid 1800s, the Baptists were the last of many Protestant denominations to divide into southern and northern factions. On May 8, 1845 there was a meeting held in Augusta, Georgia, of what would soon become known as the Southern Baptist Convention. The eight states of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Kentucky were represented at the meeting. Four more states, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee who were unable to send delegates, dispatched letters expressing their opinions of the separation. It seems the precipitating cause in producing this division had been the refusal of the General Missionary Convention of Baptists, popularly known as the Triennial Convention, to appoint slaveholders as missionaries. Though the "peculiar institution" of slavery appears to have been the cause of this urgent meeting, upon closer examination, one will see that a myriad of causes existed for formation of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

The propensity for division among Baptists in the United States was certainly not a new condition in the mid 1840s. Many issues in the past had been catalysts for division and numerous events had caused ruptures among Baptists. The anti-mission controversy was one of the first disputes to cause a split among the Baptists. Due to the westward movement of the American people during the late 18th century, a new frontier was established. Baptists soon began to see a need to send missionaries to the frontier to proclaim "the glad tidings of salvation to the heathen." This area, already filled with Baptists, seemed to be rich in opportunity, but soon a controversy emerged that would plague the frontier from 1820 to 1840. One of the main reasons for this conflict was jealousy. Frontier preachers were usually uneducated and many times illiterate. When missionaries from the east began to arrive, the frontier preachers feared losing their congregation to their urbane and educated counterparts. As a result, these frontier preachers began to speak to and influence their congregations against missions. Furthermore, the leaders of the anti-mission movement were often Calvinists or hyper-Calvinists and believed it wrong to try to actively evangelize to or convert the lost. They thought missionary societies were unscriptural and were against the man-made establishments of Sunday school and theological seminaries. The antimissionists were also fierce believers in the autonomy of individual churches and feared the control of the more sophisticated eastern churches.

It was in this context of general church division and disagreement over the best ways to join with other churches in supporting missions that the Southern Baptist Convention was born. By 1845, most Baptists in the south came to the conclusion that the best method was the “associational method” as opposed to the “societal method”. This meant a more denominationally-oriented mindset, as opposed to leaving it up to each local congregation to determine for itself how it wanted to invest its mission dollars. Article II of the original Constitution of the SBC reads as follows:

It shall be the design of this Convention to promote Foreign and Domestic Missions, and other important objects connected with the Redeemer’s kingdom, and to combine for this purpose, such portions of the Baptist denomination in the United States, as may desire a general organization for Christian benevolence, which shall fully respect the independence and equal rights of the Churches.

Almost certainly, the most influential person in Baptist life at this time was W. B. Johnson. Tom Nettles writes the following:

No single individual had more to do with determining the nature of the Southern Baptist Convention than W. B. Johnson ... That Johnson was the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention surprised no one who was familiar with his unparalleled qualifications. As early as 1813, when Johnson was about 30, he discussed with Luther Rice the formation of a general body of Baptists to support foreign missions. This discussion later bore fruit in the formation of the General Missionary Convention, known more familiarly as the Triennial Convention … When in 1845 division in the ranks of the General Missionary Convention became inevitable, Johnson, who served as president of that Convention during the years 1841-1844, became a leading figure in the new organization for Baptist in the South. Not only was he elected president of the consultative convention which met in Augusta, May 1845, but he was elected first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, a position he held until 1851.

I have copied below a few relevant excerpts from W. B. Johnson’s 1845 SBC Address to the Public

A painful division has taken place in the missionary operations of the American Baptists. We would explain the origin, the principles and the objects of that division, or the peculiar circumstances in which the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention became necessary. Let not the extent of this disunion be exaggerated. At the present time it involves only the Foreign and Domestic Missions of the denomination ... In particular, a special rule of the Constitution defines who may be missionaries, viz: “Such persons only as are in full communion with some church in our denomination; and who furnish satisfactory evidence of genuine piety, good talents, and fervent zeal for the Redeemer’s cause.” Now, while under this rule the slaveholder has been, in this turn, employed as a missionary, it is not alledged that any other persons that those above described, have been appointed. Moreover, the important post of a superintendent of the education of native missionaries, has been assigned, with universal approbation, to the pastor of one of our largest slaveholding churches ... III. OUR OBJECTS, then are the extension of the Messiah’s kingdom, and the glory of our God. Not disunion with any of his people; not the upholding of any form of human policy, or civil rights; but God’s glory, and Messiah’s increasing reign; in the promotion of which, we find no necessity for relinquishing any of our civil rights. We will never interfere with what is Caesar’s. We will not compromit what is God’s. The objects will appear in detail on the face of our Constitution, and in the proceedings, which accompany this address. They are distributed, at present, between two acting Boards for Foreign and Domestic Missions, having their respective seats at Richmond, Va., and Marion, Ala. We sympathise with the Macedonian cry from every part of the heathen world,--with the low moan, for spiritual aid, of the four millions of half stifled Red Men, our neighbors; with the sons of Ethiopia among us, stretching forth their hands of supplication for the gospel, to God and all his people ... Our eyes and hearts are turned with feeling of parental fondness to Burmah and the Karens; with a zeal in which we are willing to be counselled by God and all considerate men, (but by none else,) to the continent of Africa, and her pernicious fountains of idolatry, oppression and blood, but yet more, with unutterable hope and thankfulness, to China and her providentially opened ports, and teeming thirsty millions ...

A few thoughts of mine...

The issues which face us as Southern Baptists today are not new. We have always struggled with how to best join with other members of the Body of Christ to fulfill the Great Commission. Although there is much in our past for which we should be proud, there is much for which we should be ashamed as well. The 1995 Convention's Resolution on Racial Reconciliation was a big step in the right direction. However, after 161 years of SBC history, we are still working at the objective of "extension of the Messiah’s kingdom, and the glory of our God" while not at the same time falling into the trap of "disunion with any of his people."

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 3

Since the topic of Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions did not really even exist, as such, until then, let's fast-forward past 1700 years of church history, to the year 1792 and our Historical Document for today...

William Carey's An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens.

If you want to read the entire 86 pages, you can do so on-line here. Specifically, in regards to our topic at hand, I would like to highlight the following quote from Sect. V., page 84...

If there is any reason for me to hope that I shall have any influence upon any of my brethren, and fellow Christians, probably it may be more especially amongst them of my own denomination. I would therefore propose that such a society and committee should be formed amongst the particular baptist denomination.

I do not mean by this, in any wise to confine it to one denomination of Christians. I wish with all my heart, that everyone who loves our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, would in some way or other engage in it. But in the present divided state of Christendom, it would be more likely for good to be done by each denomination engaging separately in the work, than if they were to embark in it conjointly. There is room enough for us all, without interfering with each other; and if no unfriendly interference took place, each denomination would bear good will to the other, and wish, and pray for its success, considering it as upon the whole friendly to the great cause of true religion; but if all were intermingled, it is likely their private discords might throw a damp upon their spirits, and much retard their public usefulness.

My comments...

There we have it. The start of specifically "Baptist" work in world missions. And the stated reason for carrying out this work specifically as "Baptists". As I read it, it was not due to any idea that it was inherently better to do it that way, but rather a pragmatic justification, the danger of "private discords" getting in the way of the "public usefulness" of such an enterprise. Carey intimates that "with all (his) heart" he wishes it could be otherwise.

Once in India, he seems to have acted consistently to this desire. Glenn A. Iglehart relates the following:

In 1806, in a letter to Andrew Fuller, Carey proposed a meeting of all Protestant missionary organizations to be held at the Cape of Good Hope every ten years. He asked:

"Would it not be possible to have a general association of all denominations of Christians, from the four quarters of the world, held there once in about Ten Years? I earnestly recommend this plan ... I have no doubt but it would be attended with many important effects; we could understand each other better, and more entirely enter into one another's views by two hours' conversation than by two or three years' epistolary correspondence."

In another letter the same year, referring to missionary efforts, Carey writes:

It is a work indeed in which Christians of all denominations may unite, and have united. The churches in America, have contributed largely to this work.

And he says in another letter, to Robert Ralston, dated December 31, 1827:

The work of conversion has been carried on more or less in most parts of the country, and churches are formed in various places; some of these churches are in our connection, and some in that of other Christian denominations: I rejoice to say that the different denominations of Christians, with one or two trifling exceptions, are of one heart in their exertions, and rejoice in each other’s success.

I would like to think we have in some degree moved beyond "the present divided state of Christendom" to which Carey alluded in his "Enquiry". Indeed, as I hope to show in several documents I plan on posting later, I believe there is good reason to believe we have.

In any case, I think it is instructive that William Carey, the Father of Modern Missions, and one of the leading contributors to the development of Baptist consciousness, seems to have cherished hopes of a different day, a day in which Baptists could join hands with other true disciples of Jesus Christ, in the glorious task of "making disciples of all nations".

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 2

Before moving on to non-biblical and more recent texts, I think there is one more key text, this time from the Apostle Paul, I would be remiss to pass over...

1 Corinthians 1.10-17 (NIV)

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

My comments...

While some might want to argue that all the believers at the time of Paul were essentially "Baptists", I have a hard time swallowing that if Paul were to write this today that he would direct it only to Baptists. And yes, he is talking most directly about divisions in the local church, but I don't think it is a far stretch to apply the principles to the universal church as well.

The vicissitudes of church history have left us with the sobering reality of denominations. I cannot accept, from what I read in this passage, that this is God's perfect will. However, I think we are much better off with denominations than we would be if we were all subject to the Pope and Rome. If my recollection of church history doesn't fail me, a good many, if not most, of the major church reformers never intended to start new denominations. I think the original Anabaptists or English Baptists (whatever your read on history might be) would have been quite surprised (and not necessarily pleasantly so) if they could look down the telescope of time and see something like the SBC today claiming them as their spiritual forefathers. However, the stands that many of these spiritual heroes took were absolutely necessary for their time and religious context.

I also think D. G. Tinder is probably right when he says:

One response has been to oppose denominations and urge all true Christians to leave them and meet simply as churches of Christ, Christian churches, churches of God, disciples, brethren, Bible churches, evangelical churches, and similar inclusive names. Despite obvious appeal in times of denominational confusion, strife, and declension, the reality is that no such movement has anywhere attracted most Christians to itself. Instead this has been just another way of increasing the number of denominations, and sects, usually with the group's reluctance to admit it.

Where does that leave us? Number one, I think we never need to shrink back from believing and teaching what we understand to be Bible doctrine. Number two, we need to avoid being overly idealistic and dogmatic about the supposed evils of our present denominational system. Given the various choices before us now, it is probably the "lesser of the evils". And, number three, we need to be generous in our acceptance of and cooperation with other true, born-again believers who may not answer to the name "Baptist". We need to look for every opportunity, whenever it does not at the same time mean compromising on biblical truth, to minimize "Baptist" distinctives, and maximize evangelical unity.

I also think it is quite interesting, given the current issues in the IMB, that apparently one of the causes of the divisions in Corinth had to do with differing criteria regarding who baptized who.

Still more to come...

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 1

In the days ahead, I plan to post a series of historical documents, accompanied by some brief comments of my own, related to a subject that has been on my mind and heart for a long time: the degree to which we as Southern Baptists cooperate or do not cooperate with other born-again evangelical Christians for the cause of world missions. Those of you who are regular readers of this blog will know this is not the first time I have written about this subject. I have already approached it from several different angles. While it is true that recent developments related to decisions being taken by the IMB Board of Trustees perhaps have brought these issues to the forefront, for me, they are not the latest "hobby horse" I have decided to ride. They are issues about which I have felt and thought deeply for many years.

I considered the possibility of pasting all of the documents and comments together in one gigantic "mega-post". But I have decided it would be more "user-friendly" to post one document at a time, together with its corresponding comments.

On this first post, I would like to start with what, in my opinion, is the most important "document" of all related to this subject: the words of Jesus in His prayer to the Father in John 17.20-23 (NIV)…

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Now, my comments…

I believe it is important to note the vital link that exists in our Lord’s mind between the matters of world evangelization and the unity of His Body. Biblically, they are not separate issues that can be dealt with separately, but rather go hand in hand. When we think of "strategies for world evangelization", to the extent it is correct to talk in those terms, one of the most important ones of all, if I understand this passage correctly, is working towards a greater unity among all true disciples of Christ.

One of the thorny issues related to this is the many different understandings of what this unity our Lord was talking about really means. The traditional Roman Catholic position, for example, is that we as "Protestants" have been primarily responsible for breaking this unity, when we separated from the hierarchy of Rome. I would argue, however, that it was the Church of Rome that initially caused the schism when it disfellowshipped the Donatists in the time of Constantine, while at the same time opening the door for church fellowship to thousands and thousands who had never been truly born again. In more recent times, the World Council of Churches and other "ecumenical" organizations have placed an emphasis on institutional unity. I believe they, for the most part, are following the same path marked by the Church of Rome, in recognizing adherence to a certain organization, rather than a common relationship with God the Father and His Son Jesus, as the basis for unity.

As Southern Baptists, we do not, for the most part, accept either the Roman Catholic or the World Council of Churches definition of unity. I believe we are correct in taking this position. The problem, many times, however, is that, as a result, we tend to push to the side or minimize this question, which is not one of minor importance for our Lord. It would seem that, as Southern Baptists, we are more comfortable talking about unity in the local church, or even denominational unity, than we are unity in the Body of Christ at large. However, it seems clear to me that Jesus here was not referring primarily to either local church or denominational unity.

The bottom line? If we are really serious about doing the will of God and world evangelization, we will need to, at the same time, be deeply concerned about true, biblical unity of the Body of Christ around the the world, down through the centuries, in whatever denomination or organization it may be found.

More to come…

The End of Christendom

I am still looking for some thoughts on the question with which I ended my last post: "Does the Bible really give us solid footing for continuing to have hope for Europe?"

In the meantime, I thought the following quote from the book The Church is Bigger than you Think, by Patrick Johnstone, would give some good food for thought...

The End of Christendom

Christendom itself as an ideology is flawed and failing fast too. The rapid marginalization of the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage and also the failure of Christians to preserve their privileged position are patently obvious to the Western world. We are being compelled to return to a much more biblical and radical position - that of being a minority in the world but not of it. Few Christians are aware that the 1,700 years of a politicized Christianity as the ideology of the ruling elite are rapidly drawing to a close. Whether we like it or not, the concept of the imperial Church dominated the thinking of Roman Emperors from Constantine onwards through the papacy, the Reformation and the nineteenth century mission movement. Its marks are also visible in the largely Protestant Moral Majority or Religious Right in the USA and the efforts of Russian Orthodoxy to eliminate every alternative religious opinion today. The era of Constantinian Christendom is ending. A Church deprived of political power is freed from the burden of trying to use human power to dominate and influence the world. The time for a more effective mission to the needy world is dawning. We need to recognize this, adapt and seize the opportunities offered. Our reference point is not territorial or church growth aggrandisement, but building a kingdom that is not of this world, yet which will fill the earth as a contrasting alternative society. We need to return to the concept of a pilgrim Church, a Church that will be hated, rejected, despised, persecuted, yet be an incisive, decisive, victorious minority which, one day soon, will be ready for its Heavenly Bridegroom as the perfected Bride. The twenty-first century may be the time when the alternative Church becomes recognized as the real Church.

Christendom is doomed, but the future of biblical Christianity is bright. It is taking us a long time to perceive this. We need to stop mourning the decline of Christianity in Europe and many parts of the West, and realize that the coming of Christianity did not convert Europe, but "baptized" the paganism that still has to be adequately confronted with the claims of Christ. The Europe of today has reverted to attitudes that prevailed in time of the early Church. Europe's secularism, unashamed sinfulness, infatuation with neo-Hinduist New Age thinking and occultism needs to be confronted once more, as in the first centuries of the Church, by a Christianity unafraid to love and win those who persecute it.

Hope for Europe?

I just got back from our week-long region-wide conference in Germany. It was wonderful to see old friends, and meet many new ones. It was also great to learn about what colleagues are doing all across Europe to reach their respective "target people groups" with the Gospel and facilitate Church Planting Movements among them. Being there, several things struck me...

1. Our IMB leadership really supports us in what we are doing. This includes, in our Western Europe region, all levels of administration, from Jerry Rankin, to Gordon Fort (Vice President for Overseas Operations), to our entire Regional Leadership Team. It was especially refreshing to hear Jerry Rankin address our entire region, and speak quite openly about the tensions within the organization related to recent decisions by the Board of Trustees. One important thing he noted, in light of recent posts on several blogs (and this one too), was that "New Directions" was voted on and approved by the Board of Trustees back in 1997. Accordingly, he emphatically assured us that we as an organization will continue to work with other GCCs. We are not going back on that.

2. It was also significant, in my opinion, to see the overwhelming groundwell of support from IMB field missionaries for Dr. Rankin and his leadership. In his address to us, upon the first mention of the recent tensions, and the criticism he has received from some, there was an almost immediate and unanimous spontaneous standing ovation lasting several minutes. I don't think anyone who was there was left with any doubt as to where the vast majority of IMB missionaries stand in regards to Dr. Rankin's leadership and the stands he has taken.

3. I was "blown away" by the dedication, talent and creativity represented by our fellow IMB workers across Western Europe. We have people who are without a doubt on "the cutting edge" of what God is doing, and who are developing and implementing some excellent strategies for reaching their respective people groups.

4. I was also "blown away" by the vast spiritual need of Western Europe. It is evident that we live and work in one of the most spiritually dark and difficult mission fields in the world. There are isolated rays of hope here and there, and places where some "fruit" is being "harvested", and new disciples are being made. But overall, the picture is quite bleak. The truth is, compared with most of the world, we in Western Europe are seeing very little response to our efforts to preach the Gospel.

While on the one hand, at this meeting we were given many motives for encouragement, on the other hand, there are also strong motives for being discouraged about the progress of the work in Western Europe.

Biblically, there are various passages and principles which have traditionally served as motivation for missionaries. Of course, the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is the most cited text, with the reference to making disicples of all nations. There is also the oft-quoted reference in the Gospels to the fields being "ripe unto harvest". And then, we have the vision in Revelation of the multitude gathered around the throne from every nation, tribe, people and language.

Some, such as John Piper, in his classic book, Let the Nations be Glad, have reflected upon the implications of this missiologically. However, I find myself asking many times, how does Western Europe fit in to all of this? The vast majority of the people groups of Western Europe already have at least some born-again believers among them. The vast majority of people in Western Europe also have some knowledge of the Gospel, albeit, in great part, a distorted, spiritually void Gospel.

What I am getting to, and where I would really appreciate any insight any of you might have, is this: does the Bible really give us solid footing for continuing to have hope for Europe? I am aware that our eschatology in many ways shapes our missiology. And not all of us come from the same eschatalogical assumptions. In any case, whatever your eschatology happens to be, as long as you accept the Bible as authoritative, I am interested to hear any insights you may have regarding the hope we can expect as evangelical missionaries in the day in which we live for seeing something more than what we are presently seeing as far as response to the Gospel is concerned in Western Europe...

The Souls of Pickles and Church Planting in West Africa

One of the most referenced (and misinterpreted) quotes of my father, Adrian Rogers, by those who opposed the "Conservative Resurgence" is that SBC seminary professors much teach "whatever they are told to teach. And if we tell them to teach that pickles have souls, then they must teach that pickles have souls!" Of course, the point he was making, and with which I agree, did not have anything to do with whether or not pickles have souls, nor whether or not a small group of people in the SBC ought to be able to dictate what others believe – but rather the need for those who receive their salary from the Cooperative Program to be accountable for their doctrinal views to those who pay their salary: the churches of the SBC.

Not only seminary professors, but also IMB missionaries, NAMB missionaries, and other denominational "employees", in the interest of ethical integrity, should be expected to espouse doctrinal views compatible with the expectations of those who in good faith are giving their money to support their ministries. In the case of cross-cultural missions, however, there is a concurrent need for those responsible for determining whether or not the missionaries are faithfully carrying out the expectations of the Convention to have a good understanding of the contextual nuances that come into play on the mission field.

I would say it is a fairly safe assumption that, among the values Southern Baptists hold near and dear, one is the authority of the Bible, and another is a commitment towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission. These two points are non-negotiables for Southern Baptists, and rightly so. However, there is a good bit of church tradition and cultural framework surrounding the way Baptists have traditionally "done church" in the States that does not necessarily translate so easily in other cultural contexts.

A lot has been said lately about supposed expectations on the part of Southern Baptists that IMB missionaries plant "Baptist churches" on the mission field. Without a doubt, Southern Baptists as a whole expect their missionaries to be doctrinally sound. They are not interested in giving their money in order to export heresy around the world. However, whenever the values of biblical authority and commitment to the Great Commission come into conflict with Southern Baptist cultural tradition, I, for one, have enough confidence in the hearts and minds of the bulk of Southern Baptists to believe that they place greater importance on the first two.

In addition to the recent policies passed to limit appointment of new missionaries to those who do not have a "private prayer language" and who have been baptized in a church which embraces "Baptist distinctives", a new story has recently come out regarding the imminent dismissal of an IMB couple in West Africa, supposedly for joining together in a church planting effort with missionaries from the Christian & Missionary Alliance. (Read more from Marty Duren, on The Natural Outworking of Landmark Influence: The D's; and Micah Fries, on A Doctrine that could Lead to Hell).

Perhaps, as has been suggested to me by some, there may be more to this story than meets the eye. I do not want to judge before all the information is out. However, if, as has been alleged, the real reason behind the request for this couple’s resignation is the expectation that they plant specifically "Baptist" churches instead of "baptistic" churches, I don’t think it is right to just remain quiet.

Bear with me now in a little bit of "foolishness" in order to drive home a point…

If, next week, one of the agencies of the SBC passed a policy saying that each of its employees had to believe that pickles have souls, I, for one, would not just sit quietly by and accept that. To begin with, I would find it hard to believe that the majority of Southern Baptists really did go along with this belief. If, however, it became evident that a good proportion of Southern Baptists were really being led to believe that pickles have souls, I would not just quietly accept that either. I would actively try to persuade Southern Baptists the best I knew how that pickles do not have souls. If, however, it were ever to come to the point where I were convinced that the majority of Southern Baptists, after having carefully weighed the information, came to the conclusion that pickles really do have souls, and thus, required that SBC employees should also believe and teach that pickles have souls, my only honest option would be to resign from the IMB, and look for another group with which to serve that more closely aligned with my personal views.

Back to the couple in West Africa. If they are indeed being told that they can no longer be IMB missionaries, just because they feel the best way to fulfill the Great Commission in their part of the world is through partnering with some CMA missionaries to plant "baptistic" churches, I find it hard to believe that the majority of Southern Baptists, if they understood the context of the situation, would go along with this. If, however, it were to appear that the majority of Southern Baptists really were more interested in propagating the Baptist denomination than seeing the Great Commission fulfilled, I would take it upon myself to join with others in reasoning from Scripture that this is not what the Lord would want, with the hope of changing their minds. If, however, the day were ever to come in which Southern Baptists, as a denomination, were to reach the conclusion that they ought to put a higher priority on culturally-based traditions than obedience to the Word of God and commitment to fulfilling the Great Commission, I personally will be left with no other choice than to look for another group with which to serve.

"Relevant", "Reconstructionist" and "Loving Each Stone"

*If you haven't yet read my last 2 posts, as well as the article by Mark Driscoll referenced in the last post, what I am going to write now will make less sense. I would also recommend the following article by Ed Stetzer of the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board (NAMB), which apparently serves as source material for Driscoll's article: FIRST-PERSON: Understanding the emerging church.

My initial impression (limited by the fact that I am still not all that familiar with Mark Driscoll and his other views) is quite positive of the position taken in his article. I especially identify with the following observation...

If both doctrine and practice are constant, the result is dead orthodoxy, which the Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists are each reacting to in varying degrees. If both doctrine and practice are constantly changing, the result is living heresy, which is where I fear the Revisionist Emergent tribe of the Emerging church is heading. But, if doctrine is constant and practice is always changing, the result is living orthodoxy which I propose is the faithful third way of the Relevants, which I pray remains the predominant way of the Reconstructionists.

As IMB missionaries working in foreign fields, my read is that a good many of us are engaged in a dialogue marked by a tension between the "relevant" and "reconstructionist" streams. As cross-cultural workers, we cannot escape the need to be continually more relevant to the context in which we minister. In some cultures, this need for relevance is experienced in a different cultural milieu than the postmodern one addressed by the Emergent Church movement. In Western Europe, postmodernism is omnipresent, and, as a result, a whole lot of the Emerging Church discussion is very applicable for us.

With New Directions at the IMB, especially in (but not limited to) Western Europe, there has also been a lot of discussion related to new ecclesiological models, such as the "house church" or "simple church". Some missionaries, it would appear, have either crossed the line or are very close to crossing the line to what (if I understand Driscoll and Stetzer correctly) I would call a more "reconstructionist" approach.

My concern, as I think on the metaphor of "loving each stone" and "rebuilding spiritual Zion" is that this "reconstruction" not be undertaken without due appreciation for the larger context of the "building" which has gone on before, as well as that which is going on at present in other "sections of the wall", as it were. To be more specific, I have heard as part of the "simple church" presentation the encouragement to guard new believers and new churches from exposure to older, more traditional models of church, in order to avoid what is termed "contaminated spiritual DNA".

While it is definitely true that we want the new believers and churches to have good models, and to learn evangelism, discipleship, and multiplication as a way of life from the beginning, I am concerned by a tendency of some in the "reconstructionist" stream towards isolating themselves from the larger Body of Christ around them. Here in Spain, for example, it has struck me as signficant how few Spanish evangelical leaders seem to be ready to "jump on the 'house church' bandwagon".

I am by no means meaning to denigrate "house churches". But what I am implying is that it seems to me that when the Holy Spirit moves, in addition to bringing fresh winds of revival, and, at times, new structures and cultural expressions, He is also very concerned with unity in the Body of Christ at large. And, if we, as God's servants, are truly sensitive to His Spirit, we will have a heart for unity as well.

Recommended Reading

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am fairly new to the conversation about Emerging Church, and nowhere remotely close to being an expert.

However, I just came across an online article by Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, in the latest edition of the Criswell Theological Review, that was very helpful for me in getting a basic overview of some of the issues at stake. I was especially aided by the descriptions he gives of three distinct streams within the "Emerging movement": relevants, reconstructionists, and revisionists.

The article is entitled A Pastoral Perpective on the Emergent Church.