A Statement of Southern Baptist Soteriological Unity

Together we affirm that all of the gospel of Jesus Christ is found in the Christian Scriptures—that is, the Old and New Testaments—which are uniquely the means chosen by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to communicate His plan for salvation to mankind.

Together we acknowledge the universal sinfulness of mankind and the universal need for conversion.

Together we acknowledge that, as a result of our universal sinfulness, every person with a capacity for transgression against God is guilty of transgression against God.

Together we affirm that all who are saved will spend eternity in Heaven.

Together we acknowledge with sadness that all who are not saved will spend eternity in Hell.

Together we affirm that any who is saved will be saved by grace through faith and not of works.

Together we affirm that none will spend eternity in Hell who is not guilty of his own volitional transgression against God.

Together we affirm that all of those who spend eternity in Heaven will be able to describe themselves accurately as the elect.

Together we deny that any of those who spend eternity in Hell will be able to describe themselves accurately as the elect.

Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so at the displeasure of God and contrary to the initial design and desire of God.

Together we affirm that God, from eternity past, knew exactly who would spend eternity in Heaven and exactly who would spend eternity in Hell.

Together we affirm that none can be saved by any means other than Jesus Christ.

Together we affirm that Jesus Christ, in the sacrifice of Himself on the cross as our substitute, made atonement for our sins.

Together we affirm that all who through faith receive Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross will be saved.

Together we affirm that all who do not receive Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross are condemned already.

Together we affirm that salvation comes in conjunction with personal conversion, an experience closely correlated with and attended by repentance, faith, confession of Jesus as Lord, regeneration, justification, reception of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the family of God.

Together we affirm that conversion does not come upon anyone without that person’s knowledge nor contrary to that person’s will at the moment of conversion.

Together we affirm that at conversion we were reconciled to God the Father because of His work in God the Son on the cross.

Together we affirm that at conversion we received justification of our sins as the result of God the Son’s sacrifice on the cross.

Together we affirm that at conversion we were born again to eternal life —resurrected with Christ to walk in newness of life, as it were—by the work of God the Holy Spirit.

Together we affirm that the symbol of conversion—that is, of the mortification of the old, condemned, sinful self and the birth of the new, justified self being sanctified—is the immersion of new believers in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Together we affirm that God commences at each respective moment of conversion the work of sanctifying the person saved.

Together we affirm that we cannot, apart from sanctification, make unto God offerings of worship in righteousness that glorify Him.

Together we affirm that the Law is just and that God uses it to restrain evil in the world, to show us our sinfulness, and to sanctify believers by showing them His standards of righteousness.

Together we affirm the churches’ duty of preaching and working for the sanctification of believers.

Together we deny that anything not both initially producing some evidence of sanctification and finally resulting in entire sanctification is or ever was true gospel conversion.

Together we affirm that God has called regenerate believers, and only such, to gather as New Testament churches.

Together we affirm that God has used as His means of saving us the proclamation of the gospel to us by those who were believers before us.

Together we receive as our duty the mission to be the witnesses of Christ throughout the extent of the earth to all peoples, calling upon each one to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ—that whoever is the elect of God has certainly been elected to embrace and do some portion of this task.

Together we affirm that although these statements bear witness to the teachings of the Christian Scriptures about the gospel, they do not exhaust them, and therefore, that many facts about the gospel beyond these few beckon us to consider them.

Together we affirm the importance of the gospel, our earnest desire to understand it more fully, and the value of studying and meditating upon the gospel.

Together we acknowledge that our respective studies and meditations have led us to differing opinions on some questions of the nature and operation of the gospel that lie beyond and behind the items delineated in this statement.

Together we affirm that, where we differ on further items of soteriology, we cannot all be right, and indeed, we may all be wrong to some degree, but that when we gain further light, God’s Word will be vindicated as true in all respects.

Together we affirm that, our differing opinions on other matters notwithstanding, our common affirmation of these truths and the other truths expressed in The Baptist Faith & Message constitute sufficient grounds for us gladly to acknowledge one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, to owe one another our love, to serve one another and to serve with one another in the Southern Baptist Convention, and to acknowledge the leadership of one another in convention work as God may grant it.

Together, desiring to know more fully the truth of God, we encourage one another to study, converse, write, confer, consider, and even debate among one another the further nuances of soteriology, so long as in doing so we are diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Malick Wanted To, But I Wouldn't Let Him

Malick walked right up to me in Senegal and asked to become a Christian. I told him no.

I had met Malick because of his job in low-level government. Several days later he sought me out. Malick explained that he had been born a Muslim but had never actually practiced Islam. A young seeker for truth, he had been exposed to animism, to the Roman Catholic veneer that is thinly-veiled animism in that part of the world, and to several different sects of Islam. Throughout all of his journey, he had never encountered anything that interested him. He had never practiced anything. He had never been an actual adherent of any faith.

And so, he walked up to me that evening and declared, "I've found what I'm looking for. I want to be a follower of this new religion of yours."

But then I asked Malick what new religion that was. He didn't know. I asked him what we were teaching. He didn't know. I asked him what was the difference between us and the Roman Catholics in town—between us and Islam. Malick didn't know.

What Malick knew was this: Americans were in town preaching something, and he wanted in on it.

So, I told Malick about Jesus' parable of counting the cost. I told him the story of the Philippian Jailer. I told him that following Jesus would necessarily mean abandoning Islam, animism, and any other system of belief that is contrary to the gospel in order to follow Jesus alone. I told him that we weren't proclaiming a new religion at all, but that we were simply people reading the Word of God and trying to obey it.

Malick pondered over these things for a while, and then he left.

A couple of days later, I gave Malick a Bible as my last action before leaving the village. He eagerly accepted it, promising to study the scriptures.

I thought about the rich young ruler. I thought about the way that Jesus was comfortable in confronting people who aren't ready to make a real commitment and turning them away. I'm praying for Malick, thankful that I haven't lulled his questions to sleep by indulging him in some knee-jerk, unconsidered, rash action. Next time, he should be ready to say yes or no. Next time, if all goes as I expect, I won't need to hold him back. Next time, maybe we'll kneel together on that little porch and Malick will not only find something new, but will himself be found.

Returning to Senegal

In August a deacon and I made first contact with our Unengaged Unreached People Group in Senegal. Much to our surprise and delight, a few people there trusted Christ for salvation on our very first journey. Thursday morning I begin the journey to return there with the same deacon plus two others.

This entire experience has awakened in me emotions that I didn't know I could have. The strongest follower of Christ whom we left behind was a young man named Marcellin. How I've prayed for him! How I've feared for him! With so much against him, so little given to him, so much riding on him, and absolutely no contact with him, all I can think about is to wonder how I will find him on Saturday (it will take that long to get all of the way there).

Our experience with the Embrace project of the IMB has affected my understanding of the New Testament in ways that no survey class could ever accomplish. I knew that Paul tried to write back to the churches that he had planted and tried to return for visits whenever he could do so, but now I find myself wondering whether Paul felt the same emotions with regard to the converts he left behind that I've been feeling about those I've left behind. I can't help but imagine that he did. Was his letter-writing and step-retracing strategic or compulsive?

I can't help but feel that my personal experience as a cross-cultural evangelist and a planter of churches in untilled land have given me stronger insights into parts of the New Testament than I had before.

The whole experience makes me wonder: How understandable is the Bible to those who are not actually trying to live the life of a disciple? Every time I obey more carefully what God has commanded in scripture, I come to understand scripture better. Does God really even care to communicate with armchair quarterbacks, other than to challenge us to rise up and get to work when we're in that category? Are our primary vehicles of Bible study (Sunday School, small groups, discipleship classes, etc.) places where we ought to invest more in praxis not as an alternative to propositional study but as a facilitator for it?

These are unstrung thoughts, needing much more time in the pot before the soup is ready to serve. The point of this post is not really to feed anyone, anyway, but rather to give me the opportunity to express my gratitude for the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and the life-changing experience that their Embrace project has been for me and for our church—and, I trust, will be.

Explaining My Wedding Ceremony Contract

I recently posted the text of a contract I now execute with couples who wish for me to perform their wedding ceremonies (here). I put up that post because it took me no time at all to put it up: Just copy and paste. As is, I guess, evident to the world, I don't give much time to blogging any more (not that you all aren't wonderful people, but just because life is short and there is much to do).

Anyway, from some of the comments received (one on the blog and a few through other media), it became clear to me that I needed to elaborate a bit more. In which case I might not have posted the thing to begin with, but that horse is already out of the barn. So, for clarity's sake, please allow me to spell out what I'm shooting for with the contract. I plead with you to understand that I'm leaving for Senegal this week and probably won't interact in the comments at all.

The Idea

A few years ago I heard Kelly Shackelford mentioning the horrible state of marriage law in Texas. In our state, the marriage contract is the only contract in which one party can break the contract and leave it without penalty or obligation to the other party. Every other contract is enforceable; a marriage contract is not.

That bothered me, but then a germ of an idea came to mind: What if one were to put into place a simple financial contract ALONGSIDE the marriage contract? You couldn't force people to stay married, but you could at least add some incentive perhaps to make them work a little harder at avoiding a divorce.

Also, I've seen marriages break up that made me feel that one of the spouses had been defrauded—and, frankly, that I myself had been defrauded and the church had been defrauded—all the way back to the time of the wedding. Somebody had said things about what he or she believed about marriage that he or she did not truly believe. They say those things because it is cheap to lie and expensive to tell the truth at the time of marriage.

If a couple came to me and said, "We want to get married. We love each other. But when this relationship cools off, we just plan to get a divorce and move on," then I probably wouldn't agree to perform the wedding. That's not the kind of marriage vows I will solemnize. But there's a constant stream of people who really think that going into marriage, but just won't be honest about it. When that happens, a fraud has been perpetrated upon me (not to speak of the defrauded spouse in those occasions when one spouse agrees with me but another does not!).

And so, I decided to put together a business contract to put at least some small teeth in place alongside the impotent marriage contract that our state provides and to make it absolutely clear to everyone that couples whom I marry are making contractual representations to me about the kind of marriage that they are asking me to witness and upon which they want me to ask the Lord's blessing.

The Details

Not all the details, of course, but a few things that might have caught your eye:

1. The $10,000: Of course, as you read down further, you'll notice that I'm really talking about a $10 wedding. It's the DIVORCE that winds up costing $10,000. Why that much? I'm looking for an amount that will make people stop and think, but that won't necessarily drive most people into abject, life-long poverty. Also, I wanted an amount for which I could reasonably say, "You'd be better off financially to pay for a little marriage counseling."
2. "Premarital Consultation" and "Christian Wedding": I wouldn't have drawn up a contract just for the purpose of these two items, but while I'm doing one, I wanted to put these things in there. If for no other reason, these things perhaps protect me a little bit from unintended consequences. I didn't want MYSELF to wind up in court for breach of contract if I executed one of these contracts for someone and then wound up refusing to perform the wedding for other reasons. Probably, I need to make sure that I include in this thing the reasons why I might wind up refusing to perform a wedding.
3. Recipient: I don't want people coming back and saying, "Hey, we've been tithing for 10 years. We've long ago paid off that $10,000. We're getting divorced and we're not paying a penny."
4. Financing: This is the heart of the contract. I'm setting up every one of these couples with a debt, but no payments are required and no interest will accrue. All they have to pay is the initial $10, and then the rest of it comes on their schedule (if at all). Why $10? I think that it makes it more clear that this is a real contract if at least some amount of money changes hands from the get-go. If it doesn't make it more real for the courts, at least perhaps it does so for the people involved.
5. Joint and Several Liability: Legally, I believe this means that I can collect the accelerated debt, if necessary, from both spouses or from either spouse, at my sole discretion. And so, if one deadbeat husband commits adultery and walks away from his spouse for another woman, I don't have to go after her for $10,000. I can, if I wish, just go after him for the total amount.
6. Forgiveness of Indebtedness: If the marriage survives "'til death do us part" then the debt goes away.
7. Acceleration Clause: If the marriage ends in divorce or annulment, I have the right, if I should choose to do so, to demand immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the $10,000.
8. What Would I Do With the Money? Legally, whatever I wanted. It's my money, paid to me for performing the wedding ceremony. That being said, I'd have a lot of options. If I wanted to give it to a wronged spouse, I guess I could do so, couldn't I? If I wanted to put it into trust for minor children caught up in a messy divorce, I guess I could do so, couldn't I?

Conclusion

Look, I'm of no delusional persuasion that taking this action will cause a dramatic drop in the divorce rate in Eastern Collin County. But I'm happy to think that I'm doing SOMETHING. If nothing else, I'm forcing engaged couples to think, in a business sort of way with real money on the line, about the commitment that they're making.

How I Do Weddings Now

UPDATE: I've authored another post explaining some of the details of this contract and what I'm trying to achieve. That post is here.

Following is a contract that I have started using for every wedding that I perform. I know that I have some legal geniuses who read this blog from time to time. I'm shamelessly trying to get your legal opinion pro bono. Of course, for those of you who aren't lawyers, I welcome your opinion as well.

CONTRACT TO PERFORM A WEDDING CEREMONY

I, the undersigned Christopher Bart Barber, an ordained Christian minister, agree to conduct the wedding ceremony of the undersigned bride and groom [“the couple”] in exchange for the sum of $10,000 and according to the following conditions:

1. PREMARITAL CONSULTATION: The couple agrees to attend sessions of premarital consultation as required by Christopher Bart Barber.
2. CHRISTIAN WEDDING: The couple agrees that the wedding ceremony will be in the form of a Christian worship service. The couple awards to Christopher Bart Barber the right to remove from the wedding ceremony at his sole discretion any content that is contrary to his personal convictions regarding the nature of Christian marriage. The couple hereby agrees that the nature of the wedding ceremony and the nature of the marriage covenant that they are seeking is in accord with the Principles of Christian Marriage that Christopher Bart Barber has presented to them during their premarital consultation with him.
3. RECIPIENT: The sum is payable to Christopher Bart Barber personally and not in his capacity as an employee of First Baptist Church of Farmersville. First Baptist Church of Farmersville is not a party to this contract. Agreements between the couple and any venue that may host the wedding ceremony or any related ceremonies or events are separate from this contract and do not affect it. Monies paid to First Baptist Church of Farmersville do not satisfy this debt.
4. FINANCING: The undersigned couple hereby enters into a financing agreement to pay the sum to Christopher Bart Barber according to the following terms: (a) Upon completion of the wedding ceremony the couple must make a down payment in the amount of at least $10 (TEN DOLLARS); (b) The remaining balance will accrue interest at the rate of 0% (ZERO PERCENT) PER ANNUM, which interest rate is fixed for the term of the loan and may not be changed; (c) The couple must make regular payments due on the first day of each month in the amount of $0 (ZERO DOLLARS); (d) Any additional payments shall be applied against the principal sum of the indebtedness.
5. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY: The obligations of the couple hereunder shall be joint and several.
6. FORGIVENESS OF INDEBTEDNESS: In the event that either the bride or the groom should die before the acceleration clause has been invoked, Christopher Bart Barber shall forgive the aggregate amount of the indebtedness.
7. ACCELERATION CLAUSE: In the event that the marriage of the couple should end in divorce or annulment, Christopher Bart Barber may, without notice or demand, declare the entire principal sum then unpaid immediately due and payable.

One More Thing to Do When Tragedy Strikes

We're not surprised, I think, at the volumes of great information filling the Internet in the aftermath of the tragic school shooting in Newtown, CT, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School (in case you're reading this a few years down the line and don't recall, I'm talking about this). Among the responses I've read, Dr. Al Mohler's has meant as much to me as any. There's a lot of godly wisdom in the world, and we are blessed by the immediate access we have to it because of the Internet. I won't try to add to or replace the thoughtful and comforting words that you have already received in so many places.

But I do want to offer one additional piece of advice that you may not have seen yet. With regard to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, after you've prayed for the victims, snuggled your own children, resolved not to let another day go by without thanking God for them, and taken careful and sober stock of the effects of sin in a culture running hard away from God, I want you to do one more thing:

Turn off your TV.

Listen, this 24-hour cable news cycle in which we live is not natural. The non-stop diet of tragedy that it serves is great for ratings, but bad for souls, I suspect. You already know all that you need to know about this tragedy. Just turn it off.

A Way Forward for Conservative Evangelicals

The election is over and President Obama has won another four years. The fate of the GOP was sealed with the nomination of Mitt Romney, and Evangelicals knew it. Evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney. A few Evangelicals altered their theology and terminology in favor of Mitt Romney. But Romney was not the choice of Evangelicals.

Why did Evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney? Because they did not believe that they had any other good choice. That's what has to change. Trust me: Somewhere in America there's a Bob Dole IV, and whoever he is, today he is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2016. If Evangelicals want to have more and better options, Evangelicals are going to have to create them. I'm happy to get the ball rolling by offering a few thoughts

1. The hard work of prioritizing our convictions lies before us. This will be the universal conclusion drawn this morning by Republicans, although different Republicans will apply the process differently. The major elements of Republican ideology are, in my estimation: (1)Free-Market Capitalism, (2)The Pro-Life Agenda, (3)Hawkish Foreign Policy, (4)Constitutionalism, (5)Nativism and Anti-Immigrationism, (6)The Law & Order Agenda, and (7)The Anti-Homosexuality Agenda.

   I didn't take four weeks to develop that list, but instead threw it together on the fly. Perhaps I've missed something important, but I feel pretty good about it as top-of-my-head efforts go.

   We're going to have to prioritize these things, as I said. And we're going to have to do so with some of these other factors in mind.

2. The Republican Party has to add not merely individual voters to its rolls, but larger and more rapidly growing blocs of voters. This is where the GOP ought to listen to Evangelicals if it wants to survive. Evangelicalism is growing among African-Americans and Latinos. The GOP is not. Obviously, Evangelicalism is not the cause of Republican demographic woes, for in the key ethnic groups that brought woe to the GOP last night, Evangelicals are succeeding.

   The question is: If the GOP persists in alienating African-American and Latino Evangelicals, then among White Republican Evangelicals, which of those three words will win out? Will we stand in coalition with fellow Evangelicals, with fellow Republicans, or just with fellow white people? I think we should stand with Evangelicals in the political arena.

   Of the ideological elements given above, two stand out as highly problematic: the question of immigration and the question of economic theory. The economic question is not as troubling as it may seem. The country could become a bit more oriented toward Free-Market Capitalism while maintaining a commitment to the social safety net. I think that the safety net concept is important to these demographic groups. Principled opposition to the safety net is probably not going to take root here, but Bill Clinton accomplished welfare reform, yet he retains robust support among these folks.

   The immigration question is where the problem lies. And, to speak frankly, some of the more extreme rhetoric on immigration from within the GOP is wrongheaded and wronghearted. I believe that there is an enormous pool of (potentially?) committed Pro-Life Evangelicals who could be developed from within the Hispanic community, but we'll never know so long as Pro-Life Evangelicals are wedded to a severe immigration platform plank.

   As for African-Americans, it seemed to me that quite a number of them were not happy with the gay-rights agenda within the Democratic Party, but where else could they go? I can relate to their feelings: I wasn't thrilled with Mitt Romney (nor were many of you), but we didn't have a lot of options open to us, did we? The major obstacles, I suspect, are fiscal rather than cultural in nature.

   Although the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is probably beyond rehabilitation at this point, a fusion between a more mercy-themed fiscal policy and a strong social conservatism could be a game-changer within the African-American community (if everyone were acting in good faith). At the very least, it is a conversation worth having. I'm not sure that I understand completely what policy changes would have to take place in order to form a coalition between Pro-Life White Evangelicals and Pro-Life Black Evangelicals, but I'm at least willing to ask that question and learn the answer.

   What concerns me is that a conversation has taken place this year among African-American Evangelicals over how their relationship with the Democratic Party will be affected by the radical Democrat sexual agenda, and Pro-Life White Evangelicals never even entered that conversation in any meaningful way. Maybe we don't succeed at building coalitions with African-Americans over justice for the unborn because we don't try very hard to build those coalitions in the first place—not in any way in which we are willing to concede as much as we are asking them to concede.

I'd love to write more, but I'm out of time for today. Rather than stitch together a mega-post over several days, I' think I'll just go ahead and sally forth with this much of whats swimming around in my head and get your reactions, with the promise of more to come.