Reflections upon Matthew 13:10-17

And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL.
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’
But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”

Since I first encountered it in childhood, this exchange between Jesus and His disciples has fascinated me. In recent years it has accomplished more than that: Jesus' words recorded here have served as a corrective against some of the contemporary Christian writings that I have read and have served as a roadblock on the broad highway that leads away from humility concerning how much we truly comprehend about the Lord. The areas of insight provided by this passage are varied.

Homiletics

"Teach like Jesus," people say. "People will understand you better when you teach like Jesus. Jesus used stories so that His teaching was accessible to everyone. Use more stories. Be more narrative. Teach like Jesus, and you'll bring the world to Christ." I'm indebted to Dr. Adam Dooley for having finally put all of this together for me: Yes, Jesus taught in parables. But He told us why He did so, and His reasons were 180° from the reasons the people give today. Jesus used parables in order to be MISunderstood, not in order to be understood. Parables were a device by which He achieved desired opacity, not transparency.

And, indeed, now that I'm a parent, I see this all the more clearly. There is nothing quite so easy to understand as a simple, direct command. Haven't we all had the experience of trying to lead our children down the pleasant path of a good didactic anecdote, parenting in the path of Sheriff Andy Taylor, using homespun narrative to make some sagacious point—only to find in the end that our children missed the point entirely? Beating around the bush can provide good diplomacy in our relationships, but if the primary objective is to be understood, nothing trumps succinct frankness.

After all, you memorized a²+b²=c², right? Not the whole story of how Pythagoras came to understand the ratio among the sides of a right triangle or the detailed proof of why the formula is true, right? Because, even if occasionally it is less satisfying as an experience, there is nothing more successful than the approach that says, "Here's the formula: Do this and don't worry about why."

So, whenever I use an illustration in my preaching (and I'm going to continue to do so), I do well to keep in mind that illustrations can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied. Good preaching will involve working hard to prevent those bad outcomes for those who hear my sermon illustrations. Stories and parables are, after all, a blessing to those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear. But I should never presume that my sermon is clearer or more helpful just because it has stories in it. Illustrations generally provide entertainment and rapport; exegesis provides clarity.

After all, politicians use LOTS or stories, all the more when they want to keep you from understanding fully just what it is that they are saying.

Soteriology

This passage should give pause to people who get too enthusiastic about their Arminianism. Here you have Christ working to ensure that some people do not hear and understand His message. I think there is room in the passage to wonder whether by the past behavior of the Pharisees and Sadducees they earned for themselves this treatment (after all, Jesus didn't start His ministry this way, and however you understand the "Unpardonable Sin," Jesus was certainly condemning these detractors for it), but undeniable is the depiction of God Incarnate working to ensure that these enemies of the cross do not see, hear, understand, and return. This reads more like reprobation than mere preterition.

This passage should also give pause to people who get too enthusiastic about their monergism. Jesus' actions here are something of an antidote to the way that some people extrapolate the wording of Ephesians 2. You know what I'm talking about: "Apart from the regenerating work of Christ, people are dead in their sins—DEAD I tell you! What can a dead man do to bring himself back to life? NOTHING!!!!!!! And so, salvation is entirely the work of God without any response or activity on the part of the corpse that He quickens."…

…In which case it wouldn't have been necessary for Jesus to do anything at all to obscure His preaching from the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Don't get me wrong: This passage is shot through with the doctrine of election. There are those to whom it has been given to understand. There are those to whom God gives more until they have an abundance, and there are those from whom God takes away everything. There is the blessing of God upon those with the eyes to see. The sovereign hand of God is hard at work here.

But what is also part-and-parcel of this passage is a presumption that the external work of preaching the good news of the Kingdom is not without efficacy. There is a presumption that Jesus' public preaching of the Kingdom, apart from any private, inward, regenerating action of the Spirit, is a dangerous thing to put into the hearing of anyone whom God might have determined not to save. If they will remain lost and condemned, it is expedient for Christ to obscure the good news from their plain hearing.

Living in Post-Ascencion Christianity

Jesus spoke of the blessing that God had given to these disciples by permitting them to live during the days of Jesus' earthly ministry. Abraham and Moses and Isaiah looked longingly toward those days in Galilee. Peter and James and John were more blessed than they.

But take careful note of the basis of that blessing: The blessing comes in the knowing of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Not in being there while Jesus fed multitudes and walked on water and healed the sick and raised the dead. Simply in understanding the truth that He taught.

The truth of the gospel and the presence of Jesus among us was always more important than a front-row seat for the miracle show.

And yet the truth remains equally well for us as for them. We find Jesus talking about the relative advantage of the disciples over those who came before them; but we never read that Jesus called the disciples more blessed than those who would come after them. No, quite to the contrary, we read that WE are even MORE blessed than they were, we who believe without having seen (John 20:29).

We devout Christians live with a temptation toward Era Envy. We tend to think we have missed out because we weren't born in first-century Judea. But to hear Jesus tell it, our opportunity to know the truth Jesus taught and to experience the presence of Jesus through the gospel—and to do so without the crutch of His bodily presence beside us—makes us most blessed of all.

Troubling Questions for Both Sides of the Calvinism Debate

My Question for Fellow Non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists

Not all of our state conventions in the SBC have adopted the BF&M 2000. Cooperative Program money in some of our state conventions still funds institutions where people deny biblical inerrancy and live, in most ways, in a pre-Conservative-Resurgence SBC.

Now, I understand that soteriology is important. I understand that the circumstances of our day make Calvinism a major topic of discussion. But I have to wonder, why is there so much energy available for talking about Calvinism, and, for some people, so much energy available for attacking Calvinism, but there's so little energy for getting state conventions to adopt the BF&M 2000 and for advancing biblical inerrancy in state Baptist conventions?

Do you think that the nature of election is really a more important question than the nature of the Bible? Are your priorities in this matter reflected in the way that you are spending your time and influence? Why are there people in our convention who are bold to attack the Founders but meek to talk about the CBF?

My Question for Calvinistic Southern Baptists

I know that there are churches where, at the moment, search committees would be unlikely to call a candidate who professed to be a Calvinist. However, not infrequently do I hear some of my Calvinistic brethren talk about SBC churches that they either have planted or have led to affirm the Second London Confession or some other decidedly Calvinistic statement of faith. Indeed, Sam Waldron (a scholar I very much enjoy) published in the journal of 9 Marks (an institution I absolutely love) an article entitled "Why (and How) Your Church Should Hold the 1689 Confession." Couldn't that article also be accurately entitled "Why Your Church Should Tell All Non-Calvinist SBCers That They Aren't Welcome Here As Members or Pastors"?

Isn't that going a good bit beyond what anyone has ever done to try to keep Calvinists out of particular SBC pulpits? Basically, if you do that, aren't you constitutionally setting up a church to make certain that no pastors who aren't Calvinists will EVER be considered for that church? If there's a practice afoot of adopting statements of faith in SBC churches to exclude Calvinists forever, I don't know of it.

Now, our churches are autonomous. I'm not questioning whether any church has the RIGHT to adopt Second London…or whatever. Indeed, our churches have the right to leave the convention altogether or even to leave the faith! I believe in local church autonomy and I'm not undermining it at all. Rather, I'm just asking, isn't it a bit disingenuous to complain of exclusionary practices among non-Calvinist SBCers if, at the very same time, you're setting things up in your church to exclude most SBC members and pastors from ever being able to be a part of your church?

If, as a pastor with that kind of local practice, in a national platform you say that Calvinism isn't something that should divide us, but that we should cooperate in spite of differences over Calvinism, I think you're a bit schizophrenic. How can it be terribly important locally—important enough for church schism—and not terribly important nationally?

Conclusion

I love you both. I'm not going to fight about Calvinism. I'm just not. But as a bystander to much of what is going on in the SBC these days, even if these questions are not troubling to you, they are troubling to me. I wish you'd all think about them. If you've got really good answers, I'd love to hear them.

Why I Have Not Signed "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation"

A person or two has noted the absence of my signature on "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation" and has contacted me to learn my thinking. I am planning to produce something more substantive in the days to come as a collaborative effort with several of my peers, but in the interim, I thought it might be beneficial for me to give some of the reasons why I am not among the signatories

1. I take the signing of documents very seriously. Among the greater evils of the pre-CR Southern Baptist Convention was the flippant or downright disingenuous affirmation of statements of faith. Although, if I were to sign the statement, it would not be as any condition of employment or denominational service, I still have come to regard the placement of my signature upon a statement of faith as a matter of personal integrity.

2. I'm trying to know the limits of my own knowledge and intelligence. Tom Clancy once said that the most difficult sentence for a Ph.D. in anything to utter is "I don't know." I think that Clancy has an insight there into human nature, and I concur with the timeless wisdom of Harry Callahan that "A man's got to know his limitations." It's embarrassing for me to admit this. Somebody will doubtless use my words against me. So be it.

   In some elements of the debate over Calvinism I feel some sense of certainty from my own study of the Bible and of Church History. At points I agree with certainty with the Calvinists, and at other points I disagree with certainty with the Calvinists. A third category of doctrinal elements are those for which I am not certain in one way or the other. I may have leanings, but leanings alone will not bring about my signature on a doctrinal statement.

   I freely confess that the certainty of other people in areas where I am uncertain may very well indicate that those people are more intelligent and more informed than I am. When I read debates over the philosophical grounding of truth claims related to middle knowledge in Molinism, my head hurts. Other people consider this to be light reading.

   And so, upon reading the statement, I encountered statements that I felt went beyond my own level of certainty and comfort. I'm not smart enough to be a participant in some of these discussions. For this reason, among others, I have not signed the statement.

3. Although I do not believe that Calvinism has adequately comprehended the relationship between election and God's foreknowledge, I do believe that election is personal. The statement seems to me to emphasize the plan of salvation and the person of Christ as that which was elected. I acknowledge this as a mainstream option held by people whom I respect who are precious and valuable to me. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the usage of "the elect" as a noun in the New Testament seems to point toward the conglomeration of individuals who have been redeemed. And so, although my view of election is not Calvinistic, I do not know that this particular statement articulates it well. Or perhaps it does, and I misunderstand it (see the previous point).

4. Although Article Two has received the most criticism, that article does not pose a difficulty for me. Allow me to elaborate. First of all, as prophesied in Jeremiah 31, I believe that it is a feature of the New Covenant that people face condemnation for their own actions and not for the actions of any others (explicitly not because of their ancestry). This same principle is reiterated by Christ Himself in John 3:18-21, where Jesus identified the grounds of judgment for condemned humanity as their rejection of the Light, the only begotten Son of God. The rejection of Christ is something that each person does for himself, and in the New Covenant, I do not believe that anyone's teeth are set on edge by the sour grapes of his or her father.

   What about Romans 5? Well, I do believe that all die in Adam. The consequences of the Fall are ubiquitous. Death itself, the very thing mentioned in Romans 5, is among them. Romans 5:12 does seem to say that death spread to all men because all men sinned. It seems explicitly to contradict those who deny that "we are all sinners because we all sin." Romans 5:12 tells us that death has spread to us all because we all have sinned.

   Frankly, I've never heard or read an explanation of Romans 5 that made sense to me. Consider, for example, the way that Romans 5:15 seems clearly to indicate that the spread from one to many of the death in Adam is inferior to—less abundant than—the spread of the free gift from the one to many. And yet the spread of death from Adam is ubiquitous, while the spread of the gospel is not…is lesser than the spread of death in extent. There are portions of Romans 5 that read much like universalism, and yet universalism is clearly not the teaching of the New Testament. If you wanted to make a Calvinist of me, I think a great starting place would be for somebody to give me a coherent, convincing analysis of Romans 5, but I've certainly not seen one yet that wasn't more convoluted than a half-hour game of Twister (and that goes for non-Calvinist analyses, as well). There's no clear statement in Romans 5 that eternal damnation comes to infants because of the sin of Adam. Death? Yes, and that certainly because of Adam's sin. Eternal damnation to Hell? Romans 5 doesn't say so explicitly, and in light of Romans 7:9, I think we have reason to believe that Paul held a view of moral accountability similar to my own. I don't think that Romans 5 necessitates the eternal damnation of infants. If it says anything like that, it doesn't say it very clearly.

   Jeremiah 31:29-30, on the other hand, couldn't be clearer, neither in its frame of reference (the New Covenant) nor it its declaration about it (that people will not longer die for the sins of their fathers). I do not deny that we are born dying in the physical sense. I do not deny that we are born with a sin nature. I do not deny that we are born into a sinful, fallen world. I do not deny that, because of these factors, it is a safely foregone conclusion that all of us who live long enough to do so commit actual transgression. All of these truths I affirm. I do, however, deny that there is a single soul in Hell who was not first on Earth an active transgressor against God. Many forms of Calvinism, of course, assert a Hell filled with infants who have never transgressed personally, and the explicit justification for this belief is the notion that Jeremiah 31 somehow does not apply to them and that they die for the sin of Adam and Eve. Since Jeremiah 31:30 is clearly a declaration about those who will perish for sin, I do not see how it can refer only to the elect. I believe that it applies to all people. Those who die, die for their own iniquity. I believe this because I believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

   As far as the freedom of the will goes, I do believe that it has been impaired by the Fall for all people. This is at least part of what it means to have a sin nature. I do not, however, believe that it has been totally incapacitated forever. This is at least part of what it means not to be a Calvinist. With Augustine I would urge us all to "put [our] faith in the meanwhile in the inspired word of God, and believe both that man’s will is free, and that there is also God’s grace." I am happy to affirm that man can only choose to respond favorably to the gospel when he is the beneficiary of the prevenient grace of God, even if I believe that he can also choose not to respond favorably to that grace. No one can come to Christ apart from Holy Spirit conviction, for even with free will, "without [God's] help man’s free will can neither be turned towards God, nor make any progress in God."

   I believe that the viewpoint that I have articulated here is biblical and is compatible with Article Two of the statement. I know that some of you differ with me on this point. I love you anyway.

5. Although I do harbor some concerns about the "New Calvinism," I would articulate those concerns differently than this statement does. Indeed, I would articulate them in a way, I think, that would win the affirmation of many Calvinists who are Calvinists of a different sort (viz., those who have managed, while finding Puritan soteriology, to find the Puritan doctrine of sanctification along with it).

6. Finally, this statement raises some trust issues in me. I was reluctant to sign because I didn't trust what some virulent anti-Calvinists might try to do with it. Dr. Hankins is not of that ilk, but such creatures exist in our convention. I was also reluctant to sign because I didn't trust (I don't know how else to say it) the maturity of some Calvinists in the convention to permit anyone who is not a Calvinist to dare to articulate a soteriological viewpoint. For this very reason (the latter one), there is probably a need for people to dare to make statements like this one and to teach our Calvinistic brethren to get over it, but some of my best friends signed this statement, and some of my best friends despise it, and I feared that this would be a big mess, and I wasn't sure that I wanted to be a part of it. Call me a coward. Perhaps that's what I am.

None of these are major areas of disagreement. Some of them are perhaps hardly worth mentioning. Certainly none of them prevent me from maintaining a spirit of cordiality toward the statement and its signatories. But, cumulatively considered, they are enough to prevent me from signing the statement. I hope that answers the questions of anyone who cared in the first place.

Because of the indisputable truth of the second point, it is possible that you, my readers, will come into this comment stream and show the pure foolishness of every other point listed. But it will take more than your showing me that I'm wrong to get me either to sign the statement or to condemn it. You're going to have to show me why you're right, and to do so in a manner that convinces me so thoroughly as to get me over the hurdle of the first point.

Q&A with Paul Chitwood on the Kentucky Calvinism Conference

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a conference on Calvinism in August. Dr. Paul Chitwood, Executive Director of the KBC, has graciously agreed to participate in a Q&A over the upcoming conference. I have shown you the questions in advance. Here are Chitwood's answers.

1. Barber: Calvinism, Arminianism, and other options are all around four hundred years old. At least some of the key ideas go back fifteen hundred years to the time of Augustine and Pelagius. Calvinism and Arminianism have affected Baptist life for the entirety of the modern Baptist period. Several conferences in the past decade have addressed the question of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. What will this conference address or contribute that hasn't already been addressed or contributed?

   Chitwood: This conference is intended to provide a learning opportunity for local church leaders and members on these age-old debates. The presentation will help interpret the issues for the churches of our day. The goals are clarity, charity, and unity.

2. Barber: Southern Baptists have separated from other denominations over issues ranging from the authority of the pope to the proper day of worship. Is Calvinism an issue worthy of denominational division? If not, what is the difference between Calvinistic soteriology and, for example, the mode or meaning of baptism that makes one a rightful cause of division and the other not?

   Chitwood: Calvinism in the SBC is absolutely not an issue worthy of denominational division. The primary difference between this issue and others that Baptists have, with conviction, declared as “hills to die on” is the clarity Scripture gives to those issues. With regard to the issues at stake in the Calvinism debate, Scripture seems to hold these matters in tension. I believe that to be intentional.

3. Barber: Among the denominations from which Southern Baptists are divided are at least some denominations for which the cause of division is Calvinism (I'm thinking in particular of the Free Will Baptists). One of the five points of Calvinism—Perseverance—has been a part of our Southern Baptist statement of faith for as long as we've had statements of faith. Is Perseverance the most important of the five points of Calvinism? If not, why should we divide over this point of Calvinism but over none of the other four? If Southern Baptists should cooperate despite differences over Calvinism, then should we seek union with Free Will Baptists?

   Chitwood: As Baptists read Scripture, we have concluded that perseverance is a matter of sufficient clarity to draw the proverbial line in the sand. The other traditional points of Calvinism seem, at least to me, to be matters held in enough tension in Scripture that we can continue to draw a circle in the sand around those who hold differing positions.

4. Barber: How has the conversation about Calvinism come to have such generational overtones in the Southern Baptist Convention?

   Chitwood: That history can be traced back to the Conservative Resurgence. When a generation of Southern Baptist rose up to say, “We take biblical authority and biblical theology very seriously,” rigorous theological debate was sure to come. That members of the rising generation come down on varying sides of the debate on soteriology should come as no surprise.

5. Barber: Sometimes shriller voices attempt either to dismiss as inconceivable or to lament as inevitable the risk that rising Calvinism in the SBC will inflict the convention with either hyper-Calvinism or Antinomianism. How would you assess these risks? Should conferences like this one include material to ward off these dangers?

   Chitwood: I assess these risks as very minimal. More than a decade into what some have termed a resurgence of interest in Calvinism within the SBC, I see no evidence that hyper-Calvinism or Antinomianism are running amuck. Nevertheless, we need always remind ourselves of the dangerous extremes of any theological stance.

6. Barber: Perhaps the most influential Kentucky Southern Baptist of all times, Edgar Young Mullins, once wrote, "We are learning to discard both [the labels "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"] and to adhere more closely than either to the Scriptures, while retaining the truth in both systems." What is the historical significance of Mullins's position on Calvinism and his dissemination of statements like this one? Can the "Biblicist" perspective be regarded as a contribution that Kentucky made to the broader Southern Baptist Convention in the twentieth century, and is it a peacemaking strategy for today? How do conferences like this one contribute?

   Chitwood: More than anything else, the lack of theological understanding, the inaccurate caricatures of Calvinism, and the difficulty of defining a theological system that is neither strictly Reformed nor fully Arminian, create the need for discerning Southern Baptists to define their position as a “biblical theology” and avoid labels, regardless of where they stand. The many straw men and inaccurate caricatures that abound should cause any Southern Baptist to be very cautious about allowing himself or herself to be labeled. We have more than one dictionary. Prayerfully, our conference will help Kentucky Baptists and the broader family of Southern Baptists appreciate the complexity of these issues and gain respect for those who hold differing, yet logical, positions, and still fit comfortably within the boundaries of the Baptist Faith and Message.

7. Barber: Southern Seminary is obviously based in Louisville, Kentucky, and has a strong Calvinistic flavor. One might, if Southern were the extent of one's exposure to Kentucky Baptists, presume that the state is overwhelmingly Calvinistic. Yet a number of historic educational institutions relate to or have related to the Kentucky Baptist Convention. Considering the entire universe of Kentucky Baptist life, how would you characterize the convention with regard to soteriology?

   Chitwood: The Kentucky Baptist Convention is every bit as diverse as the Southern Baptist Convention regarding matters of soteriology. Moreover, the faculty and student body of Southern Seminary represent the diversity of the Southern Baptist Convention. Any assumption that the KBC or SBTS are strictly Calvinist entities is a mistaken assumption.

8. Barber: Are you a theology wonk? What attracts you, personally, to the idea of conducting this kind of conference?

   Chitwood: The primary reason I am attracted to conducting to this type of conference is that I have witnessed the lack of understanding of biblical and historical theology and am grieved by what I consider needless division over this issue. Parties on both sides have been guilty of attempts to marginalize those who hold differing viewpoints. The tone of the debate has often become unchristian and even uncivil. When that happens, we stand in danger of dividing our resources and fellowship to the detriment of the Great Commission. Many Southern Baptists seem to be totally unaware of the real issues in the ongoing debate. I would not consider myself a theology wonk. My undergraduate and graduate degrees were lacking in any exposure to biblical theology. My doctoral studies provided my first real introduction. Yet, 18 years in the pastorate and 10 years as a professor taught me the importance of theology and I am hopeful that those who attend the conference will whet their appetites and begin to drink from deeper wells, even as we recommit ourselves to working together.

9. Barber: Arminianism is often the sparring partner chosen for Calvinism, but how does Calvinism relate to pragmatism? Pardon my hyperbolic flourish, but not too long ago, conferences sponsored by state Baptist conventions were predominantly "how-to" meetings or promotional campaigns for cooperative initiatives, while doctrinal symposia consisted of four doctoral students in the corner basement room of a campus student center. What has changed to make deep theological conversation the new spectator sport in the SBC?

   Chitwood: Again, I think the change is rooted in the Conservative Resurgence. While I celebrate the deepening of our theological conversation, I feel a sense of urgency to call for an overarching commitment to unity and partnership so that our new spectator sport does not become a bloodbath. Furthermore, there is still a place for theologically informed “how-to” meetings and promotional campaigns for cooperative initiatives.

10. Barber: Southern Baptist Calvinists are not monolithic, are they? If you had to identify different flavors of Calvinism within the SBC, how would you do so?

    Chitwood: Southern Baptist Calvinists are no more monolithic than Southern Baptists are monolithic. Nor are Southern Baptists who reject any or most of the tenets of Calvinism monolithic. Debates and disagreements abound in SBC life on a myriad of issues and will continue to do so until Christ’s return. Speaking of which, now there’s a matter that has caused significant debate!

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 9 (Final Part)

This is the ninth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

10. Southern Baptist Calvinists are not monolithic, are they? If you had to identify different flavors of Calvinism within the SBC, how would you do so?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 8

This is the eighth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

Someone will perhaps notice that part eight actually contains question nine. The eighth question to Dr. Chitwood was worded too personally for me to be able to apply it in any general sense. He can answer it in his post, but I'm not including it in this series. You'll find out what it is when he replies.

9. Arminiansim is often the sparring partner chosen for Calvinism, but how does Calvinism relate to pragmatism? Pardon my hyperbolic flourish, but not too long ago, conferences sponsored by state Baptist conventions were predominantly "how-to" meetings or promotional campaigns for cooperative initiatives, while doctrinal symposia consisted of four doctoral students in the corner basement room of a campus student center. What has changed to make deep theological conversation the new spectator sport in the SBC?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 7

This is the seventh post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

7. Southern Seminary is obviously based in Louisville, Kentucky, and has a strong Calvinistic flavor. One might, if Southern were the extent of one's exposure to Kentucky Baptists, presume that the state is overwhelmingly Calvinistic. Yet a number of historic educational institutions relate to or have related to the Kentucky Baptist Convention. Considering the entire universe of Kentucky Baptist life, how would you characterize the convention with regard to soteriology?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 6

This is the sixth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

6. Perhaps the most influential Kentucky Southern Baptist of all times, Edgar Young Mullins, once wrote, "We are learning to discard both [the labels "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"] and to adhere more closely than either to the Scriptures, while retaining the truth in both systems." What is the historical significance of Mullins's position on Calvinism and his dissemination of statements like this one? Can the "Biblicist" perspective be regarded as a contribution that Kentucky made to the broader Southern Baptist Convention in the twentieth century, and is it a peacemaking strategy for today? How do conferences like this one contribute?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 5

This is the fifth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

5. Sometimes shriller voices attempt either to dismiss as inconceivable or to lament as inevitable the risk that rising Calvinism in the SBC will inflict the convention with either hyper-Calvinism or Antinomianism. How would you assess these risks? Should conferences like this one include material to ward off these dangers?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 4

This is the fourth post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

4. How has the conversation about Calvinism come to have such generational overtones in the Southern Baptist Convention?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 3

This is the third post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

3. Among the denominations from which Southern Baptists are divided are at least some denominations for which the cause of division is Calvinism (I'm thinking in particular of the Free Will Baptists). One of the five points of Calvinism—Perseverance—has been a part of our Southern Baptist statement of faith for as long as we've had statements of faith. Is Perseverance the most important of the five points of Calvinism? If not, why should we divide over this point of Calvinism but over none of the other four? If Southern Baptists should cooperate despite differences over Calvinism, then should we seek union with Free Will Baptists?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 2

This is the second post in this series.

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

2. Southern Baptists have separated from other denominations over issues ranging from the authority of the pope to the proper day of worship. Is Calvinism an issue worthy of denominational division? If not, what is the difference between Calvinistic soteriology and, for example, the mode or meaning of baptism that makes one a rightful cause of division and the other not?

Calvinism Conference Questions, Part 1

The Kentucky Baptist Convention will host a Calvinism Conference in August. Speakers include David Dockery, Steve Lemke, Frank Page, and Hershael York. It looks FASCINATING to me. Color me intrigued.

Paul Chitwood, KBC's Executive Director, is the mastermind behind this conference. He has agreed to participate in a Q&A session here on my blog regarding this conference. His answers will post sometime next week, probably. In the meantime, before you see his answers, I've decided (with his permission) to post some of the more pertinent and vexing questions and let my readers have at them in advance of Chitwood's reply. I'll stretch this process out among multiple posts.

1. Calvinism, Arminianism, and other options are all around four hundred years old. At least some of the key ideas go back fifteen hundred years to the time of Augustine and Pelagius. Calvinism and Arminianism have affected Baptist life for the entirety of the modern Baptist period. Several conferences in the past decade have addressed the question of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. What can this conference address or contribute that hasn't already been addressed or contributed?

Calvinist, Arminian, Biblicist?

I don't know what to call myself.

I'm clearly neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I'm not the former because I entirely and utterly reject Limited Atonement and I am unconvinced of the absolute irresistibility of grace. I am not the latter because I affirm eternal security. It is difficult to state one's disagreement with Arminianism about, for example, election, because there is no one Arminian view of election (so far as I can tell). I believe that there is such a thing as individual election, and I believe that the relationship between individual election and foreknowledge (and there undoubtedly IS a relationship between these two concepts) is beyond my understanding.

Many of my friends would call themselves and someone like me a "Biblicist."

I can see the difficulty with the term. To call myself a biblicist on this particular question is easy to take as an insult. If my position is the biblical one, then where does that leave Calvinism and Arminianism? There is a ring of arrogance about it. It sounds like, "I'm biblical and you're not." It can feel like it needs a requisite "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" following close upon its heels.

But maybe that's not the only way for me to view myself as a biblicist. Perhaps, instead of claiming that I am a biblicist because NEITHER of you (my Calvinistic and Arminian friends) have the Bible on your side, I can be claiming that I am a biblicist because BOTH of you do, at least in substantial part. BOTH Calvin AND Arminius were trying to be good biblical theologians (as were Beza and Wesley and many of the whoever else among their myriad respective followers and embellishers). Neither of them were ENTIRELY unsuccessful. They cannot have been perfectly right, the both of them, but then neither is it necessary that they both were perfectly wrong.

And so, here I am, having been persuaded by your sermons and lectures, and books. Here I am, having nodded in agreement with 95% of what you have concluded about the operations of the gospel. Preach from Romans 9 or Hebrews 6, and do it just right, and you can make me squirm uncomfortably in either case. In neither case have I conceded entirely (I hold neither a Calvinistic view of Romans 9 nor an Arminian view of Hebrews 6), but one has to be blind not to see that either passage (as well as quite a few others) poses serious problems for the strictest adherents of one viewpoint or the other. Neither of you have done a good enough job of answering the biblical objections of the other. And that's after four solid centuries of effort. After so many people for so many years in so many books, sermons, lectures, and debates have poured so much effort into this endeavor, am I wrong to conclude that the failure hasn't been for a lack of intelligence, eloquence, time, money, daring, or opportunity? Am I wrong to suspect that the case hasn't been made fully on either side because neither side's case can be made? That the fault lies with the facts and not with the advocates?

I cannot help but do so.

And so, I think there's a GREAT DEAL of Calvinism that ought to be embraced as perfectly biblical, as well as some of Arminianism. The logical side of me—the Mr. Spock in my head—echoes E. Earle Ellis and tells me that, if I would be philosophically consistent, I must be one or the other. I see the philosophical need for that. I really do. Indeed, I don't just see it; I FEEL it.

And yet, I have seen the price of that logical consistency. Portions of the Bible I must bid farewell if I go in either direction. I must bid those portions farewell either by standing on my head hermeneutically to make them say something other than what they clearly seem to say or by relegating them to the category of those passages that I have sworn to my theological system not to preach or otherwise to acknowledge in public. I have seen the price, and I am unwilling to pay it.

Some Calvinists will call me an Arminian. Some Arminians will call me a Calvinist. They're both wrong. And they're both right, if I must abide by their nomenclature. I'm an inconsistent Arminian. I'm an inconsistent Calvinist. I admit it. I am inconsistent in both of those ways because my commitment to being consistently biblical has prevented me from consistency in these areas. That's why I call myself a biblicist.

And in doing so, I confess that I'm probably messing that up. Some Calvinists would say, "If you were really a biblicist, you would become a Calvinist." Some Arminians would say likewise about their position. You know, maybe you're right. Really, maybe you are. When I call myself a biblicist, I'm not attempting to describe some achievement of mine; I'm trying to describe an endeavor of mine. I'm speaking not of my accomplishment, but of my motivation. Perhaps I am not a Calvinist because I am interpreting the Bible wrongly, but what is preventing me from being a Calvinist is truly my attempt to interpret the Bible rightly (even if you think it is the imperfections of that attempt that are "at fault").

"Biblicist" need not be a term that divides us. Maybe, instead, it could become a term that unites us. Yes, there are people on both sides who are so committed to a human theological system that they would consider it betrayal even to consider that the Bible might, in some places, teach things that undermine the absolute certainty of their tenets. But I believe that there are people of good will from various points along this particular theological spectrum whose commitment is to the Bible above any theological system. I believe that there are people who would, when pressed to do so, generally describe themselves as a Calvinist or a Classical Arminian or an Amyraldian, or something else along the continuum, but who would nevertheless humbly concede, "…but there are a few passages in the New Testament that make me really uncomfortable with my position sometimes, and I wish I understood the Bible more clearly about these matters." I believe that many of these are people who can recognize the attempted biblicism of many of their sisters and brothers whose struggles have led them to a different place than their own. Such people deserve to be called biblicists. Certainly this seems to be true of the many people—the enormous number—who have found both the strict Calvinistic and the strict Arminian answers to be insufficient in respecting the whole of the biblical witness and have attempted some sort of a hybrid or a tertium quid in order to make their favored theory more compatible with their understandings of the Bible.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

The Gospel Project is a new Sunday School curriculum produced and marketed by Lifeway. Ed Stetzer is the General Editor and Trevin Wax is the Managing Editor. Prior to its official launch, the curriculum has been the subject of some measure of controversy, primarily with regard to disputes over the curriculum's relationship with Calvinism. Is The Gospel Project a new Particular Baptist curriculum? Not enough data is available to come to any hard-and-fast conclusion, but from the data presently available, here's what I would answer:

I suspect that The Gospel Project is indeed a Calvinistic curriculum, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Here's what I mean when I say that The Gospel Project appears to be a Calvinistic curriculum:

1. I would consider people who affirm four points and people who affirm five points to fit alike within the broader penumbra of Calvinism. John Calvin, I think, only clearly affirmed four points. If you're only as Calvinistic as John Calvin was, I consider you a Calvinist, not that there's anything wrong with that. Not at all.
2. I find convincing the detailed case made by Peter Lumpkins and others (see the comment by Jim G giving details of the authors' writings and affiliations) that the proportion of Calvinists (as defined above) creating this curriculum is far higher than the proportion of Calvinists in the SBC population at-large.
3. I believe that the curriculum is poised to gain a welcome reaction and to succeed among Southern Baptist Calvinists and probably among some non-Southern-Baptists who are Calvinists. I'm not suggesting that ONLY Calvinists will purchase and use this curriculum, but I am opining that it will be more popular among Calvinists than among non-Calvinists.
4. I will be surprised if the content of the curriculum gives much attention to the role of the human believer in one's becoming a Christian. A gospel-centered curriculum is going to have to focus on conversion, faith, justification, regeneration, and the like. Calvinism is, after all, an approach to soteriology. It seems to me (and perhaps I am wrong, here) that this curriculum has only four options available in talking about soteriology: (a) It can approach it Calvinistically, teaching almost exclusively about the role of God in salvation; (b) It can approach it from an Arminian perspective, focusing upon the role of the human believer in salvation; (c) It can reject both Calvinism and Arminianism and find a third way; or, (d) It can avoid the controversy by staying shallow in these topics. The historic Baptist Sunday School Board approach (as well as the approach of our statements of faith) has been d (staying shallow enough to avoid these controversies), but that seems to be the outcome that this curriculum is deliberately trying to avoid (in the quest for a theologically robust curriculum). The list of contributors so far are people who would die before they took approach b. I guess that c is a possibility, but I find it unlikely. Considering these four approaches, I think that a is likely the inevitable outcome, not that there's anything wrong with that.

So, I'm surmising, opining, and deducing that the contributors, consumers, and product of this curriculum will all have a Calvinistic bent to them (as defined above). That's what I think, now how do I feel about that?

First, I think that it is a good thing for us to have Lifeway-produced curricula that are more theologically robust. I want to affirm this decision and encourage the cultivation of this kind of thinking at Lifeway. If The Gospel Project is the first-fruits of a new kind of product that we will see coming out of Nashville rather than the final accomplishment of a total package, then I give Stetzer and Wax my enthusiastic amen.

I think it would be appropriate for Lifeway to develop theologically robust Sunday School literature representative of other perspectives in our convention as well. Of course, if you're not a Calvinist you can't use the words "Gospel" or "Grace" to describe your materials (said all in fun, folks!), but even if all of the good titles are taken, I think that the many of our churches that are not Calvinistic could have something theologically robust to offer as well, don't you?

Second, there's really not anything wrong with that: I really don't think that there is anything wrong with the idea that Lifeway would produce Calvinistic materials. We have Calvinistic folks in our convention. Our entities exist to enhance the ministries of those local churches, too, even if there are fewer of them. Especially at Lifeway, where the money comes from market forces rather than from the CP, it is no skin off non-Calvinist noses for Calvinistic churches from within or without our convention to be able to purchase Calvinistic curricula from Lifeway. So long as the produced materials are not so highly Calvinistic (or lowly Arminian) as to violate the Baptist Faith & Message, I'm not bothered by the existence of The Gospel Project.

Third, in an aspect that I haven't seen being discussed, this curriculum strikes me as an invasion by "senior pastors" (and I hate that term) into what has been previously the turf of "education pastors." To put it another way, How many MDivs are contributing to this curriculum versus how many MAREs? I don't know how to comment on this without being controversial, other than to note that I have an MDiv and a PhD, so my colors are clear.

These authors have studied about and have written about theology. People are able to identify that the contributors to this curriculum are predominantly Calvinsts. What did you know about the contributors to the LAST curriculum that you purchased from Lifeway? Probably not nearly as much. I like the idea that Lifeway is enlisting well-known prominent authors who are theologically minded, substantively educated, and about whom we can know quite a bit.

In summation, I think that there's a lot to like about The Gospel Project. I don't have plans to use it at FBC Farmersville, but this KIND of project, associated with a different set of names and done in a way that was less lopsidedly Calvinistic, might be precisely the kind of thing that I would promote to our Sunday School classes here. For that reason, what I want to do, rather than try to get Lifeway to regret having produced this curriculum by complaining about the predominant Calvinism of the contributors to The Gospel Project, is to encourage Lifeway to double-down on their effort and produce yet another similar curriculum embracing other points of view.

SBC Cybersquatting

Peter Lumpkins is a clever guy with a provocative sense of humor. When I saw his latest post, coy as it was, I was intrigued. When I clicked on the link and saw that the domain name southernbaptistconvention.org took me to the Founders web site, I grinned a big grin and wondered to myself who pulled this prank on Tom Ascol and the guys over at Founders.

I am not a Calvinist, but I am not an anti-Calvinist. I am, after all, the guy who authored the blog post Thank God for Calvinists. I have collaborated with Tom Ascol on the Regenerate Church Membership Resolution. I supported Al Mohler for the presidency of the SBC. I am not an anti-Calvinist, although I am not a Calvinist.

So, when I saw Peter's post, I presumed that somebody had pulled some electronic hijinks in order to tweak the folks over at Founders. Curious as to who was behind all of this, I performed a WHOIS search on the domain southernbaptistconvention.org. What did I find? Look for yourself. The domain southernbaptistconvention.org was apparently registered by Tom Ascol, or perhaps by the Reisingers, since barbreisinger@mac.com is the contact email for the registrant. And the page that you land on over at Founders does appear to be designed for people coming from this particular domain name.

It seems to me that this is cybersquatting, pure and simple. By a technicality (i.e., Founders is not trying to resell the domain name to the SBC at an inflated price) it is not illegal, but it surely is unethical.

The folks at Founders are good people who love the Lord. They've made a mistake with this (don't we all make them sometimes?). I'm sure they'll fix it. I hope they will. The aggrieved and defrauded party, after all, is the Southern Baptist Convention. And the Southern Baptist Convention is me (and a large portion of those of you who read here).

The Barber Plan for Peace

I know…I know…To some of you that title reads something like "The Michael Moore Plan for Objectivity in Filmmaking." It is one of the great prices paid when you take a stand in a debate that onlookers will tend to place the participants at the poles of the debate and will miss much of the nuance. Thus, compared to those who would sacrifice more on the altar of "Christian unity," I might appear (falsely) not to be interested in unity at all. Compared to those a bit more reluctant to enter a public debate, I might appear to enjoy contest more than collegiality.

Truth be told, I hate conflict. But sometimes conflict can be constructive. The conflict presently ongoing within the SBC concerning Calvinism is, in my estimation, more destructive than constructive. Of course, that call is a subjective one. What is constructive to the builder of the freeway is destructive to the resident of the house that used to sit there.

I should think that, at this point, my colors are clear. The house in the path of the proposed freeway is the SBC, and I live in it. I believe that the historical distinctive beliefs of Baptists are among the plain teachings of the Bible. I have enumerated those teachings (or, at least, those among them that I consider to be most vulnerable) elsewhere. I'm at work in my own congregation to strengthen our obedience to these principles. I believe that it will strengthen any church to obey the Bible at these points. To any degree that my voice can be heard in our convention, I wish to use it to champion these ideas.

Among those who share these distinctive convictions, both historically and in the present, have been both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. In our lesser moments (in my view), Particular (Calvinistic) and General (non-Calvinistic) Baptists have held one another at arms length, maintaining separate affiliations. In our brighter epochs, our emphases upon our ecclesiological commonalities have overshadowed our soteriological differences. The Southern Baptist Convention has served as an example of this phenomenon. This does not mean that the SBC cannot be plotted on a soteriological continuum. Either Hardshellism or Free-Willism have served as a strong motivation for congregations to depart the SBC. But the space that we have occupied on the soteriological spectrum has been far broader than the territory on either end of us.

I wonder whether our situation will long endure, or whether our "blessed arrangement" will prove to be little more than a "dream within a dream." Not being a Calvinist, I believe that some "points" of Calvinism overreach beyond the teachings of the Bible. At least one such point I would characterize not as a an overreach, but as a complete philosophical construction with no strong exegetical basis. So, strictly speaking, I regard Calvinism as an error. I do not, however, count it as anywhere nearly among the graver threats that we face. In fact, I believe that fighting about Calvinism poses a far greater threat to our convention than does Calvinism itself, per se.

I was going to inject here some smarmy comment about how "Some of my best friends are Calvinists." At the very moment that I was considering the comment, I received notice that Ligon Duncan has requested to be one of my Facebook friends (doubtless after weeks of careful research and consideration). So you see, not only do I have Calvinistic friends, but prominent Calvinists whom I have never even met are actually seeking me out for friendship! :-)

My new buddy-buddy status with Bro. Duncan notwithstanding, the tensions at this moment are high. Rather than speculate about what has widened, is widening, or will further widen the divide, let us take a moment to consider what specific things might narrow it.

We can emphasize some things that are more important and could serve to unite us. A really good example is a common commitment to recovering some concept of a congregation of scripturally baptized visible saints. Here is a powerful need among Southern Baptist churches, and one that unites many of the people involved in our most recent conversations. Our near-total loss of this distinctive is, in my opinion, the root disease behind many of our symptoms these days and one of the most pressing questions facing us at this moment.

The question of church membership has arisen tangentially in all of this discussion. Malcolm Yarnell has questioned whether Tom Ascol's church extends communion to someone who has not been baptized (i.e., a Presbyterian). Tom has not responded to this question, but it appears to me that Tom's detractors, Tom's supporters, and everyone in between has concluded that such is indeed the practice at Tom's church. Some think it is awful; some think it is laudatory. Most concede that it is contrary to the wording of the Baptist Faith & Message, although most concede that Tom's church would be far from the first or only Southern Baptist church to have such a policy (explicit or implicit) with regard to the Lord's Table.

Tom is not an employee of the Southern Baptist Convention nor of any of her entities. I don't see that he has anything to lose from just 'fessing up about whoever this guy is. His squirming and suggesting that Malcolm is using "innuendo" are helpful neither to Malcolm nor to him, in my estimation. One presumes that this person is a regular attender. Tom can take credit for refusing to extend church membership to this person apart from baptism (again, presuming a lot about the situation), and he can concede his differences with our statement of faith at this particular point.

And along the way, perhaps we could open up a conversation that relates to our quest for more meaningful church membership: What about all of these people who regularly attend a church but never join for some reason or another? Is it healthy or holy to skirt around on the periphery of a congregation without making a commitment? If people will not join my congregation, do I have some obligation to encourage them toward either yielding to the teachings of the scripture or moving on to somewhere else? There are quasi-members who function in every way like members but don't join. Then there are quasi-members who join but function in every way like people who aren't members. Doesn't one blur the meaning of membership as much as the other? I think that it does.

Tom Ascol has strongly implied that Malcolm's home church does not practice regenerate church membership. It is a claim that echoes the sentiments of Tom's associate, Timmy Brister, just in advance of the SBC annual meeting earlier this year. The pastor of Birchman is a dear friend, as is Malcolm. And I am a dear friend to myself. :-) But for both of our churches, I think we can all agree that the ratio of participation to membership indicates that we have been carried along by the same currents that have been steering most of the churches in our convention.

I do think that Malcolm and I (as well as my pastor-friend at Birchman) can accurately say that we were no part of developing this problem and have made some progress toward being a part of the solution. Malcolm is helping to develop a Covenant to help his church move forward in this important way. I am confident that 2009 will witness major strides in our progress here at FBC Farmersville. Part of the greatness that I see in Bob Pearle and Malcolm Yarnell and Bill Henard is that they are the kind of men capable of providing this kind of leadership to established churches.

And along the way, maybe we can open another conversation that relates to the quest for more meaningful church membership: How can we lead historic congregations and larger congregations to know a better concept of church membership? I'm thankful for the way that some of our church plants and some of our smaller churches have admirably tackled the church membership issue. Some of them, having done so, have grown to be large churches (a vindication, in my opinion, of the positive effect that this kind of reformation and revival can bring).

But what about the historic church that has drifted away from a robust concept of church membership, but is otherwise not "in trouble"? These are churches that are fiscally successful, have good infrastructure, are involved in evangelism and missions, hold to sound theology, have good worship, and are in so many ways model churches. But these key historic Baptist concepts of biblical church discipline and covenantal duties of membership have been lost somewhere along the way. These churches didn't lose their historic concepts of church membership in a week, and they aren't going to regain them in a week. Do we give up on these churches?

Certainly, attacking people who believe in regenerate church membership for belonging to these churches is not a helpful idea. What are we saying, that Malcolm Yarnell should take his ideas about biblical church membership out of his church, stop working to give good leadership there for a stronger direction in the future, and go to some safe and easy place of ministry and membership where he need not work to better his church? That's a surefire recipe to guarantee that none of our historic and larger churches ever improve their practice and theology of church membership. Anyone who really cares about seeing positive change in the SBC in this direction ought to refrain from such remarks.

Another area that can unite us is a commitment to revitalized personal and corporate evangelism.

We desperately need help in this area, because we all know that most Southern Baptists aren't sharing the gospel at all. Of course, the leaders sounding the alarm about Calvinistic threats to evangelistic prowess are not the folks who haven't shared the gospel with anyone else. And they would be among the first to concede that the SBC has serious problems in those areas, and that those problems have absolutely nothing to do with Calvinism. Perhaps, in their heartfelt passion for seeing evangelism grow within the SBC, although they know that Calvinism has had nothing to do with bringing us to the crisis that we face today, they worry that any theological move away from evangelistic urgency will be just enough to kill an already critical patient.

Calvinists can stop pretending that our problem in any way is that we offer the gospel of Christ too much, too emotionally, or in the wrong manner. 'Tis a weak gospel indeed that can be foiled by a couple of verses of "Just As I Am" and a preacher standing at the front of a room. Let us agree that, whoever is actually presenting the gospel, even if they are presenting it differently than we are, we will not tell them to stop. Even if you think that adjustments need to be made, the nadir of our evangelistic energies is not the time to be discouraging any zeal for the gospel.

On the other hand, we non-Calvinists can just stop saying that Calvinism necessarily makes a person or a church less evangelistic and/or less missions-oriented. Let's not be like a collection of slugs debating which of us is the slowest. None of us are bound for the Olympic track team, my friend. We're in desperate need of improvement in our commitments to sharing the gospel. I'm of the opinion that less self-loathing and more confidence in Christ will help us all in that respect. But I would call upon those of us who are not Calvinists not to attack Calvinists for supposedly being less evangelistic. For the vast majority of Southern Baptist believers, it is not within the realm of possibility to be any less evangelistic. Living your life without sharing the gospel with anyone is an absolute bottom below which nobody else can go.

Our missions movement is something we inherit from the Particular Baptists, not the General Baptists. Now I'll give you this: When I encounter Calvinists who quote lots of Gill and think very little of Fuller, then I confess that it makes me nervous. All of the other laudatory things that he did notwithstanding, John Gill's name cannot be associated with the spread of missiological vitality among Baptists. But so long as we're talking about Fuller and Carey and Spurgeon, the charge of being derogatory to evangelism and missions just doesn't apply in general to Calvinism.

But however Calvinistic Fuller and Carey and Spurgeon were, they were Baptists ahead of being Calvinists. Spurgeon's sermon on baptism rankled a lot of Calvinistic paedobaptists. It was out of the intimidation of knowing that he would face Carey's Baptist scrutiny that Adoniram Judson dug deeply into the New Testament and found there the immersion of believers only. I think that Tom Ascol's historiography is ideologically driven (in other words, I think it highly unlikely that his next book is going to be a friendly biography of Benjamin Randall), and I encourage him to use it more and more to show how Baptist-before-Calvinist has been an incredibly successful combination for the gospel.

I call us today to the same commitment. Let us be Christians before we are Baptists, but let us be Baptists before we are Calvinists or Arminians or whatever else.

One of the arguments that some Baptists have made in favor of the society method of missionary organization is that societies have more committed memberships. After all, the only people who will be members of the American Tract Society, for example, will be people committed enough to the idea of evangelistic tracts to have donated actual money toward a society to produce tracts. On the other hand, they have alleged that conventions accumulate members who are only interested perhaps in one aspect of the convention, yet gives them authority to direct ministries for which they have little or no vested interest.

Over the past couple of years in blogging, I've written a thing or two critical of various aspects of our Southern Baptist Convention. I've come out strongly against the syncretism inherent to the book, The Camel, which is a product of our International Mission Board. I've fired a volley across the bow of Lifeway Research (and didn't realize until today that they just might shoot back!). I've reviewed a dud of a "tell-all" book attacking NAMB. I've criticized some Executive Board decisions. I've written much in defense and support of our convention, but I've written some things in criticism as well.

But know this for certain. When FBC Farmersville goes out to do missions, we overwhelmingly go out to do it with and as Southern Baptists, and usually with IMB or NAMB involved in one way or another. Our missions giving goes to SBC causes, and the vast preponderance goes through the Cooperative Program. I never recommend a ministry-oriented person toward anything but an SBC seminary. And my retirement and my insurance premiums go straight to Guidestone.

When I speak of or to the Southern Baptist Convention, I do so as someone with a vested interest in it all. I'm committed to our common cooperative ministry. To all of those Southern Baptists who happen to be Calvinists, I am your brother and I want us to move forward together. Let us do so as convictional, evangelistic, enthusiastic Southern Baptists.

Be all the Calvinist that you wish; just be a Baptist first.

Fighting About John 3:16

I had hoped to attend the John 3:16 conference, but the vagaries of court dockets prevented me from being able to schedule any firm out-of-town plans in that date range. As things now stand, the aftermath of the conference, which I've discovered this morning, may have turned out to be as interesting as the event itself. One thing we bloggers have created within SBC life is that our great events are now akin to Presidential debates—immediately after the event itself we all enter the spin room, and the public remembrance of what happened is shaped more by the post-event interpretation than by the event itself. As bloggers, we'll have to decide for ourselves whether we've improved the SBC by that development.

I find that the warmest spot of contention arises between two men whom I know and with whom I have cooperated: Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and Dr. Thomas Ascol. As many of you will recall, Dr. Ascol, Dr. Yarnell, and I cooperated in a last-minute partnership to accomplish a good resolution on Regenerate Church Membership at the 2008 SBC Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, IN. The last-minute partnership in Indianapolis was the culmination of several weeks of emailing one another to work out some means of cooperation on this matter. I do not offer myself as the best friend or leading expert on the beliefs or temperaments of either of these men. I freely confess that I know Malcolm better and love him more than I do Tom, although I suggest that the latter truth is merely the consequence of the former, and not the result of any disfavor I have toward Tom. So now you know my biases, and now you know the basis of my observations.

And here are my observations:

1. Dr. Ascol and Dr. Yarnell affirm mutually incompatible ideas. If they offend one another, it is not because they are offensive people. Neither one, it seems to me, is trying to hound the other out of the SBC (some stupid comments from the sidelines to the contrary notwithstanding). But they are passionate thinkers thinking different things. I've watched close-at-hand while the both of them have shown their heart for Christian unity and harmonious fellowship. But although these men have the hearts of ecumenists, they have the minds of theologians. Unfortunately, most contemporary ecumenism boils down to ignoring the vast majority of other things that Christ said in an effort to obey His wishes for the unity of the church. These men want to be obedient to all of what Christ said, and therefore their differences in thought are their whiskers—possibly attractive at a distance, but scratchier the more firmly you hug.

   Their mutually incompatible ideas are more than four hundred years old. These scholars have embraced two different streams that flow into the Baptist river: the English Presbyterians on the one hand and the Continental Anabaptists on the other hand. OK, perhaps it is a bad metaphor to call them streams flowing into our river, because each continued to flow on its own, although each is legitimately a tributary to seventeenth-century Baptist thought.

   What's more, these are important ideas. Although Calvinism is not the gospel, it certainly touches upon the gospel and has implications for the gospel. Surely we'll all have to concede that the question "For whom did Christ die on the cross?" is at least an order of magnitude more important than "Those strange sounds that guy is making over there: Do you think that they are an utterance of the Holy Spirit, or just something that he made up?" The latter is not an unimportant question (especially to the guy who vehemently asserts that his made up something is an utterance of the Holy Spirit), but it is not nearly as important as the former.

   So, I think we dishonor these men and deceive others if we pretend that they just have a personality conflict or a disagreeable spirit or that they are just arguing over trivial, unimportant matters.

2. Calvinism, in its essence, is offensive to those who are not Calvinists. Arminianism, in its essence, is offensive to those who are not Arminians. Both, in their essence, are offensive to those who are neither. So, should we really be that surprised that Dr. Ascol was offended by the John 3:16 conference or whatever else? If inclined to do so, I could take great offense at Dr. Ascol's most recent post around which so much of this controversy has centered:

   Terminology matters, so let me quickly assert that what I mean by "Calvinism" is exactly what the great Southern Baptist statesman, John Broadus, meant when he wrote,

   The people who sneer at what is called Calvinism might as well sneer at Mont Blanc. We are not in the least bound to defend all of Calvin's opinions or actions, but I do not see how any one who really understands the Greek of the Apostle Paul or the Latin of Calvin and Turretin can fail to see that these latter did but interpret and formulate substantially what the former teaches.

   What we are talking about is the sovereignty of God in salvation including unconditional election, total depravity of sinful nature, definite atonement of particular sinners by the death of Christ, the monergistic work of the Spirit in regeneration and the preserving grace of God operating in the life of every believer.

   Taken at its plain meaning, Dr. Ascol has asserted that anyone who is anything less than a five-pointer has rejected what is nothing more than Pauline theology. That's not only Dr. Yarnell, Dr. Vines, Dr. Allen, myself, but it is also, for example, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Dr. Russ Moore (not so sure, last I checked, that Limited Atonement—"definite atonement of particular sinners by the death of Christ" in Calvinist-speak—is the plain and simple theology of the Apostle Paul).

   I do not believe that Dr. Ascol misspoke, because I sincerely believe that Dr. Ascol believes precisely that. He believes that Limited Atonement is biblical. Personally, I don't know how on earth he comes to that conclusion, but I believe that he does. Now, here's my choice: I can take offense that Tom would believe such a thing or would say such a thing, or I can shed all of this twenty-first-century victim mentality, grow up a bit, and reconcile myself to the fact that people just disagree about these things. People aren't trying to offend me; it is just that their ideas offer me the opportunity to take offense any time I so desire.

   But what if I don't so desire? I can give Dr. Ascol the right to articulate his beliefs clearly and accurately. I can acknowledge his right to gather around himself a group of people who agree with him and to enjoy fellowship with them. I can acknowledge his right and the right of his group to seek to promote their beliefs. And I can acknowledge that in doing so Dr. Ascol is not going out of his way to denigrate me. He's trying to promote his ideas. Where our ideas differ, a contest of ideas may well ensue. Ideas matter and are personal, so there will likely be some personal feelings involved. But Dr. Ascol does not advance his ideas in order to attack those who disagree. The attack upon those who disagree is merely a consequence of his passionate advocacy of his ideas.

3. Consciously to affirm the reception to the Lord's Supper of one not immersed as a believer is to act in disagreement with The Baptist Faith & Message. Long before I was alive and long after I'm in Heaven (if Jesus tarries) people will continue to argue about which position on the extent of the Supper is the biblical position, but the wording of the BF&M is pretty clear. Not everyone has paid close enough attention to realize that fact, but there's little room for debate as to what the BF&M actually says. I think that Dr. Ascol realizes that, and that's why he's understandably keeping his cards pretty close to his vest about the policy of the church that he pastors.

4. There's no way on earth that Malcolm Yarnell affirms Servetus's lapses from Christian orthodoxy. I think that this little twist is the height of irony, although it probably isn't that funny either to Dr. Ascol or to Dr. Yarnell. The false claim that people hurl willy-nilly against Dr. Yarnell is that he's a Landmarker…that he somehow equates "Baptist" with "Christian." This little terminology brew-ha-ha illustrates that Dr. Yarnell does not hold that point of view. You can be a Baptist and not be a Christian. Servetus, it appears, was one of those (and the category is a large one, my friends).

   So, it just strikes me as funny that Dr. Ascol, and not Dr. Yarnell, is the one equating "Baptist" with "Christian"—asserting that since Dr. Yarnell called Servetus a Baptist he must have been regarding him as an orthodox Christian. Pardon me for putting words into Dr. Yarnell's mouth, but it seems to me that he was saying that Servetus shouldn't have been a Baptist, but nevertheless was one. In other words, he should have been put out of the church for his heresy, but he shouldn't have been burned at the stake.

5. I think that we all ought to leave room for mystery in our understanding of what happens when we are converted. I remain unconvinced by both Dort and the Remonstrants (because each strays, IMHO, from the plain teaching of the Bible). But each system does remind us of important biblical truths at certain points. As I have said before, I thank God for Calvinists, although I am not one. I love the many Calvinists I listed in that post, in the way that we can historically love someone whom we have never met. But in my love for them I acknowledge that the Bible leaves these many questions in some state of tension, and I choose to strive someday to understand what these great Calvinists-gone-by know now rather than slavishly devoting myself to what they thought that they knew when they were here.

Thank God for Calvinists

Thank you, Lord, for the Calvinists who have contributed so much to the kingdom.

Thank you for William Kiffin, that untiring and unflinching defender of believer's baptism. Thank you for his quick wit and sharp tongue. Thank you for his steadfast continuation in an erstwhile unpopular and minority view that has since, by Your grace and power, come to be the cherished belief of millions.

Thank you for Kiffin's nemesis, that unlettered tinker of Bedford, John Bunyan. His Calvinism, perhaps, contributed to his ongoing flirtation with the sprinkling of infants and kept him from ever fully being a Baptist, yet I thank you for his twelve principled years in Bedford Jail and the great heavenly beauty that flowed from his pen.

Lord, I thank you for Andrew Fuller, the midwife of Baptist evangelism and missions. Reawaken in your children, dear Father, an appreciation for the worthiness of the gospel and a commitment to share it with the world. Thank you for giving him a vision of your kingdom beyond his environs, and thank you for the generosity of the church at Kettering to allow their pastor to wander from the fens of Northamptonshire to the moors of Scotland to encourage missionary faithfulness among the Baptist brethren.

I thank you, Lord, for William Carey, the plodding soldier of the cross who sacrificed so much and yet endured in his witness. Thank you for moving his supervisors and supporters not to cut him off after seven seemingly fruitless years without any converts gained or churches planted. Thank you for the teeming masses that You brought into the gospel through Carey's faithfulness. Grant him the joy of your glory, dear Lord, now that the sorrows of his family life here on earth are no more.

Thank you, Father, for Boyce and Broadus and Manley. Thank you for their dream that Southern Baptists could raise up a legion of pastors—men with training to match their passion and calling—to carry the gospel into the burgeoning communities of North America and beyond. Thank you for the riches and comforts that they laid upon the altar in their quest.

And I thank you, O Lord, for a new generation of students with an appetite for the passionate writings of the sixteenth, seventeeth, and eighteenth centuries. I do not think it a coincidence that the century which contributed McDonalds and microwave dinners to cuisine also contributed Barth and Elliot to Christian thought and practice. I know that today there are some who claim the mantle of Calvin who have drunk freely at the well of evangelical ecumenism (and consequently, have drunk a great deal more than that!), but for the great heritage of so many other Calvinists, I thank you, O Lord.

I do not thank you for their Calvinism, dear Father. I think it a way of thinking often inclined to impose philosophy above the sacred text (and sometimes violently so). Sometimes I pray that You would protect us from the extremes of Calvinism. Yet for all of these men, whatever failures or weaknesses they embodied, their commitment to You was so evidently greater than their allegiance to any system devised by men. Without the men listed above, we Baptists would never have found evangelism and missions in the first place to ever be in danger of losing them. They have been among the first and most faithful to point us to the Great Commission. It is for this, their allegiance to the cross and their tireless labors for the kingdom, that I say to You, thank You, O Eternal Father, for these our Calvinist forebears and brethren.

(Maybe) The Best POST-Modern Study on the Ekklesia, Fourth Response to Reisinger, Ekklesia

During one of my mental strolls through John G. Reisinger's essay Ekklesia, I happened to be sitting next to my beloved three-year-old Jim, who was watching Disney's film adaptation of Lewis Carroll's classic, Alice in Wonderland. I started feeling a little sympathy with Alice and her turmoil with the Queen of Hearts and the Cheshire Cat. Like her, I too was sitting here looking straight at a "cat" that John Reisinger just can't bring himself to see.

Reisinger's fourth installment represents—epitomizes really—one of my grave fears for the modern church. I have often said that the Southern Baptist rejection of Landmark ecclesiology, valuable correction that is was, has unfortunately led to a movement to replace Landmark ecclesiology with no ecclesiology at all. I offer Reisinger's essay as exhibit A.

Reisinger's Rejected Syllogism

This segment of the essay begins with Reisinger's characterization of whoever he opposes (and at times the sweeping generalizations and wholesale condemnations make it really difficult to determine precisely who that might be) as proponents of a logical syllogism. Let's have a look at it:

The first premise confirms for us that Reisinger has at least read Jesus' statement in Matthew 16:18 before dismissing it as completely irrelevant:

ASSUMPTION NUMBER ONE: Jesus established a church on this earth and promised that this church would prevail in all ages.

Yes, Bro. Reisinger, I guess I'll have to raise my hand and identify myself as one of the adherents of this point of view. I don't know that I would call it an assumption. In my mind, an assumption is a logical leap that you make due to a lack of evidence. Sometimes we have to do that. I acknowledge that I do make assumptions quite often. But it is hard for me to characterize this particular belief as an assumption.

I believe that Jesus established a church. "Upon this rock I will build my church..." So, if language has meaning, then I'm making no wild-eyed assumption to conclude that Jesus did indeed establish a church on this earth. Further on, "and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it," may not necessarily indicate that the church will prevail in all ages, but it does necessarily mean that the church will prevail ultimately. That's what Jesus said. If I'm in trouble with Reisinger for taking Jesus too seriously, then I'm prepared to live with that.

Now, in rhetoric that has become far too similar when reading Reisinger, I find out what I must necessarily endorse (according to Reisinger) if I will dare to cling to these ideas. Because I believe that Jesus established a church and promised that it will prevail, I have absolutely no choice but to endorse "a sectarian and separatist attitude characterized by external legalism and tyrannical leadership."

Accept what Reisinger thinks that the New Testament teaches about the church, and you've found that wonderful balance that puts you at harmony with mankind and all nature. But come to the conclusion that the New Testament teaches one iota more than what Reisinger sees, and suddenly you are the Pol Pot of ecclesiology!

So, to parse a little bit here:

sectarian

I assume that Reisinger means by this word something like "denominational" rather than some of the other meanings of the word. If so, I must admit that I am sectarian. I am a Baptist, and anyone who would identify themselves with any denomination are, by definition, sectarian. Sectarian, if Reisinger uses it as I think, is the opposite of ecumenical. I'm certainly no card-carrying member of the World Council of Churches, so I imagine that it is a fair description of me. I imagine that Reisinger is also sectarian.

separatist

Separatist like Roger Williams, John Smythe, Thomas Helwys, William Kiffin, etc.? Yep, that's me. To avoid being a separatist, by the way, you're going to have to accede to being Catholic. I'm guessing that Reisinger is also separatist.

external legalism

OK, now he's lost me. If I believe that Jesus established a church and promised that it would prevail—if I endorse the bare facts of Matthew 16:18—then somehow I have absolutely no choice but to be a legalist? Huh???? But then, I imagine that this is the ridiculously sloppy use of "legalism" that people throw around in arguments these days as a substitute for having to think. In such cases, a legalist is anyone who insists upon anything more than what I insist upon. How does it force me to be a legalist simply to believe that Christ has an opinion about how churches ought to organize and function? How does it force me to be a legalist if I think that the New Testament has something to say about a church's operation and nature? Unless I'm making those things the basis of salvation, I'm not really a legalist, am I? At least not in any use of the word that rises above the base plane of epithets and insults.

tyrannical leadership

Now I'm really confused. I strongly believe that the New Testament encourages us toward congregationalism. So, I'm an example of someone firmly in support of this so-called "assumption" but who vigorously opposes tyranny in church. My own leadership style is to work to build consensus. All I can conclude is that, with regard to this particular point, Reisinger just plain doesn't know what he is talking about.

Shall we continue down the syllogism?

Reisinger's second premise (which, you understand, consists entirely of words that he taking out of a few mouths and putting into the mouths of all who do not believe precisely as he does) speculates as to the significance of the first premise:

ASSUMPTION NUMBER TWO: We can only expect God's blessing when we organize and operate our local church exactly like this 'true New Testament role model church.'

I hold premise number one, but I do not agree with this second premise. I guess that is going to cause Reisinger to shake his finger at me, because he's told me that I do not have his permission to do this—to agree with premise one while disagreeing with premise two.

It is impossible to make the first assumption without also making the second one. You cannot believe that the N.T. Scriptures reveal an institutional role model for church order as clearly as it teaches justification by faith without being forced to believe that we have all of the essential details of that model in our particular local church. Once this is believed you have no choice but to claim divine authority for every detail of your particular system since God Himself 'revealed that system in His inspired Word.' Likewise, you must then treat all who disagree with you as rebels that 'reject God's authority' because they 'refuse to bow to God's true church polity.'

Well, we really need to spend a little time with this paragraph.

It is possible to believe that Jesus instituted a church and that the New Testament teaches us some specific things about how it ought to run without necessarily:

• Believing that every last little decision of church business is spelled out in the New Testament.
• Asserting that every point of ecclesiology in the New Testament is as clear as justification by faith. (By the way, Reisinger seems perfectly willing to endorse the idea that Jesus didn't die for everyone—a concept absent entirely from the New Testament—but on matters of ecclesiology all that is not as clear as justification by faith must be ignored entirely, according to Reisinger.)
• Claiming divine authority for every detail of what you do at church.
• Rejecting all Christian connection with those who disagree.

If Reisinger was including this entire system of thought in the first premise, then he should have done two things. First, he should have said so plainly rather than performing this little bait-and-switch routine that peppers this entire series of essays. Second, he should have acknolwedged in all honesty that a great many people see more ecclesiology in the New Testament than he does, yet without going to the extreme that he has depicted. But he doesn't do those things, and as a result he has not composed a dialogue with reasonable people; he has composed a diatribe against whatever extreme one might concoct that will be easiest to knock down.

For the record, I believe that God blesses and uses imperfect people and imperfect churches. If He did not, He would not be using or blessing anyone. Look at my earlier posts on church validity, and you'll see a previous fleshing-out of my views. You'll see how I've dealt with some of the same specific examples (Edwards, Whitefield, etc.) that Reisinger has given, and therefore I have proven false his attempts to push all who disagree with him to extremes. I have no problem believing that such-and-such-church has departed from New Testament ecclesiology and yet is being used by God. God used Baalam's jackass—I figure He'll use whomever He likes according to what suits His purpose. God's blessing or using someone is not tantamount to God's endorsement of whatever error may be in their lives or in their churches. Yet does this fact make it of no value to try to strive for the churchly ideals given in the New Testament?

Reisinger says that my convictions must necessarily lead me to believe that

WE alone are the only people that really believe and follow all that the New Testament Scriptures teach about the church.

But that's just patently false. I can believe that we are closest to the New Testament teaching, yet flawed ourselves. Why can't I believe that? And the result of that belief is, hopefully, an appropriate humility about who we are that does not sacrifice commitment to the truth and endorse a minimalist approach to the Bible in order to achieve that humility.

Minimalist Hermeneutics and the Quest for the Cat

By the way, here's how I would define a minimalist approach to the Bible. The minimalist searches the Bible for the unavoidable teachings of the New Testament. All else becomes relatively unimportant. Those who try to speak about other things in the Bible are stirring up trouble, according to the minimalist. But there are a couple of problems with minimalism. First, it winds up discarding the vast majority of scripture. Most of the New Testament addresses points of doctrine that leave some questions unanswered. Yet didn't God give us these writings for some reason?

To tell you the truth, I'm not 100% committed to every detail of any eschatological position. I think that the Bible leaves some questions open regarding eschatology. Yet I also think it is error to say that no clear eschatological teaching exists in the Bible. My trouble making out all of the details of the doctrine does not mean that the doctrine isn't there. I think it is wrong for me to ignore eschatology simply because it is hard to understand. Maybe God wants me to try to understand even the things that are hard for me to understand? Isn't that at least possible? What's wrong with grappling with these things and assuming that there are treasures in God's Word for the discovering?

Yet Reisinger's minimalist approach to ecclesiology tells us that the Bible gives us a few "general principles" rather than "absolutes." He suggests pretty strongly that, if you see more absolutes than he does, you must necessarily think that you have found absolutes for everything. But consider again the field of ecclesiology. I think there are quite a few absolutes in that doctrine. Jesus is absolutely coming back. Christians will absolutely spend eternity in Heaven. Satan absolutely loses. God absolutely will be glorified. The lost will absolutely go to Hell for eternity. Yet, I also think that there are quite a few areas without absolutes. I'm not absolutely certain as to the precise identity of the 144,000 witnesses, although I have some ideas. I'm committed to trying to study and learn as time goes on. I will not throw that part of the Bible away simply because it is difficult. But I know that it is possible&;mdash;indeed, the normal course of affairs for Christians—to find several absolute truths in an area of doctrine while at the same time affirming areas not yet understood.

Here's another one for you: I'm absolutely certain that believer's baptism is the New Testament teaching, yet I'll gladly admit that I scratch my head when I read about "baptism for the dead" in Corinth. I'm absolutely certain that I'm secure in my election (a word I refuse to abdicate only to five-pointers) as a Christian, yet Hebrews 6 puzzles me. I could go on, but I won't. But in spite of all of these unclear things, I refuse to let my deficiencies as an interpreter of the New Testament to push me into a minimalist hermeneutic where I disregard the portions of a doctrine that I do understand merely because there are portions that I do not understand.

And there are parts of ecclesiology that I do understand. And they are taught in the New Testament. And they do constitute, to some degree, a New Testament model for the institution of local congregations...

THERE IS INDEED A CAT... and the fact that I am not entirely acquainted with every detail of the workings of his central nervous system does not mean that he does not exist.

Other Issues

And as a staunch believer in religious liberty, I am offended to the root of my soul at Reisinger's arrogant and uncalled-for allegations that my beliefs somehow contain "necessary implications" that must inexorably drive me to persecute others for their faith. How dare you, sir! Read Roger Williams's theory of the two tables of the law, and then retract that ridiculous accusation immediately.

(A brief pause to let the author's blood pressure come back down)

Reisinger suggests that the pursuit of the "true New Testament church" will always lead to a stark cleavage between "officers" and "laity." On the other hand, I agree with McBeth that the Baptist movement was birthed out of the quest for the true church—the very thing that Reisinger is repudiating here—and yet Baptists were the eradicators of these distinctions and the proud proponents of congregationalism. How can this be brought into accord with Reisinger's allegations? It can't.

Reisinger makes the point (again) that the New Testament does not give us much information about the process of joining a local church. I agree with Reisinger that the modern situation differs at many points with the New Testament situation. Yet Reisinger has painted this distinction too starkly. In fact, all of his numbered assertions are in error.

First, Reisinger tells us that "It is impossible to conceive that a person in the apostolic age could be a true believer in Christ and not also be a living part of the ekklesia of Christ in his area." Well, Reisinger is just plainly in error here. The man excluded from the church at Corinth, the one who was "delivered to Satan" in the expectation that his "spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" looks pretty clearly to me like a "true believer in Christ" who was not a "living part of the ekklesia of Christ in his area." Maybe Reisinger has dreamed up some never-before-contemplated-in-all-of-the-history-of-Christian-study theory of what was going on in Corinth. Maybe his theory is right (how can I say until I have heard it?). But at least he ought to allow that it is not "impossible" to believe what nearly every Christian who has ever lived has indeed beleived—that the New Testament church excluded people for disciplinary reasons who were nonetheless (at least up to that point, depending upon your system of thought) real Christians.

Second, Reisinger tells us that "It is also impossible to conceive that any believer in the apostolic age had either the option or the problem of choosing between two or more kinds of churches that he could join." Hmmm.... Well, what about the folks receiving 1 John and having to decide whether to stick with the "true church" or leave with those who went out from it? It sounds to me like there were two entities in that town claiming to be the church and posing for Christians the option and the problem of choosing between two or more kinds of churches that they could join. Also, who were the "Nicolaitans"? Haven't the vast majority of commentators regarded these folks as a schismatic church? Indeed, all of the talk in Revelation's letters to the churches regarding Jezebel, the Nicolaitans, and even the Synagogue of Satan (for some commentators) gives the picture of a New Testament church riddled with schism and posing lots of options for New Testament believers as to which "church" to join.

Reisinger is correct to note that the modern situation is not precisely the same as that of the New Testament world. Obviously, the denominational situation that we face today is, as Reisinger asserts, a development of later times. But the modern anomaly is not that we live in a day of intensified dogmatism but that we are far more tolerant and unified denominationally today than at any previous point in the history of Christianity. In the New Testament era, all but those who remained connected to the "true church" (as reckoned by those in power) were anathematized and condemned. So things continued throughout the Patristic age (Donatists, Montanists, etc.), the Medieval period (Catharii, Albigensians, etc.), the Reformation period (Anabaptists, Hugenots, Baptists, etc.), and many places in the world today. In modern Christianity, especially as influenced by American Christians, we have developed the charity to regard differing strains of Christian belief as flawed assemblies of at least some true believers with whom we may enjoy at least some level of fellowship and cooperation. I do not offer this contrast as a critique the New Testament churches—the severity of the issues they confronted were of greater magnitude than some of those that we face. But it is correct to note that the modern situation is different at some points than the New Testament situation. However, I do not believe that those differences are so great as to make biblical concepts of ecclesiology irrelevant to the present-day church.

Well...I could go on like this for quite a while. Perhaps it would be good to cease my paragraph-by-paragraph sequential dialogue with Reisinger and make an overall analysis

The Root of the Problem

Reisinger's minimalist hermeneutic is ultimately a symptom of a sort of religious multiculturalism. Reisinger sees that ecclesiology consists (in his opinion) of "much logic and some Bible texts." In other words, not only are there Bible texts, but there is interpretation of those texts in order to construct a systematic doctrine. Each point of view (the episcopal, the presbyterian, and the congregationalist approaches, for example) is constructing an argument based upon the biblical text.

Here's where the multiculturalism kicks in. The key feature of multiculturalism is its refusal to evaluate. Reisinger, seeing that there are various arguments being made from the biblical text, refuses to allow that these arguments are subject to an evaluative process that might objectively establish one to be a more faithful reflection of New Testament reality than the others. Reisinger says that there is no ecclesiological standard—no one institutional model—in the New Testament. It almost sounds as though Reisinger is suggesting that different churches in the New Testament were organized according to a variety of models, as though Jerusalem were pseudo-episcopal because of the presence of the apostles there while Thessalonica, not having a resident apostle, was organized according to a different model.

Yet the fact is that our ecclesiological differences in the body of Christ cannot be explained by such an analysis. It is not that Roman Cathoilcs are advocating the Jerusalem model while Baptists are advocating the Antiochene model while Presbyterians are advocating the Thessalonian model. All of these groups are arguing from the same passages describing the same churches, not emphasizing one church against another, one New Testament book against another. Although one might be able to imagine a variety of ecclesiological forms in operation at a variety of New Testament churches, it is utterly incomprehensible to suggest that, for example, the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 was simultaneously operating according to a handful of mutually contradictory schemes of church polity. The competing claims for how a particular church in the New Testament at a particular moment in time was operating cannot all simultaneously be equally valid.

Thus, this multiculutral approach requires a sort of minimalism that states either that none of these systems were in operation in the New Testament church or that ecclesiology is really not that important regardless of which system is the more faithful mirror of the New Testament model. The former line of reasoning mirrors the conclusion of liberal higher-critics, who projected Darwinian biological theory onto the institutional development of the church and assumed that churches did not bother to address ecclesiology until the very end of the first century or even later. The latter line of reasoning provides appeal for people with a wide variety of agendas.

Like multiculturalism, Reisinger's essay proceeds from the assumption that theology (at least with regard to ecclesiology) is bad because it is divisive. Reisinger has not said point-blank that "Theology divides, but Jesus unites," but what else can one read into constant statements that the danger of ecclesiology is separatism or sectarianism or bigotry? Multiculturalism assumes that one must choose between truth and community. Multiculturalism further assumes that, in making that choice, community is vastly more important than truth. If there is no truth, then everyone can coexist in their differences because any critique of those differences is no longer possible.

Wade Burleson has claimed that Reisinger has written "The Best Modern Study on the Ekklesia (Church)." I think that it is much more accurate to describe this as the best post-modern study on the ekklesia. The underlying theme of the series is that there is very little, if any, absolute truth in ecclesiology; therefore, all that remains are competing metanarratives that are equally valid or invalid. What churches ought to do with regard to ecclesiology, according to Reisinger, is organize in whatever way works best for them without bothering to look for any model in the New Testament.

But I must offer two negative observations about this approach:

1. Reisinger has reserved this minimalist approach for his ecclesiology, but he has adopted a much different hermeneutic in other areas of theology. Regarding soteriology, for example, Reisinger seems happily contented with doctrines that consist of much logic unsupported by biblical texts (be sure to check out his three-part series on Limited Atonement), but just not with ecclesiology.
2. Reisinger's multiculturalist embrace of unity rather than union is difficult to sustain from the New Testament. Reisinger argues that the universal church is the only real sense of the church, that those who think that they discern true churches and false churches are in error, and that denominational differences are reflective merely of pragmatic differences rather than truth and error in the interpretation of the New Testament. Yet, somehow, Reisinger is content with the denominational splintering of Christianity today. Does this not leave us with some sense that schism is permissible in the body of Christ over personal idiosyncracies? If I believed as Reisinger does—that my congregationalism, local church autonomy, regenerate church membership, and all the implications of those beliefs are merely personal preferences rather than biblical mandates—then I would be compelled to seek the consolidation of my church with a dozen other churches in Farmersville.

Avenues of Appeal for Reisinger's Views

Although Reisinger's essay does not appeal to me, I can understand why it would appeal to many people today.

1. It holds appeal for postmodernists. As I have already argued, Reisinger's line of reasoning is pure postmodernism. The more that you have been influenced by postmodernism, the more likely you are to resonate with this study.
2. It holds appeal for ecumenicalists. Although, as I have observed, Reisinger has stopped short of advocating ecumenism, astute ecumenicals will recognize that Reisinger's philosophy of the church provides an excellent basis for ecumenical union. Furthermore, some will be very happy with the precise extent of Reisinger's ecumenism—a cobbling together of a sort of evangelical catholicism.
3. It holds appeal for people who regard ecclesiology as something that gets in the way of other agendas that they are pursuing. Christianity realigns from time to time. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention has had moments when it was aligning according to ecclesiology, missiology, or soteriology. In the 1850s, missiology was the issue around which people built alliances. In the 1900s-1950s, missiology determined affiliations (ABA, SBC, etc.). Today, some segments of the SBC are realigning around soteriological views. The recent events at Bethlehem Baptist Church and Henderson Hills Baptist Church reflect a trend in which Calvinistic Baptists feel more connected to Calvinistic non-Baptists than to non-Calvinistic Baptists. Ecclesiology poses a major obstacle to this realignment; therefore, those pursuing such a realignment will delight in an approach that minimizes the importance of practical ecclesiology.

Probably there are other avenues of appeal that I have not imagined. Also, not everyone in these categories will automatically endorse Reisinger's views. Fortunately, a great many Calvinistic Baptists and other Christians still see some content and some importance in biblical ecclesiology. As do I.

My next post on this topic will complete this series. Thank you for your patience.