Sunday, June 10, 2007

The Baptist Renaissance

This morning I have this quote from 1VP candidate David Rogers:

…At the same time, it would appear a certain sector within Southern Baptist life has taken on the mission to accentuate everything that distinguishes Baptists from other evangelical Christians to such a degree that our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted.
David's words, coming as they have within the last few hours, provide the perfect starting point for my final pre-convention post on this blog. I appreciate everyone's patience with my silence of late. I'll have to tell you about the funeral sometime.

I Support a Renewal of Baptist Identity

I received a kind comment from OKPreacher (his screen name a reference to geography, I am certain, rather than to homiletical prowess). The comment was on yesterday's post, but it was clearly anticipative of this post. That gives me a chance to reply to a comment in the original post—not something you get to do every day!
Bart, I appreciate your blog and everything you have to say. My concern is that we as Southern Baptists arn't focused on the most important problems facing us. For example, a renewal of baptist identity isn't going to help us reach more people for Christ. I would encourage a renewal of Christian identity amoung Baptists and all who claim to be Christians. From what I have experienced as a pastor is that most Southern Baptist members don't understand what it means to be a Christian. They don't understand the very basics of how to grow as a Christian. Sure they say they believe the Bible is inerrant and they give to the Lottie Moon Offering, but for them being a Christian is going to church on Sundays. Until we have a renewal of Christian identity, who cares about baptist identity. When Jesus raptures His church, it won't just be baptists going. Lets focus on what is really needed, a Christian identity that results in bring billions of people into God's Kingdom.
This brother and I agree more than perhaps either of us recognizes. I support a renewal of Baptist identity because it is precisely what we need in order to focus on the most important problems facing us and to renew our Christian identity. The heart of the Baptist movement is a desire for congregational authenticity and purity, coupled with a belief that the New Testament contains instructions for having just such a church. One key theological basis for Baptist practice is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—particularly the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the church. The seventeenth century Baptists mostly came to Baptist life from Anglicanism, convinced that the ills of the state church were the result of a church led by lost people who therefore were disconnected from the Holy Spirit. The problems of churches in the seventeenth century were the problems of the world around them. The Baptists saw the solution in the construction of (to quote Roger Williams), a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." In other words, the world ought to be able to see a clear difference between itself and the church. In their quest for authenticity, the Baptists concluded that authentic leadership was not enough to produce an authentic church. Authenticity must extend to the church's membership. The New Testament congregations were fellowships of professed believers only. The very grounds of New Testament unity were devotion to the teaching of the apostles (preserved for us in the Bible), their common immersion, their gathering at the common table, their shared contribution and labor in the common mission, etc. While recognizing and availing themselves of strong pastoral leadership (have you successfully talked your entire congregation into moving to another country together?), they made the work of the church pertain to its every member. I agree with OKPreacher that there are many Southern Baptists who "don't understand what it means to be a Christian." Indeed, I would assert that there are many Southern Baptists who are not Christians. This is precisely why we need a renewal of Baptist identity. Tom Ascol's resolution on Integrity in Church Membership needs to be enhanced to incorporate language about believer's baptism—one indispensible part of maintaining a regenerate church membership—but I think something like Dr. Ascol's resolution exemplifies an important manner in which we need a renewal of Baptist identity. The fact that such a resolution might not receive unanimous support in the SBC is powerful evidence of our problem; however, the fact that so many people would support it is a strong reason for hope in our future. I hope that it passes with some mention of believer's baptism this year. So (forgive me some measure of oversimplification) Baptist identity boils down to a congregation of believers empowered by the Holy Spirit for 100% participation in the church's mission. Nobody on the bench. I believe that it is the God-endorsed, Bible-prescribed tonic for what ails us. I just can't believe that we are considering the election of a First Vice-President who publicly disagrees with The Baptist Faith & Message and whose primary concern is that we might be too Baptist. Why would someone worried about too much emphasis upon being Baptist even want to be an officer of a Baptist organization? Aren't there enough generically evangelical organizations in the world that need a vice president? I love David and have greatly enjoyed our intermittent conversation over the past year, but his quote just befuddles me to no end.

I Support Biblical Christian Unity

...which is something altogether different from ecumenism (even in its evangelical variant). What is biblical Christian unity? I agree with The Baptist Faith & Message.
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..
I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, what is it that impedes a people from prevailing spiritually? Does the fact that there is a Methodist church across town keep your church from being what it ought to be? Not at all. Does the fact that brothers and sisters within your congregation bicker and fuss ever get in the way of your church's effectiveness? You bet it does. That's where we see a breach of Christian unity. We need to focus on inter-congregational unity, not neo-ecumenical schemes like the "city church." Running headlong after ecumenical entanglements will only make things worse—every ecumenical movement in history has had as its ultimate result the further fracture of the Body of Christ (Church of Christ, anyone?). Until we are ready to be united in sound biblical doctrine, we are not ready to be united. Our source of cooperative unity has always been doctrine, not missions. Roman Catholics were busy about missions before modern Baptists emerged, but we didn't unify with them. The Anglican Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was around for nearly a century before Baptists formed the Baptist Missionary Society. Congregationalists had organized for missions in America before the Baptists. If missions is the basis for our unity, then why did we create separate missionary bodies rather than just joining up with these groups? Because they weren't Baptist…that's why. Many Baptists (and put my name at the top of the list) are not going to foot the bill to plant Presbyterian churches, Methodist churches, Anglican churches, or Pentecostal churches. That is our historic position. If the planting of these kinds of churches is a worthwhile effort on our part, then we have sinned and are schismatics for forming anything like the Southern Baptist Convention to begin with. If we should be unified with them today, we should have been unified with them all along. Indeed, many of them were far closer to orthodoxy then in 1845 they are right now. I agree with the BF&M—let us cooperate with other Christians on any and all things that do not compromise our convictions. If that is why David means by "our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ", then I do not see how any renewal of our Baptist identity could ever endanger this kind of cooperation. If David means something else thereby, I would like to know exactly what he means, and how it fits in with what the BF&M has to say on the subject.

27 comments:

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Bro. Bart, amen. And amen again. Put my name on that list as well.

peter lumpkins said...

Bart,

I cannot express any stronger my full support of your position here. On Wade's blog sometime ago, a commenter actually wrote back to me that he not only welcomed but "prayed for the demise of the Southern Baptist Convention" out of his concern, as I recall, to see "Jesus alone" lifted up. My heart sank as others wrote similarly.

Also, this new identity toward which the Enid visioneers are attempting to steer us, at least from what I gather from their rhetoric, coincides precisely with David's apparent lament that "our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted." Hence, I too look forward to David's fuller exposition on this.

Grace, Bart. With that, I am...

Peter

GuyMuse said...

I agree with the David Rogers statement, OKPreacher's quote, and your definition of Baptist identity, "Baptist identity boils down to a congregation of believers empowered by the Holy Spirit for 100% participation in the church's mission. Nobody on the bench. I believe that it is the God-endorsed, Bible-prescribed tonic for what ails us."

What you have chosen to write before/after each of the above three quotes appears a bit overweighted in the direction of putting "Baptist Identity" before "Kingdom Identify." Last time I read Matthew 6, Jesus says to seek FIRST his Kingdom. Our identity is in Christ and in His Body, not in being Baptist.

If you would have just quoted the above three statements by David, OKPreacher, and yourself, and let them stand on their own merits, this would have been an excellent post!

R. L. Vaughn said...

Bart: If the planting of these kinds of churches [Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal. etc.] is a worthwhile effort on our part, then we have sinned and are schismatics for forming anything like the Southern Baptist Convention to begin with.

Not only that, if Baptists should be joining in planting non-Baptist churches, it is hard to logically explain why any Baptists should exist at all. They would be, rather, a schismatic scourge on the body of Christ. [I have no doubt that many feel that way, but it suprising to hear Baptists speak that way.]

Also, when I read a Baptist (not referring to David) say that to stand for Baptist identity is to "stand for something less than" Jesus Christ, I do not understand why a person who believes that would even want to identified as a Baptist.

Alan Cross said...

Bart,

I agree with most of what you have to say here, and, while not being able to speak for another, I think that David does as well. I have read most of his writings and I really believe that you are creating a false dichotomy between your position and his. It is possible to say what David is saying and what you are saying (in the first part of your post, at least) without being in contradiction.

David corrected me the other day about downplaying the distinction between denominations when he thought that I was advocating that in a post on Christian unity and essentials. He argued quite vigorously for Baptist distinctives. I was not saying what he thought that I was saying because I was working off the assumption of 1st and 2nd tier agreement (understanding that my audience was primarily Baptist). So, he took me to task when he thought that I was doing what you are now accusing him of doing. And, he was very persistent about it.

I believe that your judgments of David have gone too far. In my opinion, David is talking about working with Great Commission Christians on some levels to see the gospel go to the ends of the earth because the task is too large for us alone. It is possible to do that and still maintain Baptist distinctives. If we cannot work with anyone else in our city or for evangelism, then we ARE no better than the Church of Christ. Just because we believe that we are the most doctrinally correct does not mean that we eschew all cooperation with other Christians on certain levels.

I understand that you are trying to paint David with a brush that favors Jim Richards, but I really think that you are off base here. As we polarize and divide into camps, the greatest thing that could be sacrificed is the truth because we start to see people through a lense.

I basically spent a long time saying that I agree with Guy Muse.

peter lumpkins said...

Alan,

I read David's answer to the paper as did you. Yet, you appear to minimize its impact by appealing to your knowledge of his many other writings. Unfortunately, the newspaper readers do not have such knowledge. Neither do I for that matter. Why not let his answer to the question stand on its own?

In addition, you write that "David is talking about working with Great Commission Christians on some levels...Just because we believe that we are the most doctrinally correct does not mean that we eschew all cooperation with other Christians on certain levels."

Alan, I'm unsure what post you've just commented upon. Bart writes: "let us cooperate with other Christians on any and all things that do not compromise our convictions." Hence, who is advocating sectarianism?

It seems to me, as I read and reread this post, Bart is correct in his concern that if all David meant to communicate was our "working with Great Commission Christians on some levels," as you insist, why would David even mention his concern about accentuating "everything that distinguishes Baptists...that our...unity...with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted."?

For me, Alan, your defense of David's ideas remain confusing, given David's own words. My own guess here is that David's answer seems more to do with diluting who Baptists are than working well with other denominations in global evangelism.

Finally, Alan, even if Bart was "trying to paint David with a brush that favors Jim Richards,"--which it remains unclear he was-- we recall that David has earlier received his fresh coat of paint from our friend BSC.

Hope you have a good evening.

With that, I am...

Peter

Alan Cross said...

Peter,

David is ministering in an international environment with many other groups. He is far away from Southern Baptist power structures. I am sure that that shapes his perspective. If there was any error in his theology and methodology, I am sure that the IMB would have disciplined him long ago. He does have quite a lengthy track record.

I just think that we are seeing everything through a political lense right now. I would rather interpret someone through their whole body of work and true convictions rather than from just a small quote that could speak to any number of contexts.

peter lumpkins said...

Alan,

David is the one who wrote the words (we hope). They should stand on their own. If they do not make sense or do not accurately describe his position, why on earth would he make them to a secular paper of all mediums? How are they going to interpret them?

Now, may I ask you to answer the question I asked: "if all David meant to communicate was our "working with Great Commission Christians on some levels," as you insist, why would David even mention his concern about accentuating "everything that distinguishes Baptists...that our...unity...with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted."?

With that, I am...

Peter

OKpreacher said...

Bart,

Please feel free to consider me a friend to you and to your blog. As far as my name “OKpreacher” it sometimes refers to both, but normally just geography.:) I appreciate your response to my comment and want to add some ideas for our dialogue.

First, if we aren’t careful (it may have already happened) we can view our current upheaval in the Southern Baptist Convention in “us” verses “them” terms. If we give in to this temptation, we will miss the real problem and the real answer to this problem. The real problem is dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years in proclaiming Christ and ministering to the world. A quality of good leadership is dissatisfaction with the status quo, so it shouldn’t be surprising that leaders in our convention are dissatisfied with how things are.

Many areas in SBC life are sources of dissatisfaction. There is dissatisfaction with the number of plateaued churches in the SBC, the number of baptisms decreasing each year, and that there are only 5000 full-time SBC missionaries around the world. The world is growing at a rate that if we don’t do something soon over a billion people will go to hell because they never heard the truth of Christ. Many pastors are dissatisfied that only a third of their members attend church regularly. Face it; we are even dissatisfied with many of the ideas proposed to answer these problems. Most dangerous by far is when we become dissatisfied with each other and no longer respect each other as a child of God.

I don’t know of anything that can solve our dissatisfaction other than a fresh touch of God among Southern Baptists. It has been so long since revival sweep across our denomination that it is easy to forget we need it. Bart, your “tonic” for what ails us is absolutely necessary. God, the Holy Spirit, must empower afresh every Southern Baptist for the purpose of doing work with God. I don’t know if I would call this “Baptist identity” because this has been God’s plan long before there were any Baptists, but as a Baptist I will continue to seek a fresh touch of God for myself, our church, and our denomination.

I know this idea may sound impossible, but if we believe that a fresh empowering of the Holy Spirit is needed then let’s have a SBC prayer convention. Each church can send as many people as possible and let’s pray for God to visit us with His glory. A week given to pray as a denomination for God to touch our denomination would provide a good start to answering our problems.

I encourage everyone at this year’s convention to not focus so much energy on our problems and start focusing on the answer, a fresh touch from God.

OKpreacher

Ben Stratton said...

Bro. Bart,

If the race for 1st Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention on June 12 has anything to do with Baptist identity and doctrine, then the both quotes show why every Southern Baptist should vote for Jim Richards.

On June 12, the Southern Baptist Convention will convene in San Antonio, Texas and will elect a First Vice President. This year two men with very different doctrinal beliefs are running against each other. They are Jim Richards, the Executive Director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and David Rogers a Southern Baptist missionary in Madrid, Spain and the son of the late Adrian Rogers. While both men believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and are actively involved in ministry, their views on the doctrine of the church are polar oppositites. Below in their own words are their views of ecclesiology. Based on this I would encourage every Southern Baptist going to San Antonio to vote for Jim Richards. He believes in historic Baptist ecclesiology and will continue to hold the line for conservative Southern Baptists.

David Rogers' View of the Doctrine of the Church:
"Regarding my own theological positions, it would be unwieldy to go into much depth here, though I believe the salient matters have been treated a bit more fully at one place or another on this blog throughout the course of the past months. In summary, I am in full agreement with the Baptist Faith & Message 2,000, with the exception of one statement in the section on baptism which would seem to advocate "closed communion." I am also convinced that the Scripture teaches a "continualist" approach to spiritual gifts, which includes the possibility of what many call a "private prayer language." While I certainly believe in the local church, I also see an emphasis on the Universal Church in the New Testament in places that I understand many Baptists see more of an emphasis on the local church. I also see no need to consider as invalid the immersion of a sincere believer due to concerns over the doctrinal position of the administrator of the baptism or the administrating church." (Taken from his website http://www.loveeachstone.blogspot.com/ )

Jim Richard's View of the Doctrine of the Church:
"You see baptism is not a personal issue. It is not about “how I feel about my baptism.” It is not just the sincerity of the candidate. I t is about scriptural authority. The question is whether baptismal authority is individual or congregational. Jesus gave the commission to baptize to the local church. If the commission were given to every believer then any 9-year-old girl who was a Christian could baptize her convert in the backyard swimming pool. Jesus vested the authority to baptize in the church. The Baptist Faith and Message says baptism is a church ordinance. The local church is the custodian of the ordinances. Only a New Testament church can administer scriptural baptism. T here are a few identifying marks of a New Testament church. Are all Baptist churches, New Testament churches? Probably not! Are there New Testament churches that are not Baptist churches? Sure, because what makes a New Testament church is what it teaches, not the name over the door. By the way, one of the identifying marks is that a New Testament church will teach security of the believer."

Ron P. said...

Bart,

Excellent post! Amen and Amen.

Ron P.

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Peter, Ron P, Rebecca etc.: I'm wondering why you do not say or ask these things to David Rogers himself. He is accessible.

Ben: Do other Landmarkers support Jim Richards? If so, are there reasons the same as yours?

peter lumpkins said...

Debbie,

Hey girl. I am confused you asked that. After all, I am commenting on Bart's post.

Besides, when a word is given to be published as an official answer to a question as was David's, it does not work to say "You can't understand the answer unless you read everything the author has ever written concerning it or actually speak to him personally about it." I'm reasonably confident the reporter would have given the answer back if it was not clear on its own.

In addition, it is Alan who's taken up Ben's, I mean, David's cause interpreting David for us. Why not suggest he also move over to David's blog? Or, is it since Alan agrees with David, it's O.K for him to stick around and defend his words?

How is your Sabbatical coming? With that, I am...

Peter

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Debbie, that dog just won't hunt for me. While he may be accessible, David relies on others to help out with his answers. I'll stick to this forum.

David Rogers said...

If anyone wants to ask me a specific question on any of this, I check in here from time to time, and am more than willing to give it my best shot. Or, if you prefer, ask over at my blog.

Regarding the comments that I do not speak from my own opinion, I take that as a "low blow." Yes, I ran my answers on the FBW interview by Ben, as he had invited me to a chat conversation, and thought he might have some good advice. I kept the parts that I liked, that I thought added to what I wanted to say, and deleted the parts I didn't like so much. But, I can assure you, I am not afraid to speak for myself. Also, there are points on which I do not see eye to eye with Ben.

Debbie Kaufman said...

"How is your Sabbatical coming? "

Ha ha. What Sabbatical? At least I tried, but you guys are just too busy. :)

peter lumpkins said...

David,

Unfortunately, though not meant to be "low-blows," I am afraid that things you release as "public statements" or "answers" to most any subject will now gain an "I wonder" or a half-cocked eye. It's life, I guess.

As for a question, try Alan's. He never came back to pick it up. I wrote to him:

"if all David meant to communicate was our "working with Great Commission Christians on some levels," as you insist, why would David even mention his concern about accentuating "everything that distinguishes Baptists...that our...unity...with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted."?

Have a great afternoon. I'm out for quite sometime so take your time. You'll be interested to know, I've made arrangements with taps on Ben's phone and a tag on your email. So, no fudging now ;^) Just kidding...

With that, I am...

Peter

With that, I am...

Peter

David Rogers said...

Peter,

I think it is a question of emphasis. I accept the validity of the 2nd tier of Mohler's 3-tier system. However, I think we are faced with a danger of making too many 3rd-tier issues into 2nd-tier issues. And, at times, of talking so much about our "Baptist distinctives" (or 2nd-tier issues) so much that they are confused for 1st-tier issues.

I don't believe when we get to heaven that God is going to ask us how faithful we were to our Baptist distinctives. That doesn't mean that we don't have our beliefs on certain doctrines that differ from the beliefs of other Christians. We shouldn't be asked to deny or give up these beliefs. But, when we make these beliefs, for which other Christians who love the Lord and His Word just as much as we do have other interpretations, become a motive for distancing ourselves from other true believers, or even disparaging them, I believe we have our priorities out of whack.

I discuss these issues more thoroughly in the following series of posts:

here, here, here, here,

peter lumpkins said...

David,

Thanks for the reply. First, David, I'm not sure from whence you're speaking of Dr. Mohler's "system" but I think he may very well take issue with calling his little essay (approx.1,500 words) a "system" for interpreting all issues--even major issues--regarding our faith.

Though, I cannot point to it presently, I think he is already on record lamenting how some have apparently abused his analogy.

Second, nor do I, David, think GOd is going to ask us if we have been good Baptists. But I suspect until that day comes, both the BoT and the SBC have every right to inquire if we've been good Baptists. What is skewed about a *Baptist* Mission Board inquiring of its *Baptist* missionaries, whom they have commissioned for *Baptist* assignments to be funded by *Baptist* monies? I don't get it. Sorry.

Nor do I think sometimes we are talking about the same contextual issues. Who is it that is hindering anyone from associating from other Evangelicals? Bart quoted our BFM to that effect and asserted his unwavering agreement. I concur. And as for "distancing ourselves from other true believers, or even disparaging them" simply makes little sense in light of not only our practise but our confession.

What I think is being suggested is not our relationship being hindered from cooperating with other Evangelicals.

Rather, I think the problem is a diluting of Baptist distinctives *within* the SBC itself. Thus the push for 'charismata' as "valid," "sanctioned" practise of Baptist churches. Now your friends from Enid & beyond are not even satisfied with the BFM.

Wade is on record insisting he'll go toe to toe with anyone who challenges the idea that a Baptist need believe anymore than a)Trinitarian Orthodoxy, b) evangelical faith c) separatism.
Pretty loose definition if you were to ask me. Indeed it fits nicely what George Marsden calls "transdenominational evangelicalism." The problem becomes, David, there are no Baptist distinctives left to accenuate.

With that, I am...

Peter

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Bro. Rogers, no low blow intended. Peter Lumpkins' words convey how I feel. So I'll give him the credit and disengage Microsoft Track Edits :) We do have some things in common, however. I love missionaries.

Anonymous said...

Bart said:

So (forgive me some measure of oversimplification) Baptist identity boils down to a congregation of believers empowered by the Holy Spirit for 100% participation in the church's mission. Nobody on the bench. I believe that it is the God-endorsed, Bible-prescribed tonic for what ails us.

I just can't believe that we are considering the election of a First Vice-President who publicly disagrees with The Baptist Faith & Message and whose primary concern is that we might be too Baptist.

QUESTION FOR DAVID:
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE BF&M --OR-- DO YOU AGREE WITH CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BF&M?

A Simple Student @ SWBTS

Anonymous said...

I meant to ask:
QUESTION FOR DAVID:
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE BF&M --OR-- DO YOU SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BF&M?

A Simple Student @ SWBTS

David Rogers said...

Simple student,

As I have stated numerous times, the only disagreement I have with the BFM is with the following statement in the section on Baptism and the Lord's Supper:

"Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."

My personal view on participation in the Lord's Supper is as follows:

"Upon presiding the Lord’s Supper, I would normally:

1. Explain that, as a Baptist church, we believe that biblical baptism is for believers and by immersion.

2. Explain that, at the same time, we understand there are other Christian groups who study the Bible seriously and come to other conclusions.

3. Explain that, we also believe the Lord’s Supper is a time for believers to examine themselves, to see if they have any unconfessed sin in their lives; and if so, to make it right with God, or with the one they have wronged, before participating.

4. Invite everyone who is truly a born again believer, and who, after examining themselves to see if they have any unconfessed sin in their life (including the sin of disobedience regarding the Lord’s command to be baptized), determine they have confessed and repented of all known sin, and/ or are not currently under discipline from their local congregation banning them from participation, to participate in the Lord’s Supper."

As I understand it, this is a view very, very close, if not identical to that taken by Charles H. Spurgeon.

It seems to me it is also a view that is either similar, or in the case of many, more strict, than that of many, if not most Southern Baptists and Southern Baptist congregations.

Although I completely agree with and embrace everything else in the BFM 2000, and thus have no problem conscience-wise in saying "I do not disagree with the BF & M," I, also, in good conscience, when asked to sign indicating my agreement with the BF & M, have signed with a note or "caveat," indicating my disagreement on this particular item. I feel, for me, this option is more honest than "carte blanche" signing off on everything indiscriminately.

Bart Barber said...

David,

"I do not disagree with the BF&M" but "the only disagreement I have with the BF&M..."?????

Your own words are self-contradictory and nonsensical. It seems to me that you can meaningfully say, "I do not disagree very much with the BF&M."

Also, I am curious to hear how you reconcile the BF&M article on cooperation...particularly the section regarding the meaning of "Christian union" with your own views of evangelical ecumenism and the "city church."

David Rogers said...

Bart,

Do you think it is more accurate to call 99% agreement, and 1% (if that) disagreement, "agreement" or "disagreement"? At least, if anyone has any doubts, I spell out perfectly clearly exactly what I mean.

I don't have any problem at all with the article on "Cooperation." I don't understand why you might think I would.

Anonymous said...

Bart,

Your statement is misleading. Your statement that David disagrees with the BF&M is misleading. It could lead the casual reader to infer that he rejects it completely. In the interest of dispelling confusion, I think that you should consider rephrasing your statement regarding David's belief in the future. As you like to say, let David's words speak for themself.

A Simple Student @ SWBTS