A few months ago, I was introduced to a pastor in London, England, Barry King, through the kind words of another pastor in Farmersville, Texas, Bart Barber. Dr. Barber knew of my long experience with the British churches and of my own desire to see a revival occur in Great Britain. Christianity has fallen on hard times all over Western Europe; for instance, in England, church attendance is limited to less than 5% of the population, and the fastest growing religion is not even Christianity but Islam. I have been sharing the faith with unbelievers in Great Britain for some 15 years during my frequent visits there including a three-year residency at Oxford University. It has always been difficult for me to recommend that a new Christian attend a church there, knowing that many of the most vibrant evangelical churches are unfortunately disorderly in their doctrine of the church. And, as for those churches who possess a more New Testament polity, they are typically consumed with unbiblical oddities such as theological liberalism, the modern charismatic movement, or hyper-Calvinism.
However, now I am elated to report that there is a church—indeed, a growing family of churches—that possesses three important characteristics of a proper church: a missionary mindset, a healthy view of scriptural proclamation, and a Christ-exalting New Testament ecclesiology. It is in these three areas, among many others, that Grace Baptist Church, whose home congregation is located in north London, excels. Six years ago, Brother King resigned another church in London because he could not affirm certain aspects of their philosophy of ministry. Having sought to maintain peace with that church even as he departed her service, he was subsequently approached by two men whom he had recently begun to disciple. They encouraged him to consider establishing a new work, one that would emphasize biblical teaching and missionary outreach.
Barry prayed about the matter with them and his family and they began meeting together weekly for worship and fellowship. A year and a half later Barry was approached by the remnants of a small evangelical Baptist church who possessed a building but were soon to be without a pastor. After further prayer, the group meeting with Barry and this small group of believers entered into a new covenant as a new congregation with an old building. The result was Grace Baptist Church, Wood Green, Haringey. Because of their missionary mindset, they chose to start new congregations in other parts of London whenever possible. Indeed, every time the church has grown to a certain size, they have sent several families off to start a new congregation elsewhere in London. To date, they have begun five new congregations with work set to begin in two additional areas early in the New Year, who remain in affiliation with Grace Baptist Church and whose ministers Brother King is mentoring in the Word of God. (They currently have opportunity to begin some 20 other congregations and desire to see a church-planting church in each of the 41 boroughs of London with work in each of the 635 neighborhoods in London.)
Recently, sitting in a coffee shop early one Sunday morning in Wood Green, I had the pleasure of questioning Barry as to how he began and was continuing the work. We noted that his congregations were primarily composed of new believers. Then, I queried him, “And how were these new believers won to Christ?” At first, Barry looked at me quizzically, but recognizing that I was being intentional in my questions, he responded, “Well, I meet somebody, say, in a coffee shop, and then I talk to them about what the Bible says about their need for reconciliation with God and how Jesus Christ is the only answer.” He then explained that he believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection as the means of the salvation of all sinners, who must be born again with faith and repentance. He also explained that he believes biblical proclamation is the divinely ordained method of delivering that good news to lost people. I learned that he relied neither upon some humanly contrived church planting principle nor upon some emerging social ministry as his method for reaching the lost. Rather, he relied upon the Bible’s own method, which is to speak the Word directly in the hearing of as many lost people as will listen, encouraging them to believe (cf. Romans 10).
After this refreshing conversation about missional truth, we then proceeded to his church building, which like many in the British dissenting tradition was located off the main thoroughfare in a residential area. There, I was privileged to preach on the doctrine of believers-only baptism by immersion out of Romans 6 to his congregation. And during the service, I witnessed a wonderful man leading an expectant people to worship God with all their hearts and to hear God’s Word as the sole authority for their lives. We also heard reports from the ministers who are leading the church plants. These reports were, to say the least, personally inspiring and highly informative. Door-to-door evangelism, personal evangelism, street witnessing—Grace Baptist Church and its associated congregations were reaching the people of secularized multi-ethnic London, a society too many have deemed impenetrable, through a means that has been written off as old and unworkable, direct biblical proclamation.
Moreover, to my great delight, I was informed beyond a shadow of doubt that these churches followed the New Testament model in structuring and conducting their own lives as congregations. They begin with a covenant; they teach the entire counsel of God from the Bible regularly; they engage regenerate church membership by accepting only believers who have witnessed to their conversion through biblical baptism; they maintain authentic church membership through the regular meaningful observance of the Lord’s Supper; and, when necessary, practice redemptive church discipline. I was shocked. Here, in modern London, is a group of churches who recognize and honor the same truth as the first Baptist churches of seventeenth century England, who in turn emulated the New Testament church as established by Jesus Christ.
Well, there is so much more to report—the unremarked yet wonderful composition of the churches across ethnic, racial, and national boundaries; the intentional outreach to those who evangelical ecumenists may unwittingly and hastily mistake for true Christians (because, unlike Grace Baptist Church, they neglect to exercise spiritual discernment); the placement of the need for new congregations as primary and their own church building as important yet secondary; the centrality of the Bible in worship and the prominence of the gospel in every verbal action. Let me summarize what God is doing in north London through the ministry of Barry King and Grace Baptist Church by saying that I find great joy in this man’s ministry. He is leading people to follow Jesus exactly as the Lord has revealed His will in Scripture, not from legalistic motives but with thanksgiving in response to God’s saving grace. Moreover, as a non-Calvinist, I am overjoyed to report that Barry and his congregation were more concerned about what Scripture had to say than about whether or not I was personally holding to their own quite orthodox and evangelistic Calvinist convictions. May God glorify Himself far into the future through the joyful ministry of this church-planting church extraordinaire.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Karl Barth Demonstrates the Insufficiency of Reformed Theological Prolegomena
In The Formation of Christian Doctrine, I discussed four major options for Christian foundations in theological method. These were the (1) Roman Catholic, (2) Liberal Evangelical, (3) Reformed Evangelical, and (4) Free Church models. At one point, I criticized Gerhard Ebeling for ignoring the Free Church model in his understanding of Christian history, wherein he offered only a threefold paradigm, subsuming the Free Church understanding under the "Enthusiastic" as opposed to the Roman Catholic and Reformed models. Here, I would like to extend the critique of insufficient paradigms toward that premier Reformed theologian Karl Barth.
In his Church Dogmatics, I/1, under his discussion of "The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics," Barth, similarly to Ebeling, presents only three possible models for Prolegomena: (1) Roman Catholicism, (2) Protestant Modernism, and (3) Protestant Evangelical. These three models correlate to the first three models that I set out in chapter 2 of my book. The fourth model, that of the Free Church, is, however, woefully underestimated by Barth.
Barth, incredibly, subsumes the Free Church understanding within Protestant Modernism. Indeed, without any historical justification for such a dependence, he states that the assumption of Friedrich Schleiermacher, that faith is prior to dogmatic formation, has its "origin in English congregationalism" (p. 38). He then cites articles 20, 23, and 24 of the Platform of the Savoy Declaration as proof, adding further, "They and they alone could authorise Schleiermacher to commence his basic work of introduction with statements borrowed from ethics. And of themselves they are sufficient to characterise these borrowed statements as dogmatics, i.e., dogmatically heretical statements" (ibid.)
So, there you have it, according to Barth, the Free Church theological method is really the basis for Evangelical Liberalism, and the result is "dogmatically heretical statements." Unfortunately, Barth does not justify these statements beyond his cryptic reference to the Savoy Declaration. Later, in the Church Dogmatics and in numerous other writings, Barth will pursue, repeatedly and without satisfactory finality, the problem of relating ethics with dogmatics, a subject treated exhaustively in many of the works of my old professor, John Webster, now at Aberdeen University. Barth never could make the transition from dogmatics to ethics, try as he might, because he was constantly worried that human agency just might impinge upon divine grace.
As I argued during a lecture delivered at Aberdeen a few years ago, Barth would have benefited by a close reading of the work of Pilgram Marpeck. Marpeck, in my opinion, was able to weave his way clearly through the problem of grace and discipleship by allowing the latter an integral function within his theological foundation. In doing so, Marpeck demonstrated a way past the knotty problem that has held Reformed dogmatics in an irresolvable philosophical grip, a grip demonstrated in Barth's own philosophical ruminations regarding the doctrine of election. (Yes, even Barth, in spite of his Christological reading of Romans 9, could not escape the Stoical bases of Reformed thought.)
What I find of especial interest in Barth's flippant dismissal of the Free Church tradition is that he utilized the Savoy Declaration, in its discussions of the Gospel and Grace (art. 20), Oaths and Vows (art. 23), and the Civil Magistrate (art. 24). The Congregationalists/Independents who adopted the Savoy Declaration were, in many ways, just as enamored as Barth with Reformed speculations regarding divine election. However, in article 20, an article that they added to the Westminster Confession, they did leave some room for human response and personal transformation: "for the producing in them a new spiritual life."
And in articles 23 and 24, this opening is explored again. In discussing the taking of an oath, the human person is protected from external coercion with this statement: "neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing, but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform." Again, though in an apparently post-conversion context, the idea of a fully involved personal response by a human being is advocated.
Barth's reference to Article 24, on the Civil Magistrate, is highly disturbing, for in the Westminster Confession, the government is called upon in no uncertain terms to enforce the godly faith. The Savoy Declaration, however, respectful of human responsibility, qualifies the role of the government, bringing the liberty of individual consciences into direct conversation with government authority, protecting the former, in a limited sense, from impingement by the latter.
Let me wrap up this little exercise by noting the problems here with Reformed theological methodology, as exemplified in Karl Barth. By divorcing discipleship from doctrine, Reformed theology has created an irresolvable dilemma that prefers speculation about election to dependence upon scriptural affirmations. By citing his difficulty with the Savoy Declaration, Barth has demonstrated that Reformed theology is uncomfortable with personal responsibility and personal transformation, which are integral to any biblical doctrine of faith. Finally, again, by citing the Savoy Declaration, Barth has demonstrated that Reformed theology is, in its genesis, grossly dependent upon the coercion of consciences through, though here he is later equivocal, infant baptism.
In his Church Dogmatics, I/1, under his discussion of "The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics," Barth, similarly to Ebeling, presents only three possible models for Prolegomena: (1) Roman Catholicism, (2) Protestant Modernism, and (3) Protestant Evangelical. These three models correlate to the first three models that I set out in chapter 2 of my book. The fourth model, that of the Free Church, is, however, woefully underestimated by Barth.
Barth, incredibly, subsumes the Free Church understanding within Protestant Modernism. Indeed, without any historical justification for such a dependence, he states that the assumption of Friedrich Schleiermacher, that faith is prior to dogmatic formation, has its "origin in English congregationalism" (p. 38). He then cites articles 20, 23, and 24 of the Platform of the Savoy Declaration as proof, adding further, "They and they alone could authorise Schleiermacher to commence his basic work of introduction with statements borrowed from ethics. And of themselves they are sufficient to characterise these borrowed statements as dogmatics, i.e., dogmatically heretical statements" (ibid.)
So, there you have it, according to Barth, the Free Church theological method is really the basis for Evangelical Liberalism, and the result is "dogmatically heretical statements." Unfortunately, Barth does not justify these statements beyond his cryptic reference to the Savoy Declaration. Later, in the Church Dogmatics and in numerous other writings, Barth will pursue, repeatedly and without satisfactory finality, the problem of relating ethics with dogmatics, a subject treated exhaustively in many of the works of my old professor, John Webster, now at Aberdeen University. Barth never could make the transition from dogmatics to ethics, try as he might, because he was constantly worried that human agency just might impinge upon divine grace.
As I argued during a lecture delivered at Aberdeen a few years ago, Barth would have benefited by a close reading of the work of Pilgram Marpeck. Marpeck, in my opinion, was able to weave his way clearly through the problem of grace and discipleship by allowing the latter an integral function within his theological foundation. In doing so, Marpeck demonstrated a way past the knotty problem that has held Reformed dogmatics in an irresolvable philosophical grip, a grip demonstrated in Barth's own philosophical ruminations regarding the doctrine of election. (Yes, even Barth, in spite of his Christological reading of Romans 9, could not escape the Stoical bases of Reformed thought.)
What I find of especial interest in Barth's flippant dismissal of the Free Church tradition is that he utilized the Savoy Declaration, in its discussions of the Gospel and Grace (art. 20), Oaths and Vows (art. 23), and the Civil Magistrate (art. 24). The Congregationalists/Independents who adopted the Savoy Declaration were, in many ways, just as enamored as Barth with Reformed speculations regarding divine election. However, in article 20, an article that they added to the Westminster Confession, they did leave some room for human response and personal transformation: "for the producing in them a new spiritual life."
And in articles 23 and 24, this opening is explored again. In discussing the taking of an oath, the human person is protected from external coercion with this statement: "neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing, but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform." Again, though in an apparently post-conversion context, the idea of a fully involved personal response by a human being is advocated.
Barth's reference to Article 24, on the Civil Magistrate, is highly disturbing, for in the Westminster Confession, the government is called upon in no uncertain terms to enforce the godly faith. The Savoy Declaration, however, respectful of human responsibility, qualifies the role of the government, bringing the liberty of individual consciences into direct conversation with government authority, protecting the former, in a limited sense, from impingement by the latter.
Let me wrap up this little exercise by noting the problems here with Reformed theological methodology, as exemplified in Karl Barth. By divorcing discipleship from doctrine, Reformed theology has created an irresolvable dilemma that prefers speculation about election to dependence upon scriptural affirmations. By citing his difficulty with the Savoy Declaration, Barth has demonstrated that Reformed theology is uncomfortable with personal responsibility and personal transformation, which are integral to any biblical doctrine of faith. Finally, again, by citing the Savoy Declaration, Barth has demonstrated that Reformed theology is, in its genesis, grossly dependent upon the coercion of consciences through, though here he is later equivocal, infant baptism.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Is Communion for Sinners?
Recently, a friend passed me the link to a video promotion for a DVD entitled "Communion." It is an interesting video (and painfully slow, so be warned!) It is interesting in that the author(s) seems to present the Lord's Supper as indiscriminately intended for all sinners. But this is too simple of a solution, and does violence to the biblical witness.
It is an indisputable truth that all human beings, other than Jesus Christ, are tainted by sin. This is what makes us worthy of the eternal punishment of death. Death, of course, is separation from God. And the Son of God took on our humanity in order to suffer the penalty of death for us on the cross and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life. Christ came to save sinners from sin and its consequence of death, which ends in eternal punishment away from the comforting presence of God. One is saved through being born again, which accompanies faith in Him and repentance toward God (John 3).
Unfortunately, the video's author, in this short promotion, presents the Lord's Supper as being intended for all sinners indiscriminately. But is this the case? Is communion intended for all sinners? Absolutely not!
When the Corinthian church demonstrated a penchant for gross immersion in the sins of the wider culture of their day, Paul rebuked them in no uncertain terms. The point he repeatedly made in the Corinthian correspondence was that the Lord's Supper was to be reserved only for the regenerate church. Those who were still infatuated with the sinful culture of Corinthian paganism were reminded that communion with God and communion with the devil are incompatible (1 Cor 10:20-21). The Corinthians were warned that they must be separate from the world: "'Come out from their midst and be separate,' says the Lord, 'and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you'" (2 Cor 6:17).
In other words, I believe that, according to Scripture, the ordinance of communion, practiced by the churches at the direct command of Jesus Christ, is to be reserved for sinners who have been born again and are pursuing a life of repentance. Are the unholy invited into communion with the Holy One? Yes, indeed. But, first, there must be a transformation prior to communion. Sinners must repent and believe; otherwise, they are still sinners subject to the judgment of God. Moreover, such repentance from sin and faith in Christ must continue to characterize the Christian's life.
Paul warned that those who continued in sin are subject to divine judgment precisely because they were unrepentant sinners. "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly" (1 Cor 11:29). The body must be judged. "The body," of course, is a common Pauline metaphor for the church. Individual Christians, in other words, must examine their own consciences (1 Cor 11:28), and Christians in the local church must hold one another accountable for one another's doctrine and conduct (1 Cor 11:29).
A concrete example in Corinth occurred with a young man involved in gross sexual sin. The speech of the Corinthian church had become so saturated with vice that she overlooked a situation by which even the pagans would be shocked (1 Cor 5:1). But rather than pass over the matter in silence, or make excuses for it, Paul called the church to take immediate action. As an Apostle, Paul recognized the need for the congregation itself to exercise governance through the application of discipline. The church must repent of its habit of condoning gross sin and excommunicate the sinner. When the church gathered, it must remove the sinful person "in the power of the Lord Jesus" and return him to the realm of Satan, i.e., the world (1 Cor 5:2-5).
The action of the Corinthian church in disciplining the unrepentant sinner was necessary, in spite of the difficulty it might bring to all involved. Yet, the difficulties were worth what seems to have been the result. Rather than continue condoning sexual sin, the majority of the Corinthian church seems to have obeyed and applied church discipline. This resulted in getting the sinner's attention, bringing to him great sorrow, and as a result, he repented. Paul then called the church to restore the repentant sinner to fellowship (2 Cor 2:1-9). Through discipline, an unrepentant sinner who thought he was already a Christian but did not act like it, was brought to repentance and faithfulness towards Christ.
My friends, our churches must seek to maintain their public purity. On the one hand, the church will never be perfect until all Christians gather (for the first time as one) at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8). On the other hand, the members of the church are commanded by Christ to help one another towards repentance and a faithful lifestyle even now. If an individual Christian will not repent of publicly-known sin, then he or she must be excluded by the church (and only by the church--there is no room for elders arrogating to themselves the power of church discipline) for the purpose of loving redemption (Matt 18:15-17).
Let it be clearly noted that the intended outcome is, ultimately, the redemption of the sinner. Punishment is entirely in the purview of God alone, but loving discipline is given by the Lord to the church to practice when necessary. The church is to separate from unrepentant sinners in order that they might prompt one another through the covenantal life of the community to follow Christ completely.
So, we come back to the question prompted by the subject video: Is communion for sinners? Yes, but not without discrimination. Communion is only for sinners who have been born again. We know we are truly born again only because we are repenting of sin and are seeking to live lives faithful to the high call of Jesus Christ in discipleship.
Perhaps the video that prompted this short essay goes further into these matters. Unfortunately, the website does not clarify. I hope the full content is better than the presentation available publicly, for what they have posted online presents a highly distorted picture of the scriptural witness. For more on the biblical understanding of the regenerate church practicing close communion, see the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 articles on the church (art. 6) and on baptism and the Lord's Supper (art. 7).
Jesus is the Lord of His churches, which means that He is to be followed in what He commands them.
It is an indisputable truth that all human beings, other than Jesus Christ, are tainted by sin. This is what makes us worthy of the eternal punishment of death. Death, of course, is separation from God. And the Son of God took on our humanity in order to suffer the penalty of death for us on the cross and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life. Christ came to save sinners from sin and its consequence of death, which ends in eternal punishment away from the comforting presence of God. One is saved through being born again, which accompanies faith in Him and repentance toward God (John 3).
Unfortunately, the video's author, in this short promotion, presents the Lord's Supper as being intended for all sinners indiscriminately. But is this the case? Is communion intended for all sinners? Absolutely not!
When the Corinthian church demonstrated a penchant for gross immersion in the sins of the wider culture of their day, Paul rebuked them in no uncertain terms. The point he repeatedly made in the Corinthian correspondence was that the Lord's Supper was to be reserved only for the regenerate church. Those who were still infatuated with the sinful culture of Corinthian paganism were reminded that communion with God and communion with the devil are incompatible (1 Cor 10:20-21). The Corinthians were warned that they must be separate from the world: "'Come out from their midst and be separate,' says the Lord, 'and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you'" (2 Cor 6:17).
In other words, I believe that, according to Scripture, the ordinance of communion, practiced by the churches at the direct command of Jesus Christ, is to be reserved for sinners who have been born again and are pursuing a life of repentance. Are the unholy invited into communion with the Holy One? Yes, indeed. But, first, there must be a transformation prior to communion. Sinners must repent and believe; otherwise, they are still sinners subject to the judgment of God. Moreover, such repentance from sin and faith in Christ must continue to characterize the Christian's life.
Paul warned that those who continued in sin are subject to divine judgment precisely because they were unrepentant sinners. "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly" (1 Cor 11:29). The body must be judged. "The body," of course, is a common Pauline metaphor for the church. Individual Christians, in other words, must examine their own consciences (1 Cor 11:28), and Christians in the local church must hold one another accountable for one another's doctrine and conduct (1 Cor 11:29).
A concrete example in Corinth occurred with a young man involved in gross sexual sin. The speech of the Corinthian church had become so saturated with vice that she overlooked a situation by which even the pagans would be shocked (1 Cor 5:1). But rather than pass over the matter in silence, or make excuses for it, Paul called the church to take immediate action. As an Apostle, Paul recognized the need for the congregation itself to exercise governance through the application of discipline. The church must repent of its habit of condoning gross sin and excommunicate the sinner. When the church gathered, it must remove the sinful person "in the power of the Lord Jesus" and return him to the realm of Satan, i.e., the world (1 Cor 5:2-5).
The action of the Corinthian church in disciplining the unrepentant sinner was necessary, in spite of the difficulty it might bring to all involved. Yet, the difficulties were worth what seems to have been the result. Rather than continue condoning sexual sin, the majority of the Corinthian church seems to have obeyed and applied church discipline. This resulted in getting the sinner's attention, bringing to him great sorrow, and as a result, he repented. Paul then called the church to restore the repentant sinner to fellowship (2 Cor 2:1-9). Through discipline, an unrepentant sinner who thought he was already a Christian but did not act like it, was brought to repentance and faithfulness towards Christ.
My friends, our churches must seek to maintain their public purity. On the one hand, the church will never be perfect until all Christians gather (for the first time as one) at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8). On the other hand, the members of the church are commanded by Christ to help one another towards repentance and a faithful lifestyle even now. If an individual Christian will not repent of publicly-known sin, then he or she must be excluded by the church (and only by the church--there is no room for elders arrogating to themselves the power of church discipline) for the purpose of loving redemption (Matt 18:15-17).
Let it be clearly noted that the intended outcome is, ultimately, the redemption of the sinner. Punishment is entirely in the purview of God alone, but loving discipline is given by the Lord to the church to practice when necessary. The church is to separate from unrepentant sinners in order that they might prompt one another through the covenantal life of the community to follow Christ completely.
So, we come back to the question prompted by the subject video: Is communion for sinners? Yes, but not without discrimination. Communion is only for sinners who have been born again. We know we are truly born again only because we are repenting of sin and are seeking to live lives faithful to the high call of Jesus Christ in discipleship.
Perhaps the video that prompted this short essay goes further into these matters. Unfortunately, the website does not clarify. I hope the full content is better than the presentation available publicly, for what they have posted online presents a highly distorted picture of the scriptural witness. For more on the biblical understanding of the regenerate church practicing close communion, see the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 articles on the church (art. 6) and on baptism and the Lord's Supper (art. 7).
Jesus is the Lord of His churches, which means that He is to be followed in what He commands them.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Unauthorized Consent: An Old Essay Addresses New Problems
Yesterday, somebody affiliated with the Baylor community re-posted a paper on their discussion forum, which I originally wrote in 2002 . If you have not heard, the Baylor University Administration is seeking to shut down all dissent by swallowing the independent Baylor Alumni Association whole. Read about their attempt here.
For Moderate Baptists
It is somewhat curious to me that a school community affiliated with the more moderate side of the Baptist equation now includes an appeal to the work of a conservative Baptist scholar. Why? Because moderate Texas Baptists, who have prided themselves on being Baptist, find that they are losing their Baptist way of being community. If that popular-style essay, written some 7 years ago, is of any help to these fellow Baptists, I will rejoice, even across the moderate/conservative divide.
A Warning For All Baptists
But moderate Baptists are not the only ones who need to be reminded of our principles. In light of the fact that we are always in danger of losing our Baptist identity when some Baptists seek to remove other Baptists from their rightful place at the table, I am re-posting that essay. "Unauthorized Consent" applies to more situations than the gross practice of liberal-leaning self-perpetuating boards.
The only way we will remain Baptists (i.e. New Testament churches) by conviction is when we remember the theological principles upon which we are built. The priesthood of all believers and congregationalism are non-negotiable essentials in our Baptist identity. If we neglect those truths, we will become Baptists by convenience rather than Baptists by conviction, and, eventually, we will lose the name as well as the substance.
You may access the essay, "Unauthorized Consent," originally published in the Missouri Baptist Pathway, in Adobe format here.
For Moderate Baptists
It is somewhat curious to me that a school community affiliated with the more moderate side of the Baptist equation now includes an appeal to the work of a conservative Baptist scholar. Why? Because moderate Texas Baptists, who have prided themselves on being Baptist, find that they are losing their Baptist way of being community. If that popular-style essay, written some 7 years ago, is of any help to these fellow Baptists, I will rejoice, even across the moderate/conservative divide.
A Warning For All Baptists
But moderate Baptists are not the only ones who need to be reminded of our principles. In light of the fact that we are always in danger of losing our Baptist identity when some Baptists seek to remove other Baptists from their rightful place at the table, I am re-posting that essay. "Unauthorized Consent" applies to more situations than the gross practice of liberal-leaning self-perpetuating boards.
The only way we will remain Baptists (i.e. New Testament churches) by conviction is when we remember the theological principles upon which we are built. The priesthood of all believers and congregationalism are non-negotiable essentials in our Baptist identity. If we neglect those truths, we will become Baptists by convenience rather than Baptists by conviction, and, eventually, we will lose the name as well as the substance.
You may access the essay, "Unauthorized Consent," originally published in the Missouri Baptist Pathway, in Adobe format here.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Top Twelve Reading List Recommended for All Christians Everywhere
Recently, I was asked (yet again) for a recommended reading list for young people preparing for ministry. Next to the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, I recommend that every Christian read the following works, which span the history of the Christian witness. They will increase your personal faith and deepen your theological convictions as you also bear witness to a fallen world of the saving grace available only in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do hope they compel you to a closer walk with the Lord, as they did and still do with me.
Note: Some of these books are longer than others; some will be more difficult than others (so don't get bogged down, just keep going!); some may be available in multiple translations; some are available freely on the web; others will require purchase or library loan. If you can read these books in the original Greek, Latin, German or English forms, so much the better; however, modern translations will be more than adequate. Although it would be best for you to learn both Greek and Hebrew, so that you may more adequately approach the original biblical texts, you may want to begin your biblical language studies with an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, or an interlinear text that correlates the Greek New Testament with your own primary language.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word
Augustine, Confessions
Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ
Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther
Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian
Balthasar Hubmaier, The Christian Baptism of Believers
John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress (both books)
Philip Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria
William Carey, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (or simply, Discipleship)
John Stott, The Cross of Christ
Note: Some of these books are longer than others; some will be more difficult than others (so don't get bogged down, just keep going!); some may be available in multiple translations; some are available freely on the web; others will require purchase or library loan. If you can read these books in the original Greek, Latin, German or English forms, so much the better; however, modern translations will be more than adequate. Although it would be best for you to learn both Greek and Hebrew, so that you may more adequately approach the original biblical texts, you may want to begin your biblical language studies with an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, or an interlinear text that correlates the Greek New Testament with your own primary language.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A Tribute to My Father
My father is known as Mel Yarnell to his friends and family. He is the son of a Pennsylvania farmer who left the farm to join the United States Air Force, where he served for 27 years as a security officer and recruiter, before retiring in Louisiana. A strong believer in Jesus Christ who is a consistent witness to lost souls, he has always looked for ways to bless others who are in need. The dynamic nature of his love for others is seen in how he continues to do what he can for them in spite of having suffered a debilitating stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body a few years ago. My father's life story was recently summarized in "The Posse Press," a publication offered by the Bossier Sheriff's office. This provides some details about my father, a Christmas blessing to the people of Korea, and how he met my mother. I am proud of both of them.
Friday, June 05, 2009
The Relevance of the Past for a Great Commission Resurgence
FIRST-PERSON: The relevance of the past for a Great Commission resurgence
By Malcolm Yarnell
Jun 4, 2009
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--At the beginning of the 20th century, Southern Baptists numbered 1.6 million people. And now, at the beginning of the 21st century, Southern Baptists number over 16 million people.
The story of Southern Baptists in the 20th century is the growth story of a communion of free churches who focused upon telling lost people the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, in recent years, our baptisms have slowed and our growth has been tempered. Why has this happened? And does our past hold any lessons for our future? How may we truly reclaim the growth habits of our forefathers and the resurgence in our hearts of Christ's Great Commission?
As the editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology, I have been reading through our earliest issues. In the midst of that, I repeatedly encountered denominational leaders issuing powerful affirmations of the fundamentals of the Christian faith alongside equally powerful affirmations of the fundamentals of Baptist identity. They understood the fundamentals of the Christian faith to focus on Christ, Scripture, the cross, divine grace and personal discipleship. They understood the fundamentals of Baptist identity to focus on the Lordship of Christ and His will for His churches. These leaders, from many places and walks within the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, simultaneously shared a passion for the Gospel along with a passion for obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ, especially His Great Commission.
In the midst of this reading, I also discovered a general foreboding about the future of Christianity, alongside a sense of profound excitement, especially regarding the future of Southern Baptists. As we know from our current vantage point, Southern Baptists entered their period of greatest growth in the middle decades of the 20th century. Our amazing growth was truly the work of God in the midst of our churches. And the mid-century growth was laid upon the foundational work He performed with our forefathers in the early part of the century. What characterized the foundational work of those early 20th-century forefathers? And what may we learn from them about how to prepare for an advance in the Great Commission of Jesus Christ?
DARK DAYS IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
To answer these questions properly, some historical matters in the early 20th century must be addressed. During this period, the United States entered and emerged from its first engagement in world war. At that time, Americans were at war with German imperialism, just as now, we are in the midst of a war against Islamic terrorism. Also, in the religious realm, things were similar to today. There had been a powerful call by evangelical missionaries for a common missionary endeavor both in the United States and throughout the world. Internationally, these efforts were centered in the famous meetings in Edinburgh in 1910, which culminated in the World Council of Churches.
In the United States, the drive for ecumenism was led by John R. Mott, a young evangelical who succeeded the great revivalist D.L. Moody at the YMCA. Mott's efforts gained steam and became known as the "Union Movement," because it called for lowering denominational barriers between evangelical Christians in the name of "efficiency" and "unity" in Christ. From within the Southern Baptist Convention, L.R. Scarborough, president of Southwestern Seminary, led the effort to denounce unionism in its various forms. Even as he defended a biblically based spiritual unity, Scarborough and other Southern Baptists excoriated cross-denominational ecclesiastical unity for impinging upon the prerogatives of Christ over His churches.
Thus, many saw ecumenism as dangerous to spiritual Christianity, while others were interested in forming coalitions with other Christians for the greater cause of the Gospel. Things looked fairly bleak in the late 1910s as evangelical Christians divided into camps. In particular, it seemed as if Southern Baptists might dissipate their strength in a fight over evangelical cooperation. J.B. Gambrell, pastor and seminary leader, spoke soberly of the deep challenges leading into the 1919 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, saying:
"The great war forced on Southern Baptists grave issues. They were precipitated on us in such a way that each man had to decide on his own course without any wide council. Unusual efforts were made by outside forces to capture and take over the leadership of the Southern Convention in the interest of plans destructive of the faith of the Gospel. The Convention in its Atlanta meeting was at the parting of ways. There was much heart-searching, and much prayer. Personally, I do not doubt that God, the Holy Spirit, dealt with the hearts of His people all over the South and prepared them aforetime for what happened in Atlanta. The Convention was the greatest ever assembled on this Continent, 4,200 messengers plus. It was widely representative. All the estates of Israel were there."
In spite of the troubles, perhaps God was not done with Southern Baptists. With the heaviness of his previous comments in mind and the largest-ever convention gathering before him, Gambrell believed that God still desired to move mightily in the midst of His churches. Reflecting later about what had happened at the 1919 meeting, Gambrell concluded, "The Spirit of grace and power was on the assembly." And looking back from here, we perceive that Gambrell may have actually understated the wide-ranging impact of God's grace and power in this convention.
THREE FUNDAMENTAL PLANKS IN THE DENOMINATION'S GROWTH
And what did the Spirit of God lead the messengers of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to do during their 1919 meeting? Out of a dark period arose something profoundly God-honoring and world-moving from within the Southern Baptist Convention. Alongside their defense of Christian truth and their defense of Baptist identity, our forefathers were interested in reaching the world for Christ. And God honored Southern Baptists as they followed a three-fold pursuit.
The efforts of our early 20th-century forefathers manifested themselves in three significant planks in our denomination's foundation: a compelling goal, a defined identity and a common program. First, their compelling goal was the fulfillment of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Second, their defined identity was evangelical Christianity of a firmly Baptist type. Third, their program was to further the Great Commission efforts of the local churches in ways respectful of the local church's authority.
In the case of the first plank, Southern Baptists had long received the Great Commission as their own, as sermons delivered in the churches and the writings in those early issues attest. Indeed, the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 has historically been the loudest refrain of the Baptists in general and of Southern Baptists in particular. The Great Commission was their compelling goal, just as it is ours.
DEFINING BAPTIST IDENTITY
But there were two additional acts representing the two other planks that Southern Baptists needed to form the basis for their future growth: a defined identity and a common program. According to Gambrell, "The Convention rose to its greatest height, and did two vastly significant things. It disposed of all questions of alliances with other orders holding different standards of faith and practice, by passing, with amazing spirit and unanimity, a carefully considered report, which defined the Baptist position so clearly, that all the world may understand. And the convention put on a program so large, so noble and so commanding as to challenge Southern Baptists as they have never been challenged before in their history."
In the case of a defined identity, the convention appointed a committee to write a Fraternal Address, which was soon followed by the first version of The Baptist Faith and Message. To drive home the point that Southern Baptists would maintain their Baptist identity, Gambrell, the president of the convention during that important year, listened patiently to the address of J.C. White. White had come from the evangelical Inter-Church Movement and was granted a place in the SBC program. After White spoke, Gambrell publicly grasped him by the hand at the podium and declared, "Baptists do not have popes. They never put anybody where they can't put him down ... and another thing: Baptists never ride a horse without a bridle."
"Baptists," according to the bold Gambrell, "do not have popes." This fierce defense of Christ's direct prerogative over His people has been echoed through the years, not only in the Southern Baptist Convention, but in the local associations and state conventions that preceded the national denomination by decades and centuries. Most importantly, that sense of singular devotion to Jesus Christ has its basis in the New Testament pattern of the local church, which is the only institution created by Jesus Christ to fulfill the Great Commission.
A COMMON PROGRAM RESPECTFUL OF THE LOCAL CHURCH
In the case of a common program, these earlier Southern Baptists believed that the local churches may and must support one another in their mutual efforts. The mutual cooperation of free New Testament churches for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus Christ was the genius behind the programmatic efforts of the Southern Baptist Convention. And this third plank of Southern Baptist success, a common program, was dependent upon respect for the local church for its success. New Testament churches are autonomous under Christ and their independence was zealously guarded.
But Southern Baptists in these years also sought ways for the free churches to move forward together for the Gospel. They began by improving the church-supporting structure of the convention they had received. They recognized the need to help their two great foundational mission boards (Home and Foreign), as well as their growing number of seminaries and the Baptist Sunday School Board through improved means. In 1917, they created the Executive Committee as a better means to coordinate their broadening administrative needs. And in 1919, they wholeheartedly adopted the 75 Million Campaign as a better means to fund their common efforts to preach the Gospel and plant Baptist churches worldwide. The end result was the Cooperative Program and the basic structure of the national denomination as we see it, today.
HOPE FOR A NEW HIGH
And what was the result of this compelling goal of the Great Commission, the defined identity of Baptist Christianity, and this common program respectful of the local churches? Gambrell's own words resonate with our hope for a renewed sense of commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over His churches, a commitment that is expressed as the churches fulfill the Great Commission given to us by Jesus Christ:
"Thus the healing tides of Southern Baptist life met and Jordan overflowed its banks. As never before in all their long history, Southern Baptists are together after Paul's ideal of efficiency -- 'in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.' At Atlanta a new era opened and we are in that day now. What Isaiah cried out for and some in our day have longed for came to pass. Southern Baptists awoke. They broke forth on the right hand and on the left hand. They are putting on their strength. They are enlarging the place of their habitation, and there is a new high note of courage and joy sounded out from every hilltop...."
Oh, Lord, send us a three-planked revival, again! Restore to our hearts an overwhelming to desire to fulfill Your Great Commission as defined by Your Word. Restore to our voices an evangelical identity of a distinctively Baptist type as gleaned from the New Testament. And restore to our ways remembrance that Your local churches are your ordained means and therefore our ordained program.
--30--
Malcolm Yarnell is associate professor of systematic theology and director of the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
© Copyright 2009 Baptist Press
Original copy of this story can be found at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=30620
By Malcolm Yarnell
Jun 4, 2009
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--At the beginning of the 20th century, Southern Baptists numbered 1.6 million people. And now, at the beginning of the 21st century, Southern Baptists number over 16 million people.
The story of Southern Baptists in the 20th century is the growth story of a communion of free churches who focused upon telling lost people the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, in recent years, our baptisms have slowed and our growth has been tempered. Why has this happened? And does our past hold any lessons for our future? How may we truly reclaim the growth habits of our forefathers and the resurgence in our hearts of Christ's Great Commission?
As the editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology, I have been reading through our earliest issues. In the midst of that, I repeatedly encountered denominational leaders issuing powerful affirmations of the fundamentals of the Christian faith alongside equally powerful affirmations of the fundamentals of Baptist identity. They understood the fundamentals of the Christian faith to focus on Christ, Scripture, the cross, divine grace and personal discipleship. They understood the fundamentals of Baptist identity to focus on the Lordship of Christ and His will for His churches. These leaders, from many places and walks within the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, simultaneously shared a passion for the Gospel along with a passion for obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ, especially His Great Commission.
In the midst of this reading, I also discovered a general foreboding about the future of Christianity, alongside a sense of profound excitement, especially regarding the future of Southern Baptists. As we know from our current vantage point, Southern Baptists entered their period of greatest growth in the middle decades of the 20th century. Our amazing growth was truly the work of God in the midst of our churches. And the mid-century growth was laid upon the foundational work He performed with our forefathers in the early part of the century. What characterized the foundational work of those early 20th-century forefathers? And what may we learn from them about how to prepare for an advance in the Great Commission of Jesus Christ?
DARK DAYS IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
To answer these questions properly, some historical matters in the early 20th century must be addressed. During this period, the United States entered and emerged from its first engagement in world war. At that time, Americans were at war with German imperialism, just as now, we are in the midst of a war against Islamic terrorism. Also, in the religious realm, things were similar to today. There had been a powerful call by evangelical missionaries for a common missionary endeavor both in the United States and throughout the world. Internationally, these efforts were centered in the famous meetings in Edinburgh in 1910, which culminated in the World Council of Churches.
In the United States, the drive for ecumenism was led by John R. Mott, a young evangelical who succeeded the great revivalist D.L. Moody at the YMCA. Mott's efforts gained steam and became known as the "Union Movement," because it called for lowering denominational barriers between evangelical Christians in the name of "efficiency" and "unity" in Christ. From within the Southern Baptist Convention, L.R. Scarborough, president of Southwestern Seminary, led the effort to denounce unionism in its various forms. Even as he defended a biblically based spiritual unity, Scarborough and other Southern Baptists excoriated cross-denominational ecclesiastical unity for impinging upon the prerogatives of Christ over His churches.
Thus, many saw ecumenism as dangerous to spiritual Christianity, while others were interested in forming coalitions with other Christians for the greater cause of the Gospel. Things looked fairly bleak in the late 1910s as evangelical Christians divided into camps. In particular, it seemed as if Southern Baptists might dissipate their strength in a fight over evangelical cooperation. J.B. Gambrell, pastor and seminary leader, spoke soberly of the deep challenges leading into the 1919 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, saying:
"The great war forced on Southern Baptists grave issues. They were precipitated on us in such a way that each man had to decide on his own course without any wide council. Unusual efforts were made by outside forces to capture and take over the leadership of the Southern Convention in the interest of plans destructive of the faith of the Gospel. The Convention in its Atlanta meeting was at the parting of ways. There was much heart-searching, and much prayer. Personally, I do not doubt that God, the Holy Spirit, dealt with the hearts of His people all over the South and prepared them aforetime for what happened in Atlanta. The Convention was the greatest ever assembled on this Continent, 4,200 messengers plus. It was widely representative. All the estates of Israel were there."
In spite of the troubles, perhaps God was not done with Southern Baptists. With the heaviness of his previous comments in mind and the largest-ever convention gathering before him, Gambrell believed that God still desired to move mightily in the midst of His churches. Reflecting later about what had happened at the 1919 meeting, Gambrell concluded, "The Spirit of grace and power was on the assembly." And looking back from here, we perceive that Gambrell may have actually understated the wide-ranging impact of God's grace and power in this convention.
THREE FUNDAMENTAL PLANKS IN THE DENOMINATION'S GROWTH
And what did the Spirit of God lead the messengers of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to do during their 1919 meeting? Out of a dark period arose something profoundly God-honoring and world-moving from within the Southern Baptist Convention. Alongside their defense of Christian truth and their defense of Baptist identity, our forefathers were interested in reaching the world for Christ. And God honored Southern Baptists as they followed a three-fold pursuit.
The efforts of our early 20th-century forefathers manifested themselves in three significant planks in our denomination's foundation: a compelling goal, a defined identity and a common program. First, their compelling goal was the fulfillment of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Second, their defined identity was evangelical Christianity of a firmly Baptist type. Third, their program was to further the Great Commission efforts of the local churches in ways respectful of the local church's authority.
In the case of the first plank, Southern Baptists had long received the Great Commission as their own, as sermons delivered in the churches and the writings in those early issues attest. Indeed, the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 has historically been the loudest refrain of the Baptists in general and of Southern Baptists in particular. The Great Commission was their compelling goal, just as it is ours.
DEFINING BAPTIST IDENTITY
But there were two additional acts representing the two other planks that Southern Baptists needed to form the basis for their future growth: a defined identity and a common program. According to Gambrell, "The Convention rose to its greatest height, and did two vastly significant things. It disposed of all questions of alliances with other orders holding different standards of faith and practice, by passing, with amazing spirit and unanimity, a carefully considered report, which defined the Baptist position so clearly, that all the world may understand. And the convention put on a program so large, so noble and so commanding as to challenge Southern Baptists as they have never been challenged before in their history."
In the case of a defined identity, the convention appointed a committee to write a Fraternal Address, which was soon followed by the first version of The Baptist Faith and Message. To drive home the point that Southern Baptists would maintain their Baptist identity, Gambrell, the president of the convention during that important year, listened patiently to the address of J.C. White. White had come from the evangelical Inter-Church Movement and was granted a place in the SBC program. After White spoke, Gambrell publicly grasped him by the hand at the podium and declared, "Baptists do not have popes. They never put anybody where they can't put him down ... and another thing: Baptists never ride a horse without a bridle."
"Baptists," according to the bold Gambrell, "do not have popes." This fierce defense of Christ's direct prerogative over His people has been echoed through the years, not only in the Southern Baptist Convention, but in the local associations and state conventions that preceded the national denomination by decades and centuries. Most importantly, that sense of singular devotion to Jesus Christ has its basis in the New Testament pattern of the local church, which is the only institution created by Jesus Christ to fulfill the Great Commission.
A COMMON PROGRAM RESPECTFUL OF THE LOCAL CHURCH
In the case of a common program, these earlier Southern Baptists believed that the local churches may and must support one another in their mutual efforts. The mutual cooperation of free New Testament churches for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus Christ was the genius behind the programmatic efforts of the Southern Baptist Convention. And this third plank of Southern Baptist success, a common program, was dependent upon respect for the local church for its success. New Testament churches are autonomous under Christ and their independence was zealously guarded.
But Southern Baptists in these years also sought ways for the free churches to move forward together for the Gospel. They began by improving the church-supporting structure of the convention they had received. They recognized the need to help their two great foundational mission boards (Home and Foreign), as well as their growing number of seminaries and the Baptist Sunday School Board through improved means. In 1917, they created the Executive Committee as a better means to coordinate their broadening administrative needs. And in 1919, they wholeheartedly adopted the 75 Million Campaign as a better means to fund their common efforts to preach the Gospel and plant Baptist churches worldwide. The end result was the Cooperative Program and the basic structure of the national denomination as we see it, today.
HOPE FOR A NEW HIGH
And what was the result of this compelling goal of the Great Commission, the defined identity of Baptist Christianity, and this common program respectful of the local churches? Gambrell's own words resonate with our hope for a renewed sense of commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over His churches, a commitment that is expressed as the churches fulfill the Great Commission given to us by Jesus Christ:
"Thus the healing tides of Southern Baptist life met and Jordan overflowed its banks. As never before in all their long history, Southern Baptists are together after Paul's ideal of efficiency -- 'in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.' At Atlanta a new era opened and we are in that day now. What Isaiah cried out for and some in our day have longed for came to pass. Southern Baptists awoke. They broke forth on the right hand and on the left hand. They are putting on their strength. They are enlarging the place of their habitation, and there is a new high note of courage and joy sounded out from every hilltop...."
Oh, Lord, send us a three-planked revival, again! Restore to our hearts an overwhelming to desire to fulfill Your Great Commission as defined by Your Word. Restore to our voices an evangelical identity of a distinctively Baptist type as gleaned from the New Testament. And restore to our ways remembrance that Your local churches are your ordained means and therefore our ordained program.
--30--
Malcolm Yarnell is associate professor of systematic theology and director of the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
© Copyright 2009 Baptist Press
Original copy of this story can be found at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=30620
Monday, June 01, 2009
Christ My Pleasure
Lord God, pity me: my infancy was stupid,
my boyhood vain, my adolescence unclean.
But now, Lord Jesus, my heart has been set on fire with holy love,
and my disposition has been changed,
so that my soul has no wish to touch those bitter things
which once were meat and drink to me.
Such are my affections now that it is nothing but sin I hate, none but God I fear to offend, nothing but God in which I rejoice. My only grief is for sin, my only love is God, my only hope is in him. Nothing saddens me except wrong, nothing pleases me except Christ.
Richard Rolle, The Fire of Love (1343), ch. 12
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The Pride of Scholars
Before, I supposed myself profound through Aristotelian dogmas and argumentation with men of limitless shallowness, when You touched me at my core with Your heavenly truth, dazzling me with Your scripture, scattering the clouds of my error, showing me how I was croaking with the frogs and the toads in the swamp.
Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh (Mid-14th Century)
The recurrent temptation of those who have been blessed with the life of the mind, the contemplative life, is to find sufficiency in one's own mind. The above quote from Richard Fitzralph, a medieval theologian who exercised great influence upon John Wyclif, the so-called "morningstar of the Reformation," is only one such remonstration against such an attitude. As an historian at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary relays, the temptation to professorial elitisim was alive and well in the early 20th century.
Because scholarly pride continues to waylay the unwary academic in the early 21st century, I encourage my brothers and sisters in the academy to avoid such hubris as if it were a deadly virus. Some of my colleagues have wondered why I am so harshly critical of useless speculation in biblical and theological studies. The reason I despise scholarly pride is that it blinds us to our radical need for God and His grace towards us, both before and after justification. Academic arrogance also leads those who look to our words as authoritative down unbiblical paths. In other words, for me, scholarship or the scholar's attitude toward his or her work is fundamentally a spiritual issue.
After all, let us not forget that the first sin had to do with the tree of knowledge.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Another New Appointment
Thanks to the folks at B&H Academic Publishing in Nashville, Tennessee, for their recent appointment of this professor of theology as "Associate General Editor" for the "Studies in Baptist Life and Thought" series.
Alongside the appointment to a Fellowship at the "Centre for Baptist History and Heritage" at Oxford University, I am deeply honored.
Alongside the appointment to a Fellowship at the "Centre for Baptist History and Heritage" at Oxford University, I am deeply honored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
