Love Each Stone

My Review of a Light to the Nations

2011-11-15T08:57:00.002-06:00

Check out my review of Michael W. Goheen's A Light to the Nations in Credo magazine here.

The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee

2011-10-10T09:51:00.002-05:00

Check out my article on "The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee," in the latest edition of Global Missiology Journal.

Great Missionary Quote

2010-10-08T16:12:00.001-05:00

"Much weakness in evangelical mission work and mission churches is due to the fact that the missionaries have not been able or willing to make such cultural adaptation, social integration, psychological penetration, and spiritual identification as to make spiritual fellowship deep, lasting, contagious and vital. Somehow the wall of separation was not broken down. Isolationism developed or continued, and real effectiveness did not bless the work. There was no real communication or communion with the people he came to serve. The cultural worlds, though existing side by side, never really met and melted together. The missionary never 'sat where they sat,' though he sacrificed much and put forth great effort to communicate to them a message so precious to himself."

George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 164.

Avery Willis Graduated to Glory

2010-07-30T15:35:00.006-05:00

I just received this news from the IMB prayer coordinator for the European Affinity Group:

Please lift up the family of Avery Willis (former IMB Senior Vice-President for Overseas Operations). Avery has been battling Leukemia for the last 7 months, and in his son’s words, he “graduated to Glory early this morning, July 30. He died peacefully, without pain or anxiety.” Funeral and memoriam arrangements will be posted on http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/averywillis later. In lieu of flowers, he wanted donations to be made to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering or the International Orality Network. Details of how to do so will also be on the caring bridge site. Give praise for all that the Father has done through Avery’s life and ask the Father to give comfort to his family at this time.

A Review of Latourette's "A History of the Expansion of Christianity, Vol. 7"

2010-03-15T11:04:00.004-05:00

I am posting here a review I wrote last year of the seventh volume of Kenneth Scott Latourette's classic work, A History of the Expansion of Christianity for an assignment in my doctoral studies at Southeastern Seminary. The reason I am posting this here is primarily in response to a comment by Rick Presley on the comment stream on my post on Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture, over at sbcIMPACT! The main point I am wishing to illustrate, through my posting of this, is that the question of the advance of the gospel, and of the Christian movement, across the centuries, and around the world, is complex, and made up of many ebbs and flows, in which it has seemed, at times, we were taking three steps forward, and two steps back, and, at other times, two steps forward, and three steps back. All in all, I personally (not necessarily Latourette) would argue that, little by little, the Great Commission is being fulfilled, and we have warrant, both historically and biblically, to think that it eventually will be fulfilled to the degree Jesus intended and envisioned when He gave it. However, that does not necessarily entail, along with it, the Christianization of the world, or the total transformation of culture or the societies in which culture is rooted. And now, my review of Latourette...

---------------------------------------------------------

Kenneth Scott Latourette’s seventh volume of A History of the Expansion of Christianity, entitled Advance Through Storm, covers the period from 1914 to 1945. Latourette was highly qualified to undertake the task of writing on this topic. He served as traveling secretary for the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, missionary in China for two years, Professor of Missions and World Christianity and Chairman of the Department of Religion at Yale University, as well as Director of Graduate Studies at Yale Divinity School. He was also a Baptist minister, and served as president of the American Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. He was broadly evangelical in his convictions and an enthusiastic supporter of the ecumenical movement.

His central thesis was that “throughout its history [Christianity] has gone forward by major pulsations. Each advance has carried it further than the one before. Of the alternating recessions, each has been briefer and less marked than the one which preceded it” (History of the Expansion, vol.7 [1945], p. 494). He believed that “in A.D. 1944 Christianity was affecting more deeply more different nations and cultures than ever before.” Yet at the time of his death he was unsure whether the period from 1914 to 1960 was a period of advance or retreat.

As the final volume of the seven volume set, Volume 7 has some unique characteristics. At the time of publication, World War II had recently finished, and many aspects of the final outcome for the world at large, as well as for Christendom, were still very much up in the air. Spanning only 30 years, the period covered in Volume 7 is by far the briefest of the seven volumes. It is debatable whether or not the date of 1945 should have been regarded as a legitimate point for closing out an era of the advance of Christianity. Evidently, during the time period covered by Volume 7, two major events had a significant bearing on the expansion of Christianity in the world, namely, World War I and World War II. Also, as the final volume of the series, Latourette gives a summary of the entire seven-volume set, as well as some concluding comments including some interesting personal observations.

By the beginning of the period covered in Volume 7, Christian churches were present in practically all regions and countries of the world, though still a tiny minority in many. Having traversed the “great century” of expansion (1800 to 1914), the geographical and numerical growth of the Christian movement continued from 1914 to 1945. At the same time, various obstacles, including, most notably, two world wars, put a damper on the enthusiasm generated by the upward trajectory of the previous era. The remarkable thing is that, in spite of these obstacles, in most places, Christianity continued to grow.

Volume 7 is organized in the following format: after a brief (4-page) introduction, two chapters—one on “Movements which Gave the Age its Distinctive Character” and one on “The Processes by which Christianity Spread”—set the stage for the bulk of the book, which is dedicated to an exploratory circuit of developments in virtually all the world, beginning in Europe, and continuing on through the United States; British, Danish, and Dutch territories in the Americas; Latin America; the lands in the Pacific; Madagascar, Africa south of the Sahara; the northern shores of Africa and the Near East; India; South-eastern Asia; China; and the Japanese Empire. Four concluding chapters provide: a summary of the material covered in Volume 7; a summary of the material covered in the entire 7-volume set; a comparison of the advance of Christianity with the advance of other world religions; and an all-important personal evaluation by the author of the implications of the content presented throughout the project.

In the introduction, the main developments from a global perspective in the period between 1914 and 1945 are presented. Following on the heels of the progress of the nineteenth century, Christianity consolidated its position as a truly worldwide religion. The rate of growth, however, was not as dramatic as that of the previous century. The title of Volume 7, “advance through storm” references the tragic incidence of the two global conflagrations that have come to be known as World War I and World War II.

With respect to movements that left their imprint on the era, scientific and technological developments led to a world in which distances were shortened and peoples which had previously lived in relative isolation were brought into contact with each other. This, in turn, provoked a resurgence of nationalism and racial tension. Political and social movements which had previously been limited to small minorities gained access to wider influence, facilitating revolutions and threatening reversals of long-term hegemonies, such as that of Christendom in Western Europe. Resentment grew among non-Western peoples toward Western imperialism, which was often associated with Christian missionary advance. In many places, individual freedoms were curtailed and replaced with increased governmental controls, many of which were adverse to Christianity.

While the trend of the preceding century had favored the advance of Protestantism, during the period covered in Volume 7, Roman Catholicism made a moderate recovery of relative strength in comparison to other Christian groups, though there were many exceptions to this in various locations and contexts. Another significant trend was a steady move away from the longstanding norm of Christianity as primarily a territorial faith holding sway culturally, albeit in relatively limited locations, to that of a minority religion spread out among a wider variety of places and cultures. This meant an overall loss of influence in many Western settings offset by a gain of influence in many non-Western settings. Linked to this trend was an increase in indigenous leadership among many of the newer churches.

Another significant development issuing forth from within Protestantism during this period was the advance of the ecumenical movement. On the heels of the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910, organizations such as the International Missionary Council, and subsequently, the World Council of Churches, channeled the impetus for this development. In response to what was perceived as compromise on essential doctrine, the fundamentalist movement provided an alternative rallying point.

As far as the processes by which Christianity spread are concerned, although there were still some exceptions in places like India and Africa, there was a general shift away from mass movements toward the conversion of individuals. There was practically no advance on the part of the Eastern churches, with the continued expansion of Christianity centered almost exclusively in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Although with different emphases, missionaries from Catholic sectors, as well as both liberal and more fundamentalist wings of Protestantism, continued to make inroads throughout a great part of the world. The disintegration of many non-Western cultures helped to open the door for greater influence from the West, especially when accompanied by educational and medical benefits.

As the focal point of much of both of the world wars, Europe was one of the areas of the world most directly affected by the storms of the era. According to Latourette, although organizationally, and in number of adherents, Christianity was weaker in 1945 than in 1914, in influence it was stronger.

The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia brought about drastic changes in the religious landscape of that country. Efforts on the part of the Communist regime to stamp out Christianity were initially focused primarily on the Orthodox Church, but later came to target the dissenting churches, such as Baptists, Brethren, and Seventh Day Adventists, as well. Though Christianity survived the persecution during this period, especially in the rural areas, the losses were significant.

In Italy, the Catholic Church was actually bolstered somewhat by the advent of Fascism, as the government saw religion as a means to unite the country. Protestant groups, however, were, in varying degrees, suppressed, and saw miniscule growth during this time. Spain, which remained neutral during World War II, preoccupied with its own recovery after a brutal civil war in the 30’s, also saw a retrenchment of Catholic domination, and a corresponding repression of Protestantism.

There was a similar attempt on the part of the Nazi regime in Germany to use the church (in this case, both Catholic and Protestant) as a tool to further the aims of the government. There were varied responses from within both faith traditions, from those who openly supported and endorsed the Nazi regime, to those who were arrested and imprisoned for their brave opposition. Although, in general, churches decreased numerically during this time period, there were signs, at the end of the war of a renewed interest in religion. In several of the countries occupied by German forces, such as Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Greece, Serbia, and Czechoslovakia, Christians were more united in their opposition, despite German attempts to persuade them to adopt a different stance. Persecution of the Jews played a special role in awakening the conscience of many in countries such as the Netherlands and France in their opposition to the Nazi agenda.

In Great Britain, where church attendance had dwindled to 5 to 10 percent in the period leading up to World War II, the tragedies of the war, although inflicting grave difficulties upon the churches, served to galvanize many toward greater involvement in serving the needy, and renewed religious commitment.

In the United States, the growth in church membership, which had steadily increased throughout the preceding century, continued, though it is possible the level of intelligent Christian commitment did not keep pace. On an international level, the prominence of the United States was growing, both in the realm of politics and religion. A drop-off in immigration numbers saw a corresponding decline among Roman Catholics, but an increased strength in finances and international influence of American Catholics. At the same time, Protestant efforts at evangelizing Catholic immigrants, and establishing ethnic congregations, met with some success. Mission efforts among Native Americans, both by Catholics and Protestants, moved forward as well. Among African-Americans, Christianity continued to grow, primarily among Protestants (most notably Baptists and Methodists), embracing a large majority of the black community, though church cooperation across racial lines was still very limited.

This period also witnessed the rapid growth of the newly born Pentecostal movement, as well as other similar minority denominations. Various developments in interdenominational cooperation, including significant American representation in the worldwide ecumenical movement, were countered by the steady progress of Fundamentalism.

In Canada, one of the most significant developments was the merger of Methodists, Congregationalists, and a large percentage of Presbyterians, forming the United Church of Canada. This period also witnessed growth among Roman Catholics, and the arrival of Mennonite immigrants from Russia, especially in the Western provinces.

In many countries of Latin America, throughout this period there was a struggle for power and influence between political factions of Communism, on the one part, and Fascism, on the other. The Fascists were linked mostly with the Falangists from Spain, promoting a movement toward a united Hispanidad, and, by extension, greater commitment to Roman Catholicism. In spite of this, after 1914, the Protestant growth of Protestantism outstripped that of Catholicism, largely following the impetus of missionary efforts from the United States. Another development was greater cooperation among Protestants. Various federations and councils of Protestants/Evangelicals were formed during this period.

During the same period, strong anti-clerical sentiments provoked a decline in church growth in Mexico, especially among Catholics, but also, to some extent, among Protestants. In contrast, the vibrant growth of Christianity in Brazil, especially among Protestants, and largely through indigenous lay initiative among the lower classes, was encouraging.

Among the countries in the Pacific, there were marked differences in the overall state and advance of the Christian movement. Australia saw, simultaneously, a relative loss of attachment and interest in Christian faith, efforts toward church unity and cooperation, and a gradual lessening of dependence upon mother churches in Great Britain. New Zealand was not as affected by the losses in Christian commitment as Australia. It also saw the birth of a large sectarian movement among the Maori people during this period. The islands of Polynesia were already largely Christian, at least in name, by 1914. Church growth in Melanesia and Micronesia was significant, though, in the succeeding period. The East Indies experienced a revival of Islam as well as a continued growth of Christianity, along with increased autonomy of the churches. A change from Spanish to American control brought about a corresponding interest in American culture and Protestant growth in the Philippines, the country with the largest grouping of Christians in Asia.

Sub-Saharan Africa saw a huge jump in Christianity, with as much as a five-fold increase, as the cultures of many traditional, primitive societies were disintegrating as a result of contact with the outside world. Significant growth was seen among both Catholics and Protestants, at different rates in different countries and among different people groups, marked, at times, by competition and tension between the two groups. This period also saw the founding of various African Independent churches (with varying degrees of Christian orthodoxy), the emergence of charismatic “prophets,” and the activity of sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In North Africa and the Middle East, the picture was totally different. Primarily as a result of the decline of the older, indigenous churches in Turkey, Iraq, and Persia, and corresponding Islamic advances, the proportion of Christians to the total population in the region decreased to levels not known since the second or third century. In spite of this, there were still small gains on the part of both Protestants and Roman Catholics, linked primarily to missionary efforts from the West.

India saw a massive movement toward increased nationalism, both in the secular realm and in the Christian churches, with greater indigenous leadership. There were significant gains on the part of the Roman Catholics and Protestants, with the latter especially attracting large amounts of converts from among the lower castes. Although still comprising only 2% of the overall population, the amount of professing Christians doubled during the 30-year period between 1914 and 1945. During the same period, the growth of Christian schools had an impact beyond the boundaries of the churches. Although not all Christian groups participated equally, there were also important ecumenical advances, through the organization of the National Christian Council, and the formation of the United Church of North India and the South India United Church.

With the exception of Ceylon, Christian churches throughout the entire region of South-Eastern Asia were severely affected by the Japanese invasion of the 1940’s. Many missionaries from the United States and Great Britain fled from their places of service. In spite of this, there was uneven Christian growth in the region, from continued growth among the Karens and other ethnic minorities in Burma, the responsiveness of ethnic Chinese in the Malay Peninsula, and Roman Catholic advances in French Indo-China, to entrenched resistance to the gospel from Buddhist Burmese and Thais as well as Muslim Malays.

Some of the most revolutionary changes in the world during this period took place in China, as age-old traditions crumbled under the weight of influence from the West. This, in turn, opened the door for dramatic growth on the part of the Christian churches, especially among Protestants, although, at the end of this period, they were still significantly less numerous than the Catholics. In spite of the increasing influence of communism, and repression imposed during the Japanese invasion, Chinese Christians experienced greater unity and cooperation, and in some places, such as Shantung, extraordinary revival.

The final region considered by Latourette in Volume 7 is the Japanese Empire, including Japan, Formosa, and Korea. On the heels of the World War II, Protestant missionary efforts, proceeding mostly from the United States and Great Britain, were greatly hampered, while Catholic missions, based primarily out of France, Germany, and Spain, were able to continue without much government interference. In spite of this, the Protestant churches moved forward under indigenous leadership. One particularly significant effort was the Protestant “Kingdom of God” movement under the competent leadership of Toyohiko Kagawa. In 1941, largely as a result of government pressure, practically all the different Protestant denominations came together to form the united Church of Christ in Japan.

After summarizing the advance of Christianity throughout its first 1900 years, Latourette posits three major ways in which Christianity advanced, in spite of the storms it had to traverse, during the period from 1914 to 1944:

In the first place, Christianity and its influence were more nearly evenly distributed across the face of the earth . . . In the second place, Christianity was more deeply rooted among non-Occidental peoples . . . In the third place, Christians were being knit more consciously into a world-wide fellowship than had been the case since the first three centuries when the Catholic Church was coming into being. (464)

By the end of the first half of the twentieth century, according to Latourette, Christianity still had not become totally universal, nor had it replaced the other religions of the world. It was still largely identified with European culture, and its geographic extension came about primarily through the conversion of polytheists and animists. Although it had made some inroads among Confucianists, it still had not made many converts, comparatively speaking, from Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism.

In spite of this, the advance of Christianity was unique. Its advance throughout the world was more widespread than that of any other religion. By 1944, there was hardly any people group or society among whom Christianity had not made at least some converts. It had shown itself able to transcend cultures, as well as survive the death of cultures with which it had become closely linked.

Although it was likely very difficult in 1945 to predict the events of the following 64 years, there are several elements that, from a more informed vantage point, may have merited greater treatment. Among the most significant of these has been the phenomenal growth of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, as evidenced in such documents as the Pew Study on Pentecostals, the World Christian Encyclopedia, Operation World, and The Church is Bigger than You Think, by Patrick Johnstone, as well as The Next Christendom and The New Faces of Christianity by Philip Jenkins. Parallel to this development has been the massive expansion of Christianity in the Global South. At the same time, the decline of Christianity in the West since 1945, both numerically as well as in influence, appears to be more significant than that foreseen by Latourette.

In Latourette’s opinion, though the future remained to be seen, there was a good possibility that Christianity would continue to expand. However, from his perspective, this expansion would not come about through absorbing other religions and creating a new synthesis, but rather an uncompromising conviction of the centrality of Jesus and loyalty to him. The different brands of Christianity which were most successful at advancing varied from age to age and from region to region. However, the greatest inroads were most often made by those who were most strongly committed to Christ, expressing this commitment through missionary proclamation.

In contrast, over the long haul, one of the most insidious influences sapping the vitality of the Christian movement has been official governmental assimilation and control, and a corresponding nominal commitment to faith on the part of its adherents. Ironically, Latourette comes across as somewhat torn between conceding prominence to the social influence of Christianity, as seen through the advance of democracy in the world, and the concurrent disintegration of Western society through tragic events such as the two world wars. In many ways, the tension underlying Latourette’s analysis of the events depicted in Volume 7 may be seen as emblematic of the shift from the postmillennial optimism of previous eras to more pessimistic eschatological visions reflective of the realities of the succeeding era.

E-Index: Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission

2009-12-17T20:17:00.002-06:00

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Personal Update & Adrian Rogers Legacy Library

2009-07-16T16:08:00.002-05:00

For those of you who may have followed my personal life and ministry to any degree, I want to take the prerogative of sharing a personal update, as well as an exciting announcement.

After 19 years of missionary service to Spain (including the last two years in which we have been on Stateside Assignment and Leave of Absence), Kelly and I have come to a decision to officially resign from the International Mission Board. Our hearts are still very much committed to the advance of God’s Work around the world, and, in a special way, with the people of Spain, and the many dear friends we have there. We also remain supportive of the work of the IMB, and continue to pray God’s richest blessings on all of our colleagues who continue to serve Him through this strategic organization that God is continuing to use in mighty ways around the world. However, through various circumstances, God has made clear to us in the past months that, for the welfare of our family, we need to spend the next season of our lives living in the United States.

On the heels of this painful decision, God has graciously provided an opportunity for me to continue in fulltime ministry with the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute. Among other projects in which I am involved, ARPTI has recently finished production of the 14-session, 10-DVD, “What Every Pastor Ought to Know” training course in Spanish. There are some exciting opportunities opening up in the near future to carry these materials to Latin America, and join hands with national Christian leaders, to train pastors on a wide-scale basis in various countries.

Another project on which I am dedicating significant time at present is the production of the Adrian Rogers Legacy Library. The following paragraphs, lifted from the Adrian Rogers Legacy Library website, give a brief overview of what this is all about…

The family of Adrian Rogers, along with the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute, announces the formation of the Adrian Rogers Legacy Library. The goal of the Adrian Rogers Legacy Library is to capture the entire lifetime sermon output of Dr. Rogers in a state-of-the art online format.

This sermon library, when finished, will contain the full notes and transcripts of over 4000 sermons by Adrian Rogers, along with streaming audio and video, all in a fully indexed, cross-referenced and searchable format. Library “members” will be able to search Dr. Rogers’ entire body of work by keyword, topic, theme, scripture reference, “Adrianism,” and illustration.

It is a great blessing for me, at this time of my life, to be able to sit at the very same desk at which my father used to work, and spend hours editing texts and materials, knowing that these materials will help to keep his legacy alive, and touch lives for the advance of God’s Kingdom for years to come, both here in the States and around the world.

I would like to invite you to click here and visit the Legacy Library site, and learn more about this monumental project, as well as access a dynamic 5-minute video clip overview

There is also a 2-minute video clip, featuring Dr. James Merritt, presenting an exciting opportunity to become a part of the Legacy Library team, that can be accessed here.

If you would like to learn more about the overall ministry of the Pastor Training Institute, you should click here.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your prayers for me and my family in this new season of our life and ministry. I hope to keep you posted from time to time, as God continues to lead us and we seek to be obedient to Him.

Rogers Family Prayer Letter

2008-10-14T22:23:00.001-05:00

Dear Praying Friends,

During the past 14 months since returning from Spain for our Stateside Assignment, we have been diligently seeking God’s will for the next step in our lives. Actually, several months ago, we had pretty much made up our minds that it was time to go back to Spain, and were making plans to do so not long thereafter. In the meantime, some situations related to our family’s health have surfaced that have caused us to put these plans on hold. After much prayer and soul-searching, we have come to the conclusion that we should remain in the States for the time being, as we continue to seek God’s direction for our future.

This has not been an easy decision. From a wider perspective, we remain as convinced as ever that God has called us and wants to continue to use us for His glory and the advance of His kingdom in the world missions enterprise. The great spiritual need of Spain and the rest of the world still remain as deeply etched upon our hearts as ever. However, we are aware that God has His time and His place for each of us, and that it is in our best interest to submit to His sovereign plan for our lives.

What this means for us at the present is that we will be staying in the Memphis area until at least the end of the current school year. Our normally allotted Stateside Assignment time has run out; so, effective, Nov. 1, we will go on Leave of Absence status with the International Mission Board. This means us going off of salary and benefits, while at the same time being allowed to remain as officially appointed missionaries, and return to the field without need of re-appointment and going through the application process all over again.

This also means that for now we will need alternative sources of income in order to make ends meet. We are grateful to God for doors He is already opening up to provide for us in this area. A temporary position has come open for me (David) with the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute as an editor of training materials in Spanish and English. I am excited to partner with my brother, Steve, in helping to make it possible for the wisdom and anointing that God poured into my father’s life and ministry to continue to bless and prepare others around the world for the task to which He has called them. I am also thrilled to be able to use my Spanish language abilities as PTI looks, in the near future, to make its training materials available to the Spanish-speaking world.

Kelly will be helping to supplement our family income as a representative with Premier Designs, selling jewelry through home shows. We are thankful for this opportunity that will allow for great flexibility as she also home-schools Stephen. Please pray for her as she launches this new home business, that the Lord would provide for our needs and give wisdom in decisions.

In the meantime, Jonathan has moved into his own apartment, and is working as a research assistant at the University of Memphis. He plans to enroll as a student at the U of M in January. We are very grateful for your prayers for him over the past months, as he has dealt with a series of health-related concerns, and has been seeking to find the place God has for him. At present, we are encouraged about Jonathan’s progress and God’s on-going work in his life. Please continue to lift him up in prayer as God lays him on your heart.

Stephen, who will turn 12 in November, is adapting as well as can be expected to all of the last minute changes. In addition to his studies at home, he is going to supplementary classes one day a week at a local home-school support program. He is also signed up for basketball at our church, Faith Baptist. Please pray for his continued adaptation to our new circumstances and the Lord’s provision for good friends and spiritual growth.

In addition to all of the above, we are excited to be involved in the Spanish-language ministry at Faith. It has been encouraging to see this new group take off and the Lord use His people to raise up an ESL ministry, soccer outreach, women’s Bible studies, and discipleship classes in a short time. I (David) have also officially begun work (tons of reading and writing assignments) on my Ph.D. studies in Missions at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and plan to be there on campus in Wake Forest, NC for three weeks in January for the initial seminars. I also continue to write about missions and ministry on my Internet blog at loveeachstone.blogspot.com, as well as together with several other Southern Baptist bloggers at www.sbcimpact.net.

Thank you for your prayers and support down through the years, as well as for us now in this time of transition in our lives. We are truly blessed to have so many who pray so faithfully for us. We look forward to the days ahead as God continues to reveal His plan for our lives and strategic involvement in the advance of His kingdom around the world.

Your Co-laborers in the Harvest,

David & Kelly Rogers

Non-U.S. Christians Identify Problems in American Missions

2008-10-04T10:28:00.003-05:00

Check out the following article from The Christian Post:

Non-U.S. Christians Identify Problems in American Missions

As we seek to be better stewards of the resources God has entrusted into our hands, I believe we must pay close attention to voices like those cited in this article.

Ray Ortlund: "The Emotional Tilt of your Heart"

2008-07-17T13:45:00.002-05:00

The following quote from Ray Ortlund is making its way around the blogosphere the last couple of days (for example, here, here, and here). I really love the balance and incisiveness with which Ortlund addresses the subject of Christian unity.

I especially like the following phrase, which I believe captures the essence of what Christian unity is all about:

"...can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them?"

Here is the longer quote. I have taken the liberty to change the wording, substituting the words "Conservative Southern Baptist" for the word "Reformed" wherever it occurs in the original, in order to bring home the point being made for the majority of the readers here at Love Each Stone.

Whatever divides us emotionally from other Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians is a "plus" we’re adding to the gospel. It is the Galatian impulse of self-exaltation. It can even become a club with which we bash other Christians, at least in our thoughts, to punish, to exclude and to force into line with us.

What unifies the church is the gospel. What defines the gospel is the Bible. What interprets the Bible correctly is a hermeneutic centered on Jesus Christ crucified, the all-sufficient Savior of sinners, who gives himself away on terms of radical grace to all alike. What proves that that gospel hermeneutic has captured our hearts is that we are not looking down on other believers but lifting them up, not seeing ourselves as better but grateful for their contribution to the cause, not standing aloof but embracing them freely, not wishing they would become like us but serving them in love (Galatians 5:13).

My Conservative Southern Baptist friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Conservative Southern Baptist theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Conservative Southern Baptist theology. The remedy is to take your Conservative Southern Baptist theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Conservative Southern Baptists will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Conservative Southern Baptists. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.

Keep Away from Rome

2008-06-28T18:13:00.009-05:00

I sometimes find myself bewildered at the naivete some Evangelicals hold in their views toward Roman Catholicism. I have even seen this attitude in some who come to Spain, both short and long-term, to do missionary work. With this in mind, I present the following article, published on Protestante Digital, a leading Evangelical web-site based out of Spain...

Keep Away from Rome

The Value of Kingdom Collaboration

2008-06-26T16:34:00.002-05:00

When I attended COMIBAM 2006, the 3rd Latin American – Iberian World Missionary Conference, in Granada, Spain, one of the main topics dealt with was that of Strategic Partnerships. I believe that the whole question of how we can most effectively join together with different groups of believers from around the world to make a more strategic impact for the completion of the Great Commission is one of the most important issues for the future of world missions.

It is my hope that we, as Southern Baptists, can continue to stay "in the thick" of what God is doing today around the world. The following downloadable PowerPoint presentation put together by Strategic Partnership expert and author Phill Butler is well worth the 5 minutes or so it takes to view it. As we think through how we can be the best stewards possible with the Great Commission resources God has commended into our hands, I think a careful consideration of the ideas presented here should be HIGH PRIORITY.

Download: The Value of Kingdom Collaboration

If you are interested in world missions, whether from the perspective of career missionary, local church pastor, or just as a committed member of the Body of Christ, I also recommend you take the time to peruse the entire collection of resources on the Power of Connecting website. It is chock-full of helpful advice on how to put the "talents" God has placed in your hands to the best use for the advance of his Kingdom, and to avoid some significant pitfalls along the way.

The True Church

2008-06-22T23:04:00.002-05:00

THE TRUE CHURCH

By Bishop J. C. Ryle
(1816-1900) Liverpool, England

I want you to belong to the one true Church: to the Church outside of which there is no salvation. I do not ask where you go on a Sunday; I only ask, "Do you belong to the one true Church?" Where is this one true Church? What is this one true Church like? What are the marks by which this one true Church may be known? You may well ask such questions. Give me your attention, and I will provide you with some answers.

1. The one true Church IS COMPOSED OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE LORD JESUS. It is made up of all God's elect — of all converted men and women — of all true Christians. In whomsoever we can discern the election of God the Father, the sprinkling of the blood of God the Son, the sanctifying work of God the Spirit, in that person we see a member of Christ's true Church.

2. It is a Church OF WHICH ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE THE SAME MARKS. They are all born again of the Spirit; they all possess "repentance towards God, faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," and holiness of life and conversation. They all hate sin, and they all love Christ. (They worship differently, and after various fashions; some worship with a form of prayer, and some with none; some worship kneeling, and some standing; but they all worship with one heart.) They are all led by one Spirit; they all build upon one foundation; they all draw their religion from one single book — that is the Bible. They are all joined to one great center — that is Jesus Christ. They all even now can say with one heart, "Hallelujah;" and they can all respond with one heart and voice, Amen and Amen.

3. It is a Church WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON NO MINISTERS UPON EARTH, however much it values those who preach the gospel to its members. The life of its members does not hang upon Church-membership, or baptism, or the Lord's Supper — although they highly value these things when they are to be had. But it has only one Great Head — one Shepherd, one chief Bishop — and that is Jesus Christ. He alone, By His Spirit, admits the members of this Church, though ministers may show the door. Till He opens the door no man on earth can open it — neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods. Once let a man repent and believe the gospel, and that moment he becomes a member of this Church. Like the penitent thief, he may have no opportunity of being baptized; but he has that which is far better than any water-baptism — the baptism of the Spirit. He may not be able to receive the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper;but he eats Christ's body and drinks Christ's blood by faith every day he lives, and no minister on earth can prevent him. He may be ex-communicated by ordained men, and cut off from the outward ordinances of the professing Church; but all the ordained men in the world cannot shut him out of the true Church. It is a Church whose existence does not depend on forms, ceremonies, cathedrals, churches, chapels, pulpits, fonts, vestments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, magistrates or any act of favor whatsoever from the hand of man. It has often lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from it. It has often been driven into the wilderness, or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought to have been its friends. Its existence depends on nothing but the presence of Christ and His Spirit; and they being ever with it, the Church cannot die.

4. This is the Church TO WHICH THE SCRIPTURAL TITLES OF PRESENT HONOR AND PRIVILEGE, AND THE PROMISES OF FUTURE GLORY ESPECIALLY BELONG; this is the Body of Christ; this is the flock of Christ; this is the household of faith and the family of God; this is God's building, God's foundation, and the temple of the Holy Ghost. This is the Church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven; this is the royal priesthood, the chosen generation, the peculiar people, the purchased possession, the habitation of God, the light of the world, the salt and the wheat of the earth; this is the "Holy Catholic Church" of the Apostles' Creed; this is the "One Catholic and Apostolic Church" of the Nicene Creed; this is that Church to which the Lord Jesus promises "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," and to which He says, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"(Matt.16:18; 28:2).

5. This is the only Church WHICH POSSESSES TRUE UNITY. Its members are entirely agreed on all the weightier matters of religion, for they are all taught by one Spirit. About God, and Christ, and the Spirit, and sin, and their own hearts, and faith, and repentance, and necessity of holiness, and the value of the Bible, and the importance of prayer, and the resurrection, and judgment to come — about all these points they are of one mind. Take three or four of them, strangers to one another, from the remotest corners of the earth; examine them separately on these points: you will find them all one judgment.

6. This is the only Church WHICH POSSESSES TRUE SANCTITY. Its members are all holy. They are not merely holy by profession, holy in name, and holy in the judgment of charity; they are all holy in act, and deed, and reality, and life, and truth. They are all more or less conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. No unholy man belongs to this Church.

7. This is the only Church WHICH IS TRULY CATHOLIC. It is not the Church of any one nation or people; its members are to be found in every part of the world where the gospel is received and believed. It is not confined within the limits of any one country, or pent up within the pale of any particular forms of outward government. In it there is no difference between Jew and Greek, black man and white, Episcopalian and Presbyterian - but faith in Christ is all. Its members will be gathered from north, and south, and east, and west, and will be of every name and tongue — but all one in Jesus Christ.

8. This is the only Church WHICH IS TRULY APOSTOLIC. It is built on the foundation laid by the Apostles, and holds the doctrines which they preached. The two grand objects at which its members aim are apostolic faith and apostolic practice; and they consider the man who talks of following the Apostles without possessing these two things to be no better than sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.

9. This is the only Church WHICH IS CERTAIN TO ENDURE UNTO THE END. Nothing can altogether overthrow and destroy it. Its members may be persecuted, oppressed, imprisoned, beaten, beheaded, burned; but the true Chruch is never altogether extinguished; it rises again from its afflictions; it lives on through fire and water. When crushed in one land it springs up in another. The Pharaohs, the Herods, the Neros, the Bloody Marys, have labored in vain to put down this Church; they slay their thousands, and then pass away and go to their own place. The true Church outlives them all, and sees them buried each in his turn. It is an anvil that has broken many a hammer in this world, and will break many a hammer still; it is a bush which is often burning, and yet it's not consumed.

10. This is the only Church OF WHICH NO ONE MEMBER CAN PERISH. Once enrolled in the lists of this Church, sinners are safe for eternity; they are never cast away. The election of God the Father, the continual intercession of God the Son, the daily renewing and sanctifying power of God the Holy Ghost, surround and fence them in like a garden enclosed. Not one bone of Christ's mystical Body shall ever be broken; not one lamb of Christ's flock shall ever be plucked out of His hand.

11. This is the Church WHICH DOES THE WORK OF CHRIST UPON EARTH. Its members are a little flock, and few in numbers, compared with the children of the world; one or two here, and two or three there — a few in this place and few in that. But these are they who shake the universe; these are they who change the fortunes of kingdoms by their prayers; these are they who are the active workers for spreading the knowledge of pure religion and undefiled; these are the life-blood of a country, the shield, the defence, the stay, and the support of any nation to which they belong.

12. This is the Church WHICH SHALL BE TRULY GLORIOUS AT THE END. When all earthly glory is passsed away then shall this Church be presented without spot before God the Father's throne. Thrones, principalities, and powers upon earth shall come to nothing; dignities, and offices, and endowments shall all pass away; but the Church of the first-born shall shine as the stars at the last, and be presented with joy before the Father's throne, in the day of Christ's appearing. When the Lord's jewels are made up, and manifestation of the sons of God takes place, Episcopacy, and Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism will not be mentioned; one Church only will be named, and that is the Church of the elect.

13. Reader, THIS IS THE TRUE CHURCH TO WHICH A MAN MUST BELONG, IF HE WOULD BE SAVED. Till you belong to this, you are nothing better than a lost soul. You may have the form, the husk, the skin, and the shell of religion, but you have not got the substance and the life. Yes, you may have countless outward privileges; you may enjoy great light, and knowledge — but if you do not belong to the Body of Christ, your light and knowledge and privileges will not save your soul. Alas, for the ignorance that prevails on this point! Men fancy if they join this church or that church, and become communicants, and go through certain forms, that all must be right in their souls. It is an utter delusion, it is a gross mistake. All were not Israel who were called Israel, and all are not members of Christ's Body who profess themselves Christian. TAKE NOTICE; you may be a staunch Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Independent, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, or Plymouth Brother — and yet not belong to the true Church. And if you do not, it will be better at last if you had never been born.

J.C. Ryle

(HT: Wayne Smith)

The Journey

2008-06-22T13:07:00.003-05:00

This morning, I had the privilege of worshipping together with the family of brothers and sisters in Christ at Messiah Baptist Church in Wake Forest, North Carolina, where I am currently taking Biblical Hebrew in the summer session at Southeastern Seminary. My friend and fellow blogger Alan Knox spoke to us from Matthew 7:13-14, where Jesus talks about the need to enter through the narrow gate, and to walk along the narrow path. It was a great message, and both a challenge and a blessing to me.

Listening to the message, I was reminded of the lyrics to a song I wrote back when I was in college about 25 years ago. Back then, I used to write more poetry and songs. As of late, I have kind of settled more into essays, prose, and blog comments. Since I am not all that gifted of a musical performer, there are a lot of songs I have written that I have not shared with all that many people. And I probably won't make it a regular practice to post poetry or song lyrics here. But, since it's my blog, and I can post what I want, I thought I would post the lyrics to The Journey, just in case it might in some way be a challenge or a blessing to someone else.

The Journey (words and music by David Rogers)

I’ve been many people in the few short years I’ve lived my life;
I’ve lied, I’ve tried to cover up the weakness and the hurt inside.
I’ve played the game so long, I’m sick and tired of hanging on
to the gilded expectations of my peers.

I’m leaving on a journey, and I’m never coming back again;
I don’t know where I’m going, but it’s nowhere where I’ve ever been before.
And I will give my all, and I’m taking nothing with me
but some memories of how it used to be.

For many are the snares of youth,
And age just binds the blindness
Of the wrong paths taken once
When we were free into our minds.

And narrow is the path of truth,
And few are those who find the way,
While there’s a chance,
I’ll leave the show behind.

Now I’ve made up my mind to go, there’s nothing you could do to change it;
And I don’t want to leave alone, but I will anyway,
Unless you feel the way I do, and if you really wanted to,
we could take this journey travelling together.

For many are the snares of youth,
And age just binds the blindness
Of the wrong paths taken once
When we were free into our minds.

And narrow is the path of truth,
And few are those who find the way,
While there’s a chance,
Let’s leave the show behind.

John MacArthur on "The Gospel and Politics"

2008-06-18T19:40:00.001-05:00

I think MacArthur hits the bulls-eye on this one. I recommend that you check it out.

The Gospel and Politics (Part 1)
The Gospel and Politics (Part 2)
The Gospel and Politics (Part 3)
The Gospel and Politics (Part 4)

Revival: True or False?

2008-06-07T15:39:00.002-05:00

News of the recent revival in Jena, Louisiana has been covered by Baptist Press and other media outlets. I am excited about what God has done, and continues to do, in this most unlikely of places. Infamous for the Jena 6 controversy of late 2006 and 2007, and the ensuing racial tensions, this apparently genuine move of God has transcended racial barriers and brought hope and reconciliation to a very divided town. The citywide revival meetings began at Midway Baptist Church, but later spread throughout the entire community, embracing Christians of all races, and crossing denominational lines.

As Craig Franklin, worship leader at Midway, and associate editor of the Jena Times, states:

"God broke down many of the walls we had erected in our personal lives — walls of unforgiveness, walls of bitterness, walls of prejudices, walls of jealousy and walls of religion. It was not a "Baptist" revival or any other denomination, but it was truly a revival of the body of Christ."

I invite you to click here, and watch the video clips from various individuals who have played a role in the Jena revival, sharing about their experiences and insights. It will take a while to watch through all of them, though each individual clip is only between 1 to 4 minutes in length. But I can assure you that, if you are interested in revival, and have a hunger and a thirst to hear of what God is doing in the world today, it will be HUGE BLESSING, and well worth your time.

It is interesting to me that God sovereignly chose to channel his blessings in this small Louisiana town through a local Southern Baptist church. It gives me hope that God has not yet given up on us as Southern Baptists. At the same time, I believe we must be careful to never "put God in a box" or to close our hearts to what God is doing through other parts of the Body of Christ.

This does not preclude the use of spiritual discernment, and a love for sound biblical doctrine. There have also been recent reports of "revival" in Lakeland, Florida connected with the ministry of evangelist-faith healer Todd Bentley. However, as I look through the reports of what is happening in Lakeland, it doesn’t leave me with the same feelings I get when I read about the revival in Jena.

Is this perhaps due to my own denominational prejudice, by which I am quick to embrace something with roots coming out of my own background, and reject that coming out of someone else’s? I think that is a legitimate question, which we would all do well to honestly ask ourselves whenever we hear about things like this. However, I think the bottom line in all of this is a commitment to the authority of the Word of God, the preaching of the gospel, and a heart that is open and hungry to receive whatever God, in his sovereignty and grace, chooses to send our way.

In this same general vein, I was blessed to watch this video clip of Assemblies of God General Superintendent George Wood speaking on the topic of revival (HT: Paul Grabill). I believe that an open hearing of what Wood has to say will go a long way, both toward guiding us in our use of biblical discernment, as well as debunking some of our false stereotypes about what brothers and sisters in Christ from other backgrounds and denominations really believe and teach.

Personal Update & "Between the Times"

2008-06-06T17:53:00.005-05:00

At present, I am in Wake Forest, North Carolina, on the campus of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where I am taking six weeks of intensive Biblical Hebrew in the summer session. I am doing this to make up necessary prerequisite credits for admission into the new PhD Missions Cohort that is being offered as a joint project between Southeastern and the IMB. I am really enjoying the beautiful campus, some new friends I am making, and even the opportunity to learn a bit of Hebrew, which I opted out of 20 years ago when I was working on my M. Div. at Mid-America and Southwestern. I am also enjoying spending some good time with Alan Knox and his family (who I first met by way of the blogosphere, and has since come to be a good friend), as well as the church fellowship at Messiah Baptist Church. At the same time, I am really missing my wife and two sons, who are back in the Memphis area spending time with family while I get this Hebrew requirement out of the way.

Also, I would have loved to be able to go to the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis. But it coincides with my class schedule, so here I am in North Carolina writing this relatively personal blog post. Sorry I will not be able to say hello to many of you I would have loved to spend some time with otherwise.

On another front, Kelly, the boys, and I are getting ready to return to Spain, Lord willing, sometime in mid to late July. That will make one year since we have been on Stateside Assignment. A few months before leaving Spain, I had posted expressing some uncertainty regarding our future. Over the course of the year, though, God has confirmed to us that we are to return to Spain, and we are really looking forward to what lies ahead. In the coming months, we will need to look for a new home, as well as to define a little more our specific ministry description for the upcoming term. There are some exciting possibilities, about which I look forward to keeping you posted. We would very much appreciate your prayers for us during this time.

Some of you may be thinking, "...and what about the PhD?" Well, that's the awesome thing about it! The Missions Cohort PhD is structured in such a way that we will be able to remain on the field as active missionaries at the same time I am working on my studies. Also, the group of fellow cohort members will all be fellow career IMB missionaries. And, the main topic of study will be missions. I believe this will be a strategic opportunity to bring the world of Southern Baptist missions together with that of Southern Baptist academia, allowing for greater "cross-pollinization" between these two fields of ministry that have many times operated in relative isolation from each other. And I am really excited and count it a great privilege to be included in this cutting edge pilot project!

Which brings me to one more bit of news. I was just made aware by Nathan Finn of a new collaborative blog called Between the Times. Even though there will be no comment section, this promises to be a significant and positive addition to the Baptist blogosphere, with an all-star roster of contributors, all of them hailing from the faculty of Southeastern Seminary: Danny Akin, Bruce Ashford, Nathan Finn, Kenneth Keathley, and David Nelson.

The first post, Toward a Great Commission Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention: Part One, is authored by Bruce Ashford, who, by the way, has graciously agreed to be my major professor for my upcoming PhD project. I strongly recommend you to check it out, and to closely follow Between the Times in the days ahead.

Press Coverage of "Time to Change"

2008-06-05T13:09:00.006-05:00

I find it interesting that Baptist Press has apparently not yet found the Time to Change Statement issued on June 2 newsworthy enough to release an article about it.

In the meantime, The Christian Post has picked up on the story, as well as the North Carolina Biblical Recorder (here and here).

Also, James A. Smith, Jr., of the Florida Baptist Witness, though intentionally deciding not to publish either the recent letter from former IMB Central and Eastern Europe Regional Leader, Rodney Hammer, announcing the motives for his recent resignation, nor the Time to Change Statement, has published an editorial that is highly critical of both Hammer and the drafters of "Time to Change."

Maybe Baptist Press will pick up on this soon. But then again, maybe not.

Statement Issued by Former IMB Trustees

2008-06-02T14:50:00.006-05:00

I just added my name to the list of signatories to the statement issued today by a number of former IMB trustees expressing their opposition to the recent guideline changes related to baptism and private prayer language for potential appointees.

You can read the statement for yourself here.

I wish to make it clear, as the statement itself explains, that I "desire to express (my) unwavering support for the work of the IMB, its staff, and administration." I would also like to make clear that I consider myself to be under the authority of the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole, by way of the trustee system that has been set up to represent the will of the majority. As such, I recognize that I have a responsibility to abide by the guidelines and policies that have been established by the Board of Trustees.

I am also thankful for the opportunity to voice my loyal opposition to policies like this. I am not calling on anyone to rebel, in any way, against the lines of authority that have been set up, or to lessen, in any way, their support for the IMB.

I realize that, as an employee of the IMB, this is a bit awkward. Others who may feel the same way I do may not feel the same liberty to add their name to the statement as I have. That is completely understandable. I should make clear as well that I was not asked to add my name. I have done so on my own initiative. Also, I have already, close to the time I began this blog more than two years ago, been open about my personal opinions related to the new guidelines (see here).

I also want to add that I think it is signficant that this amount of former IMB trustees have come forward with this statement, among them two (this is a correction, as someone informed me it is not just one) former chairmen of the board. No doubt, there are others who are sympathetic with it, but who, for one reason or another, have not felt the liberty to add their names. I am confident there are also current trustees who are sympathetic with the statement. However, I understand that it would most likely be a conflict of interest for them to sign.

Of all the things that could help bring reconciliation and increased unity among the various factions of conservative Southern Baptists that have arisen in the past couple of years, I believe that a reversal of the IMB guidelines on baptism and private prayer language ranks right near the top. I am hopeful Southern Baptists "of all stripes and colors" will read this statement, and prayerfully consider the earnest plea that those who signed it are making.

Roadblocks on the Path to City Church

2008-05-28T17:40:00.013-05:00

This post is part of a “chain blog” begun by Alan Knox here.

Charlie Wallace chipped in with the second contribution here.

This post is the third in the chain.

I have previously posted on this topic, or others related to it, on various occasions. I will attempt to avoid repeating what I have said on those other posts here.

The Practice of Unity on the Mission Field
The City Church, a guest post by Paul Grabill
Ministerial Ethics and the City Church
Ministerial Ethics and the City Church (part 2)
Baptist Associations and the City Church
Wolfgang Simson, the City Church, and the IMB
The City Church Revisited
Thoughts from Philippians on the City Church
The One True Church

In my thinking regarding the “city church,” I have been influenced by four or five different things. First, and most important, my study of Scripture. Next, my experience growing up in the United States in the context of several different Southern Baptist congregations, and the general ecclesiological milieu of the United States that has been significantly shaped by denominationalism, local church autonomy, and individualism in general. After this, I would point to 10 years of missionary experience in the region of Extremadura in southwest Spain, in which I observed and participated first-hand in a region-wide fleshing out of much of what I understand the New Testament “city church” to embody. Then, other experiences in other parts of Spain in which the particular dynamics of the collective Body of Christ have not been quite as conducive to the same sort of dynamics I experienced during my time in Extremadura. Finally, I have been influenced by reading from fellow believers, both in books (most notably, That None Should Perish, and Prayer Evangelism, by Ed Silvoso; and Houses that Change the World, by Wolfgang Simson), and in interaction through blogs (most notably, with Paul Grabill).

All of this has led me to conclude that a more biblical practice in regard to the “city church” is not only possible, but something towards which we, as members of the Body of Christ, ought to give diligent effort in promoting. At the same time, I am painfully aware that there are very significant roadblocks that stand in the way of seeing this come to place in any meaningful fashion.

1. One obvious and major roadblock is that of doctrinal differences between individual believers and separate congregations of believers. As I see it, at least at a certain level, there are certain beliefs and practices that, although within the realm of generally agreed upon evangelical orthodoxy, are incompatible with each other with respect to certain aspects of church life. One of these is the practice of believers baptism. Another is the role of women in ministry.

If, for example, one group of believers is convinced that only adult believers should be baptized, it would be a violation of their conscience to be involved, in one way or another, in the sponsorship or advocacy of infant baptism. It would also, for example, be difficult for those who are convinced that Scripture does not allow for women to function as elders in the church to participate fully in a “church” that recognizes women as elders.

My experience, however, has been that it is possible to maintain fellowship at a deep and meaningful level with other believers on a local basis, without, at the same time, necessarily having to compromise on issues like this. This requires that “local churches” or “congregations,” as we traditionally know them, continue to exist and faithfully carry out the doctrinal distinctives each one feels Scripture demands of them. It involves, at the same time, though, “agreeing to disagree” with believers from other groups, or who interpret Scripture differently, in order to accomplish other objectives.

In this sense, I should clarify that the “city church” I am talking about here does not entail the dissolution or organizational merger of existing “autonomous” congregations, nor necessarily of denominational groupings. It is not so much of an “either-or” thing as it is a “both-and” thing. I also believe that the doctrinal basis of fellowship within the “city church” should be generally recognized evangelical orthodoxy. Basically, all those groups whose teaching would lead its adherents to be truly “born again” would be included. Those that teach a “works-based” salvation, or who are defective on basic evangelical essentials, would not.

2. Another roadblock to a successful “city church” dynamic is the overall size of the believing community in a given area. In Extremadura, for example, the total number of evangelical believers is around 1,500 people (of which approximately 1,000 belong to the gypsy ethnic minority), among a total population of about 1,100,000. The size of this group, and the extreme minority status of evangelicals at large in the community, in my opinion, helps to create a favorable atmosphere for the development of a successful “city church” (or actually, in this case, “regional church”) dynamic.

In Madrid, however, where the evangelical community and overall population are both much larger, it is much less practical and more difficult to maintain the same dynamic as in Extremadura. I am aware of several different initiatives in Madrid to bring believers of different congregations and denominations together for fellowship and cooperation in ministry. But it has proven much more difficult to gain the active participation of such a wide representation of the Body of Christ in these activities as it was (and continues to be) in Extremadura. Although there are other factors involved, I believe a primary reason for this has to do with the physical size of the group.

In order to get around this roadblock, I believe it is helpful to break down “city church” functional units into smaller geographical and/or numerical groupings. Actually, I have been involved in a joint monthly prayer meeting with believers from various backgrounds and affiliations in a one specific quadrant of the northeast part of the Madrid province that, while not yet functioning as a full-blown “city church,” does seem to be doing a great job of incorporating some of these same dynamics.

In the States, the complexities involved with this are multiplied many times over, with the huge amount of evangelical believers and congregations present. In spite of this, I am aware of several initiatives within the States that seem to be making some real good headway in relation to this.

3. Another significant roadblock is that of ethnic and racial divisions. Even in Extremadura, as I alluded to earlier, there is a significant divide between gypsy and non-gypsy evangelicals. The gypsy culture has some very specific idiosyncrasies that make it difficult for them to participate in something like a “city church” with non-gypsy believers. Some of this has to do with matters of taste and cultural preference, such as styles of music. But some has to do with deeply embedded social mores, involving things like gender roles, and leadership dynamics. There are also several important doctrinal issues that complicate things even more.

More and more, though, throughout Spain, with the arrival of many believing immigrants, and the subsequent establishment of many predominantly immigrant congregations, the ethnic and racial barriers to a meaningful practice of “city church” continue to grow, and are delineated less specifically along the gypsy/non-gypsy divide.

In the United States, race and ethnicity is one of the most blatant factors inhibiting a greater practical unity among the Body of Christ. If we are honest, though, we must come to grips with the fact that it is not quite as simple as Rodney King saying “We can all get along” or everybody joining hands and singing Kum Ba Yah. There are serious issues that must be broached, and forgiveness and reconciliation that needs to happen at a very deep level.

In spite of these very real and challenging difficulties, though, we were able to experience some wonderful times of joint fellowship between gypsy and non-gypsy believers in Extremadura, including occasional joint worship services, and joint participation in the March for Jesus. In the United States, there are many efforts at racial and ethnic reconciliation that could be cited as examples. Recently, I am especially encouraged by the reports coming out of Jena, Louisiana, and the city-wide revival that appears to be taking place there. All in all, though, to talk about the “city church” and greater unity in the Body of Christ, and neglect to work diligently towards greater unity along racial and ethnic lines is, in my opinion, sheer hypocrisy. I see this as very much a priority issue.

4. A final roadblock toward a positive practice of the “city church” that I would like to point out here is one that may come as a surprise to many of my readers. This roadblock has to do with certain expressions of the “simple,” “organic” or “house church” movements.

Among Southern Baptist International Mission Board workers, undoubtedly many have first been exposed to the whole idea of the “city church” through the writings of Wolfgang Simson. Simson is a leading advocate for “house churches” and proponent for the “city church.” Personally, I am intrigued and attracted by much of what Simson and others with similar ideas have to say. However, I have picked up on a certain tendency by many to disenfranchise, as it were, the “traditional” church as an important part of what God is doing in the world today.

I am firmly convinced of the extreme value of small communities of believers for the practice of solid discipleship and the various aspects of “one another” ministry reflected in Scripture, which is such an integral part of what church is all about. I also agree with a good deal of the thesis of Frank Viola and George Barna regarding the intrusion of pagan practices down through history into institutional Christianity.

However, if we take seriously what Jesus, and the Bible in general, teach about the unity of the Body, I don’t think we can just “write off” 2,000 years of Christian faith communities that have represented, in many times and many places, the vast majority of born-again believers with whom we will one day gather together around the throne of the Lamb. Although I think that “institutional Christianity” in general could benefit much from taking to heart the majority of the values and ideas being proclaimed by the “simple church movement,” I am convinced that a true, Christ-honoring practice of “city church” will necessarily embrace more than just the collective “house churches” of the city. And, it will not be primarily a “house church” thing; at least not in the initial stages.

This is quite simply because the “city church,” by definition, embraces the entire Body of Christ in a given locality. And, at present, in most places around the world, the entire Body of Christ is made up primarily of fellow believers who are part of so-called “institutional churches.” In order for the “city church” to function in the way I believe Jesus intends it to function, I believe that those on all sides of this issue must mutually embrace each other, and accept each other as full-fledged members and equal participants. This may be a challenge to some who are more radical in their convictions. But, I believe, in the long run, it will bring more honor to the name of Christ, and bring us further along in the advance of the Kingdom of God on Earth.
_______________________________________

Chain blog rules:

1. If you would like to write the next blog post (link) in this chain, leave a comment stating that you would like to do so. If someone else has already requested to write the next link, then please wait for that blog post and leave a comment there requesting to write the following link.

2. Feel free to leave comments here and discuss items in this blog post without taking part in the actual “chain”. Your comments and discussion are very important in this chain blog.

3. When you write a link in this chain, please reply in the comments of the previous link to let everyone know that your link is ready. Also, please try to keep an updated list of links in the chain at the bottom of your post, and please include these rules at the bottom of your post.

Alan Knox, City Church - A Chain Blog
Charlie Wallace, City Church: Meeting
David Rogers, Roadblocks on the Path to City Church
Steve Sensenig, The Major Roadblock to a City Church
Paul Grabill, The Resurrection of the City Church: Who Will Move the Stone?
Jon Amos, A City Church Thought Experiment
James Goetz, The Restoration of the City or Locality Church and Apostolic Leadership
Alan Knox, Unity and the Church in a City

Spaniards Read Their Bibles Less than Anyone Else

2008-05-18T22:45:00.003-05:00

"The days are coming," declares the Sovereign LORD, "when I will send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

A new study carried out by the Catholic Bible Federation shows that Spain ranks at the bottom of a list of 9 countries both in Bible reading and Bible knowledge. Especially striking is the comparison between the number of people in Spain who say they have read the Bible in the last 12 months (20%) and those in the United States (75%).

I believe this study demonstrates quite poignantly the great spiritual need of a place like Spain, which, in spite of long being considered as a "Christian" country, is practically void of the knowledge of God's Word. As the old saying goes, though, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Pray God would awaken a thirst for his Word among the Spanish people, and that He would also give those of us who are called to minister among them wisdom on how to best help them see their need of Him.

Read about the study here.

I'm On Board

2008-05-07T12:37:00.005-05:00

I have now read over and signed the newly released Evangelical Manifesto. I think that it verbalizes very well what a lot of us have been thinking for a long time. I ask you to prayerfully and carefully read what it says, and to think through how to consistently put into practice, in attitudes, words, and actions, the propositions contained therein.

Highly Recommended: 9Marks eJournal

2008-04-21T17:06:00.005-05:00

Most of my original writing, as of late, has been over at sbc IMPACT! I do hope, in due time, to get back to posting here more often.

In the meantime, I want to direct you to an important resource that I just got through reading for myself, the March/April 2008 edition of the 9Marks eJournal. The theme of this edition is "Christian Cooperation" and "Christian Separation." I am very impressed with the thoughtful insights and balanced approach the various writers give to these consequential and relevant topics.

Here are the introductory remarks of 9Marks editor, Jonathan Leeman:

The gospel unites and the gospel divides. Some walls it levels and others it erects. Some temples it destroys and others it builds.

But doesn’t it seem like Christians often talk of just one or the other? When they do, imbalances follow. Too much talk about separation leads to strife in the church. Too much talk about unity leads to the compromise of the church. How hard it seems to talk of both gospel unity and gospel separation, each in their proper places! How much wisdom is needed!

Gearing up for Together For The Gospel in April of this year, all the writers in this issue of the 9Marks eJournal make their attempt at striking the balance between the gospel’s call to unity and its call to separation, in terms of the individual's conscience before God. If you’re quick to talk about unity, maybe start with the articles on separation. If you’re quick to talk about separation, maybe start with the articles on cooperation. Just a thought.

May the One who came with a sword of division but who came to break down the dividing wall of partition give wisdom to us all!
I recommend you download the pdf file here to your hard disk, and read it all.

The Chain of Blessings

2008-04-02T09:54:00.007-05:00

One of the people who has impacted my life for the glory of God more than anyone else has been George Verwer, Founder and former International Director of Operation Mobilization. Back when I was single, I had the privilege of participating in 3 different OM summer campaigns, and spending 2 years on the OM missionary ship, M.V. Doulos. During one of my summers with OM, I was asked by George to be his interim "go-fer," while his regular "go-fer" at the time was off on vacation.

That was truly a life-changing experience. I still remember very vividly knocking on George's door in Bromley, England, at 5 am each morning to go jogging with him. As we jogged together, he shared with me how, in his mind, he imagined his route to be a giant map of the world, and, how, all along the itinerary, he would remember to pray for spiritual needs and ministries in different countries, as he passed from place to place. And then, at the half-way point, we would stop, and pray together for each other, the world, and the challenges of the new day.

Although my ministry path has taken me in different directions since that time, the passion, commitment, and spiritual authenticity that so distinctively mark George's life have stayed with me down through the years. Still today, from time to time, George will send me an encouraging note, and several books he is currently pushing, just as he so faithfully does with hundreds, if not thousands, of others who have had the privilege of knowing him.

It would be hard to calculate the number of individuals around the world who are serving God in world missions today as a result of the ministry of George Verwer. But George himself was first impacted for God by the ministry of Billy Graham. As a teenage boy, growing up in New Jersey, he was invited to a meeting in which Dr. Graham spoke at Madison Square Garden in New York. It was there that he first surrendered his life to the Lord.

It was a big blessing for me to watch the following 2 1/2 minute video-clip in which George was recently able to visit with Dr. Graham at The Cove in North Carolina. It is also a blessing to see how Dr. Graham's ministry, by way of The Billy Graham Training Center, continues to bless many others, under the leadership of his grandson, Will Graham.

Watch: George Verwer meets Billy Graham

Piper on "Contradictory Compassion"

2008-04-01T13:46:00.004-05:00

For quite a while now, I have found it increasingly difficult to identify a political candidate I could really get excited about.

John Piper gives a brilliant and amazingly brief defense of my position, explaining why this is the case, and focusing in on the same issues that I, as a follower of Jesus, consider to be the most important within the current political milieu of the United States.

Read: Overcome Contradictory Compassion

Updates

2008-03-10T08:03:00.004-05:00

I have been very busy lately, and have not had the time to post much here at Love Each Stone. This week I am at Iglesia "Luz para las Naciones" in Pensacola, Florida, preaching a "campaign of evangelism and revival." So far, it has been a wonderful time. The church here reminds me a lot of churches we have been associated with or planted in Spain. I would appreciate your prayers for me as, after preaching twice on Sunday, I will also be preaching Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday night.

I also wanted to share the great news, for those who may not read all the same blogs that I do and have not already gotten the word, that God has answered prayer, and little Caelan Cross does NOT have cancer!!! Read Alan's reports here and here, and praise God together with the Cross family.

Although I haven't posted much here lately at Love Each Stone, I continue to contribute regularly at sbc IMPACT! Here is a list of some of my recent posts over there:

Best Unity Practices
I Was a Stranger and You Invited Me In
You Help Us By Your Prayers
Missions and Family
"I Know...Let's Blame Willow Creek..."
Stumbling Blocks
Missions & the "Traditional" Church in the SBC
The Missionary: "A Breed Apart"?
Questions on Wealth and Response to the Gospel

In the meantime, I am using just about every spare moment I have studying for my upcoming entrance exam for the new Missions Cohort Ph.D. at Southeastern Seminary. This pioneer project being carried out in collaboration with the IMB will allow career missionaries to work on a Ph.D. while continuing to remain on the field, and fulfill their other ministry responsibilities. I am really excited about this opportunity.

Here is my reading list for the upcoming exam. This is a good part of what has been keeping me so busy lately. I imagine that once I am done, and have taken the exam, I will have a whole lot of food for thought, and a bit more time to post here at Love Each Stone.

Carson, Donald and John Woodbridge, eds. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988.

McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper, 1975 paper.

Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991.

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. Downers Grove: IVP, 1998.

Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Hesselgrave, David and Edward Rommen. Contextualization: Meaning, Methods, and Models. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989.

Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. 2d. ed. Vol. 6 of The Penguin History of the Church. New York: Penguin, 1986.

Tucker, Ruth A. From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biographical History of Christian Missions. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers
Grove: IVP, 2006.

Pray for Caelan Cross

2008-02-22T08:39:00.005-06:00

Alan Cross is a young pastor at Gateway Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. I first had the opportunity to meet Alan several years ago at the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, North Carolina. Since then, I have corresponded with Alan on the blogs, and come to greatly respect his balanced, Christ-honoring point of view, and graceful eloquence in communicating it. Just a few weeks ago, I had the blessing of spending an afternoon of fellowship together with Alan during a visit to Montgomery. Alan is one of the nicest, humblest, godliest men of God you could ever hope to meet. My time with him was a great encouragement to me, and I greatly appreciated the heartfelt prayer he lifted up to the Father on my behalf as we parted ways.

During my time with Alan, I asked him briefly about his 2 1/2-year-old son, Caelan, who, after being detected with cancer at 8 months old, had gone through several rounds of radiation and chemotherapy treatment. Together with many others on the blogosphere, I had rejoiced with Alan several months ago, when the scans showed that Caelan's cancer had disappeared. Alan told me then that he and his wife, Erika, were praising God for answers to prayer, and were so thankful that Caelan had apparently come through to the other side of this trial.

Yesterday, Alan and Erika got word that Caelan's cancer has possibly returned. The diagnosis is not yet 100% certain. But it is serious enough for the doctors to be very concerned. I can't imagine how devastated Alan and Erika must be at this time. They need our prayers. They need our support.

Go to Alan's blog, Downshore Drift, right now, read what Alan has written about Caelan, and lift them up before the Father. If God leads you to do so, leave them a note of encouragement as well. They need all they can get at this time.

Paul Littleton: "The Church - A Diverse Body"

2008-02-21T14:13:00.006-06:00

Paul Littleton has just finished posting a 3-part series entitled "The Church - A Diverse Body" that dovetails nicely with what I have been writing about here, as of late, at Love Each Stone. I think the issues Paul addresses are not of minor importance for us who take seriously the Word of God and the call of Jesus to radical, obedient discipleship. And, I think Paul does a first-rate job of reflecting responsibly and practically on these matters. I thus recommend you to read and think with an open mind and heart about what Paul has to say...

The Church - A Diverse Body
The Church - A Diverse Body 2
The Church - A Diverse Body 3

Update: Ed Stetzer has also posted some good thoughts on the same basic subject (with a good discussion on the comment string here and here).

While I am at it, Paul links to a document on this issue that is so important and central to what we are to be about in world missions, that I want to post the entire text of the key section here, in the hope that more people will read it, and take to heart what it says.

It is section #5 from Lausanne Occasional Paper 1: The Pasadena Consultation - The Homogeneous Unit Principle...

5. The Church, the Churches and the Homogeneous Unit Principle

We are all agreed that, as there is one God and Father, one Lord Jesus and one Holy Spirit, so he has only one church. The unity of the church is a given fact (Ephesians 4:4-6). At the same time, we have the responsibility to maintain this unity (v. 3), to make it visible, and to grow up into the fullness of unity in Christ (vv. 13-16).

How then can the unity of the church (to which we are committed) and the diversity of cultures (to which we are also committed) be reconciled with one another? More particularly, how can separate HU churches express the unity of the Body of Christ?

We are all agreed that the dividing wall, which Jesus Christ abolished by his death, was echthra, "enmity" or "hostility." All forms of hatred, scorn, and disrespect between Christians of different backgrounds are forbidden, being totally incompatible with Christ's reconciling work. But we must go further than this. The wall dividing Jew from Gentile was not only their active reciprocal hatred; it was also their racial and religious alienation symbolized by "the law of commandments and ordinances." This, too, Jesus abolished, in order to "create in himself one new man in place of two, so making peace" (Eph. 2:15).

This did not mean that Jews ceased to be Jews, or Gentiles to be Gentiles. It did mean, however, that their racial differences were no barrier to their fellowship, for through their union with Jesus Christ both groups were now "joint heirs, joint members of the same body and joint partakers of the promise" (Eph. 3:6 literally). The union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ was the "mystery" which was revealed to Paul and which he proclaimed to all (Ephesians 3:3-6, 9, 10). Thus the church as the single new humanity or God's new society is central to the gospel. Our responsibility is both to preach it and to exhibit it before the watching world.

What did this mean in practice in the early church? It seems probable that, although there were mixed Jewish-Gentile congregations, there were also homogeneous Jewish congregations (who still observed Jewish customs) and homogeneous Gentile congregations (who observed no Jewish customs). Nevertheless, Paul clearly taught them that they belonged to each other in Christ, that they must welcome one another as Christ had welcomed them (compare Romans 15:7), and that they must respect one another's consciences, and not offend one another. He publicly rebuked Peter in Antioch for withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentile believers, and argued that his action was a denial of the truth of the gospel, that is, of the justification of all believers (whether Jews or Gentiles) by grace through faith (compare Galatians 2:11-16). This incident and teaching should be taken as a warning to all of us of the seriousness of permitting any kind of apartheid in the Christian fellowship. And it should go without saying that no one visiting a church or requesting membership in it should ever be turned away on merely cultural grounds. On the contrary, visitors and members should be welcomed from all cultures.

All of us are agreed that in many situations a homogeneous unit church can be a legitimate and authentic church. Yet we are also agreed that it can never be complete in itself. Indeed, if it remains in isolation, it cannot reflect the universality and diversity of the Body of Christ. Nor can it grow into maturity. Therefore, every HU church must take active steps to broaden its fellowship in order to demonstrate visibly the unity and the variety of Christ's church. This will mean forging with other and different churches creative relationships which express the reality of Christian love, brotherhood, and interdependence.

During our consultation we have shared several possible ways of developing such relationships. They will range from occasional united evangelistic crusades, Christian concerts, conferences, conventions and annual festivals through a variety of voluntary associations and interchurch federations to the regular enjoying of intercultural fellowship. One model of this we have looked at is the large city church (or congregation) with several HU subchurches (or subcongregations) which normally worship separately but sometimes together. On these occasions their common celebration is enriched by the dress, music, and liturgy of different traditions. Another model a multicultural Sunday congregation which divides into mid-week HU house churches, while a third and more radical way is to work towards integration, although without cultural assimilation.

In our commitment to evangelism, we all understand the reasons why homogeneous unit churches usually grow faster than heterogeneous or multicultural ones. Some of us, however, do not agree that the rapidity with which churches grow is the only or even always the most important Christian priority. We know that an alien culture is a barrier to faith. But we also know that segregation and strife in the church are barriers to faith. If, then, we have to choose between apparent acquiescence in segregation for the sake of numerical church growth and the struggle for reconciliation at the expense of numerical church growth, we find ourselves in a painful dilemma. Some of us have had personal experience of the evils of tribalism in Africa, racism in America, caste in India, and economic injustice in Latin America and elsewhere, and all of us are opposed to these things. In such situations none of us could with a good conscience continue to develop HU churches which seem to ignore the social problems and even tolerate them in the church, while some of us believe that the development of HU churches can often contribute to their solution.

We recognize that both positions can be defended in terms of obedience—obedience to Christ's commission to evangelize on the one hand, and obedience to the commands to live in love and justice on the other. The synthesis between these two still eludes us, although we all accept our Lord's own words that it is through the brotherly love and unity of Christians that the world will come to believe in him (John 13:35; 17:21, 23).

Washington Post Article on Southern Baptists

2008-02-16T22:40:00.003-06:00

In light of what I wrote on my last post, here is a very interesting article from the Washington Post on racial diversification in the SBC:

Southern Baptists Diversifying to Survive

(HT: Eric Redmond)

Christian Unity and Racial Reconciliation

2008-02-16T09:04:00.006-06:00

I believe that denominationalism (not denominations in and of themselves) is one significant way in which the Body of Christ is unbiblically divided, and I have written about it quite extensively here at Love Each Stone. However, if we look at all of the reasons the Body of Christ is unbiblically divided, especially in the United States, there is at least one other motive staring us squarely in the face that may be even more significant: racial differences.

Walking into the congregational meeting of any one of a great majority of local churches in the United States, it is immediately obvious to the perceptive observer that the make-up of the group, when compared to that of the surrounding community, is pretty well defined along racial lines. Martin Luther King, Jr. frequently cited the well-known quote originally attributed to Billy Graham: "Eleven o’clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America." You have to wonder, in light of passages like Ephesians 2:11-18, if this is really what Jesus desires for his church. From a missionary perspective, I am convinced, as well, that racially based divisions in the American church have contributed to the raising of some pretty significant stumbling blocks for world evangelization.

Yet, the solution to this problem is not quite so simple. History has created different cultures that, in many cases, are closely linked to racial and/or ethnic classifications. These cultures, in turn, tend to produce certain patterns of taste and preference among the individual members of the groups identified with them. As a result of this, when people are given a choice, they tend to gravitate towards regular association with groups that share their own cultural tastes and preferences. This is an aspect of human nature that no amount of wishful thinking or good intentions is likely to wipe away anytime soon. Renowned missiologist Donald McGavran referred to it as the "homogeneous unit principle."

Personally, whenever we can blend cultures and races within a local congregation, I think that, in and of itself, it is a good idea. However, the reality is that the "worship style" of any one congregation will almost inevitably tend to attract certain types of people and alienate others. Even if a church opts to dress its activities in a culture-neutral or culturally blended style, some people, who prefer more culture-specific styles, will feel their tastes are not sufficiently valued and taken into consideration.

Although actual racial and cultural discrimination should never be tolerated in the life of the local church, it is probably best to come to grips with the reality of the "homogeneous unit principle," at least at some level, and learn to live with it. It is actually a factor that, properly understood, can help us to "become all things to all men so that by all possible means [we] might save some." That should never be an excuse, however, for total segregation in the Body of Christ. As brothers and sisters in Christ from different races and cultures, I believe, as we grow in Christian maturity, we should naturally give diligent effort to know, understand, and fellowship with each other.

In a recent visit to Montgomery, Alabama, I was made aware of a wonderful effort on the part of Christians there to bridge racial barriers, and present a united testimony for Christ on a city-wide level. Under the banner of the ONE Movement, various churches of different racial make-up have taken on the goal of "building bridges of racial reconciliation that will facilitate a great spiritual awakening" in Montgomery.

In a Jan. 16, 2006 article in Baptist Press, Pastor Jay Wolf, of First Baptist Church, Montgomery, made the following insightful observation on his congregation’s involvement in the ONE Movement: "Eating together, praying together and praising the Lord together dissolves misconceptions and provides a powerful bonding cement to build bridges of relationships."

In the country of Spain, where I have served as a missionary for the past 18 years, it is evident that, in recent years, God is up to something special there as well. About 10 years ago, many evangelical churches were half-empty, and the make-up of most was quite racially and ethnically homogeneous. In recent years, though, largely through a massive influx of immigration from Latin America, many of these same churches are "busting at the seams." It is not uncommon for some of these congregations to be comprised of 50% or even 75% immigrants, most frequently from a variety of different countries and cultural backgrounds.

As one might imagine, in many cases, this transition has not come without its share of tension and misunderstandings. However, in my opinion, the blessings have far outweighed the problems. On the one hand, I believe that God has sent many of the immigrants as a response to the prayers of his people to "send out workers into his harvest field." On the other hand, I believe God is at work, breaking down walls of separation, reconciling us all, in one body, through the cross, to Him, "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

New Lausanne Movement Blog

2008-02-05T20:47:00.000-06:00

Doug Birdsall, current Chairman of the Lausanne Movement, has launched a new blog looking forward to the The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization, to be held in Cape Town, South Africa, Oct. 16-25, 2010.

The name of the blog is Towards 2010 - The Lausanne Movement Weblog. This looks like an exciting new place to keep track of some of the marvellous things God is doing around the world, through believers of many different backgrounds, in obedience to the Great Commission.

Here is a quote from the current post entitled Gathering the Global Church. Good stuff...

We pray that at Cape Town 2010 the 4000 participants will provide a wonderful model of what it means to be part of the global body of Christ where every member of the body works in a coordinated and respectful manner with every other part of the body. As we come together to work on the issues that are before us with respect to world evangelization, we pray that there will be a sharing of gifts and experiences that result in greater strength and unity in the body of Christ and which finds expression in an “exchange of joy.”

Mark Dever on the Role of the SBC

2008-02-04T17:05:00.000-06:00

Many claim that a consistent biblical practice of Christian unity precludes participation in groups like the Southern Baptist Convention. I, however, do not think that such is necessarily the case.

The following quotes, taken from Mark Dever, in a recent interview with Timmy Brister, as transcribed on the Strange BaptistFire blog, are very much in line with my own views on church unity and the role of denominations. I also think it aligns quite well with what John Woodhouse says on the same topics in the articles I posted here a couple of weeks ago.

Just remember, the SBC’s not a church. I mean, [saying, ‘Leaving the SBC’ is] like saying, ‘Leaving Wycliffe Bible Translators.’ Y’know, it’s like, I’m a pastor, and we have $4000 a year that goes to support this person who works with Wycliffe, and if I stop sending that $4000, then I’m ‘leaving Wycliffe Bible Translators.’ So, it’s not a church issue for us in that way. The Southern Baptist Convention is one means by which- certainly our congregation of Christians at Capitol Hill Baptist Church- we cooperate with other Christians through the Southern Baptist Convention and are delighted to do it. But we feel no obligation to do that; we cooperate through other groups too. We give money to the Conservative Baptists, we’ve given money to groups even associated with other non-baptistic denominations, just to encourage them in gospel work, and we certainly have given to multi or interdenominational groups- like InterVarsity or Campus Crusade- that do work. So we identify ourselves as Christians, and we certainly believe in believers’ baptism, but we would not say that our fundamental identity is Southern Baptist. We’re Christians, and we think the Bible teaches believers’ baptism and we the Southern Baptist Convention is a really good way to cooperate for international missions and can be pretty helpful in the education of ministers…

I don’t think we have the freedom under God to organize our churches in such a way that we begin to think of ourselves as one visible church. So that, let’s say we have a case of church discipline here [at Capitol Hill Baptist Church] and our congregation deals with it, and then some pastor sitting some place- y’know- in Richmond can actually say, ‘No, I reverse it, you’ve gotta put Tom back in the membership of the church. I mean, even if we obey that- let’s say we’re an Episcopalian church, which would obey that- I think we’re in sin for obeying; we’re not following what Jesus said in Matthew 18. We’re taking an unbiblical structure (because a bishop claims some authority) and we are acknowledging it. Well, I think the Lord will still hold us accountable for what we in our congregation do in obeying the words of Christ…

There may be some other church out there that calls itself Southern Baptist that’s preaching wacko stuff; well, that’s not at all in the same sense [as in my local congregation] my responsibility. Now, you can lay out a specific situation with another congregation- we may have more or less responsibility for it, and even with the non-church entities- the parachurch entities, like the Southern Baptist Convention, which is- y’know- it’s like a Christian publishing company, a Christian network of colleges or something- it’s not the same thing as a Christian church. So, let’s say I go to the SBC and somebody has a resolution saying, ‘Hey, we should have only regenerate members in our churches!’ or that’s what we should strive for, well, I go, ‘Of course, that’s what it means to be a Baptist.’ And let’s say the thing gets voted down. That doesn’t cause me to despair. I mean, I understand pastors aren’t all confused. I don’t think the SBC as a Convention has any kind of authority- it doesn’t pretend to. I think all that says is, ‘Yeah, we gotta go back to the books, and we gotta keep talking to pastors, and we gotta do a better job raising up this next generation of pastors’…

If you get your real jollies from what’s going on in the denominational press and the Convention and not what’s happening- y’know- in Mrs. Jones’ life in your congregation or Bob coming to Christ or that Sunday school class you’re teaching or that sermon from last Sunday, then you’ve just got a spiritual problem…
(HT: Tony Kummer)

Plymouth Brethren, William MacDonald, and Christian Unity

2008-01-30T09:51:00.000-06:00

My impression is that among Southern Baptists there is relatively little knowledge of the Plymouth Brethren movement. In the country of Spain, where my wife and I are missionaries, though, they are one of the main evangelical groups. I would say "denominations," except for the fact that many "brethren" profess to be opposed to denominations, and do not recognize the denominational character of the movement with which they identify.

For the most part, Plymouth Brethren are conservative evangelicals, even more conservative on several points than most Southern Baptists. I have had the privilege of sharing some wonderful, warm fellowship in the Lord with various individuals and congregations associated with the Plymouth Brethren movement.

Like various other Christian groups, the Plymouth Brethren started by and large as an attempt by sincerely motivated believers to work towards Christian unity, and overcome the barriers of denominationalism. Sadly, though, in many cases, the practical outworking of the application of the principles behind the movement has led to increased sectarianism, similar, in some aspects, to the Campbellite/Church of Christ movement, and the Witness Lee "local church" movement.

In any case, I think there are many things we can learn from the Brethren, including both lessons from their achievements and shortcomings as a movement, as well as some excellent biblical reflection and spiritual exhortation. Several names associated with the Plymouth Brethren who have made an impact on evangelicalism at large include George Müller, J. N. Darby, Harry Ironside, Jim Elliot, F. F. Bruce, and Luis Palau.

This past Christmas, Dec. 25, 2007, William MacDonald, one of the most beloved and respected Bible teachers associated with the Brethren movement, went to be with the Lord at the age of 90. Like so many other godly leaders down through history, MacDonald wrestled with the practical implications of biblical teaching on Christian unity. Although, in the context of what he writes, MacDonald specifically addresses some of the quirks and idiosyncrasies within the Brethren movement, I think the following article contains some very rich food for thought all of us as Bible-believing Christians, and specifically, as Southern Baptists.

Read To What Should We Be Loyal, by William MacDonald

The Spiritual Landscape in Spain

2008-01-25T10:48:00.000-06:00

For those who may be interested, the following article posted on Protestante Digital gives what I consider to be an objective and succinct summary of the current religious make-up of the country in which my family and I have dedicated the last 17 years of our life and ministry.

Immigrants changing religious map of Spain

LA CORUÑA, (Source: La Voz de Galicia / ACPress.net)

One of the effects of the large numbers of immigrants entering Spain is the rapid increase in the number of religious groups. Most of the 14,000 registered religious organisations are Catholic, but those representing minority faiths are growing fast.

Spain is Roman Catholic by history and tradition, at least over the past five hundred years, but is becoming less so. Not just because the number of atheists is growing, up to 4.9% of the population at the latest count, nor yet that of agnostics, now at 11.7%, but because there is a proliferation of non-Catholic religious groups. In 2005, according to government figures, there were 12,453 Catholic organisations (today up to 12,585), while non-Catholic groups totalled 1,388 in 2005, but are up to 1,895 today.

Most of these non-Catholic groups are Protestant or Evangelical, but there are also Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon groups. And the figure is set to rise, not least because of the recent government decision to recognise the Scientology 'Church' as a legal entity, with the same rights as all other recognised groups.

Despite all the growth, it is somewhat amusing to discover that if one adds up the number of followers claimed by each group, it comes to a figure higher than the total population of Spain, although there may be people who claim to practice more than one religion. In round numbers, the Spanish population is 44 million, of whom 34 million are officially Catholic. However, it is impossible to know how many of them are actually still in the Catholic Church in any meaningful way, given that the Catholic Church doesn't recognise apostates. Government figures suggest about half of all Catholics are non-practising.

Behind the Catholics come the Muslims, who number over a million in Spain at present, and the Protestants, who represent a community of about 400,000 people, which has increased considerably in recent years with the huge wave of immigration from Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe. The Federation of Evangelical Organisations calculates that there are a further 800,000 foreign Protestants who live in Spain for at least six months a year, most of them from northern Europe. This would put Protestants in second place, with a total of around 1.2 million.

There are about 40,000 Jews in Spain, and 9,000 practising Buddhists, as well as all those people who follow other minority faiths. The Scientology group claim to have around 10,000 followers in Spain.

John Woodhouse on Christian Unity, Ecclesiology, and Denominations

2008-01-07T00:22:00.000-06:00

I do not know how to recommend strongly enough that you take the time to carefully read through the following three articles by John Woodhouse on Christian unity, ecclesiology, and denominations.

1. When to unite and when to divide
2. The unity of the church
3. Christian unity and denominations

John Woodhouse is Principal of Moore College in Sydney, Australia, and a well-known "Sydney Anglican." According to Wikipedia, "The Diocese of Sydney, in the Anglican Church of Australia, is unusual in Western Anglicanism in that the majority of the diocese is Evangelical and low church in tradition and committed to Reformed and Calvinist theology."

As an Anglican, there are undoubtedly several doctrinal issues on which I, as a Baptist, differ with Woodhouse. However, I believe he has much to say that is very relevant for us as Southern Baptists. As a matter of fact, upon reading these articles, I was surprised by the degree of agreement I found with him on the particular issues discussed therein. I believe a serious consideration of the ideas proposed by Woodhouse in these articles will help to clear up some crucial misunderstandings, as well as open up avenues for fruitful dialogue, on many of the issues currently being discussed on this blog, and in Southern Baptist life in general. Especially important, from the standpoint of context, is what Woodhouse says in the second article on ecclesiology and a biblical definition of "church."

In order to get a true understanding of what he is saying, it is very important that you read all three articles in their entirety and in order. However, in order to whet your appetite so you will want to read more, I include here the following quotes from the third article on Christian unity and denominations. (HT: Justin Taylor, Andy Naselli)

"What is a denomination? Here is a working definition: A denomination is an association of some churches which does not include all churches."

"Denominationalism, in this sense, is a deliberate rejection of sectarianism. Sectarianism is the view that a particular group is the only legitimate expression of the church."

"Denominations can be an expression of the unity of the Spirit. However when the nature of the denomination is misunderstood and inappropriate policies and actions developed, denominations can oppose the unity of the Spirit."

"One of the chief benefits of denominationalism is the freedom of conscience it allows. The unity of the Spirit cannot be coerced against conscience."

"Once a denomination has developed institutional structures that people come to think are ‘the church’, the trouble has begun. Instead of being an expression of the unity of the Spirit, an outworking of the fellowship of those who in different places call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the denomination can then impede the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. History suggests that over time this temptation is close to irresistible."

"With centralism comes control and interference. Whereas in spiritual reality the local gathering of believers is assembled by Christ, ruled by his Spirit through his Word as the members serve one another, the denomination is tempted to rule the congregation from a distance, and according to its own interests."

"There is an urgent, necessary and grave duty to see that the control of the denomination over the life and ministry of the local congregations must be broken."

"A denomination, once it has developed, appears typically to demand the loyalty of the individual churches and their members to the association itself. The denomination very easily loses sight of its proper role of encouraging faithfulness to Christ and to all who belong to him. Instead of being a means to this end, the denomination becomes an end in itself."

"Loyalty is not a Christian virtue. Indeed it can be sinful. The Christian virtue is faithfulness, and faithfulness is exercised towards persons, not institutions. Faithfulness to Christ is our first duty, as he has been faithful to us. Faithfulness to our brothers and sisters into whose company God has drawn us is a second. Faithfulness to brothers and sisters beyond our circles is a third."

"Loyalty to a denomination is often expected in exclusive terms. Relations with believers of the same denomination are seen to take precedence over relations with other believers. It may be regarded as disloyal (or improper in some other way) when a person moves to a different town if he/she joins a church of a different denomination. But this is an improper expression of denominationalism."

"The scandal of denominationalism (which is neither inherent in the concept, nor necessary in practice) is the creation of barriers to fellowship with those who do not belong to that denomination, based on the traditions of men. The denomination exists to foster the Christian fellowship of member churches, not to create barriers to fellowship with other churches!"

"Once the distinctives of your denomination become part of your religion, your denomination has become a sect. Once the distinctives (of dress, liturgy, polity, or other practice) become hindrances to relating to believers who do not share these distinctives, then the distinctives must be challenged."

"There may be circumstances where change is not possible or desirable. But we ought not to be among those who resist changes because of denominational identity. Uniformity of distinctive practices between churches of a denomination is of no spiritual value. It establishes a false unity, which all too easily substitutes for the unity of the Spirit, and has often done so. It is Babylonian unity."

"We will be more concerned for the prospering of believing churches than for the prospering of the denomination. It is in the churches and from the churches (not from the denominational ‘centre’) that we expect the gospel to grow."

"In our denominational activities we must resist the temptation to be people-pleasers. All too frequently evangelicals who get involved in the denominational structures are tempted to dissociate themselves from other evangelicals who are less committed to the denomination. That is unfaithfulness. Our unity with those who agree in the gospel is too important for that game to be played."

"Denominational unity is Babylonian unity, and typically an alternative, a rival, to the unity of the Spirit. If you are for one, you will be against the other."

"We ought to take up opportunities given by our denominational association for believing churches to relate to other faithful churches. However, it is also important that we express our unity with gospel people and churches across recognised denominational boundaries. Evangelicals working together, fellowshipping across denominational limits for the sake of gospel churches and gospel proclamation will, at some point, encounter denominational opposition."

"Evangelicals must repudiate the idea that our Christian identity is associated with our denominational label. The folly of denominational loyalty expresses walking by sight, not by faith. Our agenda with respect to our denomination must be the good of churches and the spread of the gospel. When the denomination loses its usefulness for those ends, it has lost its usefulness for anything."

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #19

2008-01-02T15:42:00.000-06:00

A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

I appreciate you taking the time and energy, after a long interlude, to give such an extensive response to my letter #17, and especially to the three questions I ask at the end of it. I realize you have previously indicated your desire to let this be your final contribution to our present dialogue. At the same time, the issues you raise in your last letter are of such a nature that I find myself obligated to raise a few questions here in my response that you may well prefer not to leave unanswered. You may wish to do this in an additional letter, or in the comment string to this letter. Either option is fine with me.

In your letter, you say: “our discussion has revealed an apparently deep division in how we view the Christian faith and faithfulness to Christ.” From my perspective, this division, inasmuch as it may exist, is provoked more by your position towards me than mine towards you. As far as I can discern, the only real substantive difference that we have in our views of doctrine have to do with some relatively minor points of ecclesiology, especially our approach to fellowship and unity with other believers.

In regard to what you have to say about “the true Christian faith,” I have no discrepancy. I am in total agreement with you. In regard to “the New Testament churches,” as far as I can tell, I am in essential agreement as well. If I have a difference, it is that honesty leads me to wrestle with a certain degree of ambiguity I find in the text of the New Testament, and, as a result, not be quite as dogmatic as I sense you to be regarding certain issues.

For instance, I agree with you on the basics regarding regenerate church membership, believers baptism by immersion, congregational church government, and the need for biblical church discipline. Personally, though, I see such questions as whether the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized “into the local church” or “into the universal church” as beyond the scope of what the New Testament writers intended to teach us. As I see it, he was simply baptized, upon his profession of faith, in obedience to Christ’s command, and, as would be natural for any new disciple, most likely sought out the fellowship of other believers whenever and wherever that might have been a viable option. Also, the supposed link you see between baptism and church membership in the various other passages you mention in Acts are not, as I see them, quite so clear as you make them out to be.

All told, though, I, from what I can tell, in my practice, whenever faced with this issue, come down exactly where you do, teaching believers baptism as a prerequisite to church membership.

In the second part of your letter, when you talk about “building bridges” to other religions, the “fictional invisible church,” and “evangelical ecumenism,” I sincerely believe you are confusing the issues by use of straw man arguments, and ambiguous, yet incendiary language. I believe our communication would be aided by mutually recognizing that neither one of us is interested in joining together with those of other religions, nor in ecumenism, in the classical sense of the word, as used by such groups as the World Council of Churches. While I sympathize with Dagg’s distaste for the term “invisible church,” for the same reasons as his, I, upon my study of Scripture, am not able, in good conscience, to relegate the Church Universal to a merely ethereal eschatalogical reality that has no practical implications for us as Christians today.

I also believe your choice of wording, “willful or ignorant disobedience,” with regard to “broader evangelicalism,” in Part III of your letter, obscures the real issue. As I inferred earlier in Letter #13, I find it hard to call sincere but mistaken interpretations and/or applications of Scripture, coupled with a heartfelt submission to the Lordship of Jesus, “disobedience.” It seems inconsistent to me for you to say, on the one part, “even those who have a faulty doctrine of justification may be justified by faith,” while those with a faulty ecclesiology are “disobedient,” and unworthy of our cooperation. Are you prepared to call all those with what you would consider a faulty eschatology, or an improper view on the five points of Calvinism, “disobedient” as well? As mentioned earlier, I believe in the necessity of biblical church discipline. However, when you carry this over as a prerequisite for cooperation with other Christians, it even leaves you in the uncomfortable position of eliminating as valid ministry partners the majority of Southern Baptist churches today.

On another front, although they are admittedly related questions, I object to your apparent equating of open church membership and open communion. The qualifications for participation in communion, as I understand it, are embracing those items you refer to in your section on “the true Christian faith,” and a clean conscience before God. It is for this reason that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:28, tells us that “a man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.” In addition, a local congregation may legitimately “ban” an individual from participation in the Lord’s Supper. Biblically, however, such a “ban” ought always to be as a result of confirmed and genuine unrepentant sin in the life of that person. However, as I presently understand it, refusing someone membership in a local congregation should not be construed as concomitant with punitive church discipline.

I am happy to see that in your answer to my “third set of questions” on evangelism, discipleship, and church planting you are at least consistent. You appear to recognize that the distinction employed by the IMB Board of Trustees between evangelism, discipleship, and church planting in determining levels of cooperation is artificial and unbiblical. As I understand it, a consistent application of what you are saying here would lead the IMB to forbid not only cooperation with non-Baptists in church planting, but also in evangelism and discipleship.

I myself, however, am not prepared to go there. And, I have a strong hunch that neither are the majority of Southern Baptists. While I am in agreement that IMB appointees should be expected to agree with and teach basic Baptist distinctives such as the necessity of believers baptism by immersion, I believe that to limit partnership in Gospel ministry exclusively to other Baptists goes against a biblical understanding of the Body of Christ, or the Church Universal.

Indeed, Paul writes to “all of God’s holy people in Philippi who belong to Christ Jesus” that he regards them as “partners in spreading the Good News about Christ” and desires that they might stand “together with one spirit and one purpose, fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News” (Philippians 1:1, 5, 27, New Living Translation).

While I agree in principle with what you say about the Baptist Faith & Message and “doctrinal accountability,” I believe that my particular case, which I surmise to be far from isolated, exposes an important anomaly in the system that ideally and ultimately will need to be corrected. The truth is that, although the majority of messengers present at the 2000 convention voted to adopt the text of the BFM as it now stands, an apparent majority of Southern Baptist churches do not hold to a strict practice of “closed” or “close communion.” To require a denominational employee to hold to a view that is contrary to the practice of the majority within the denomination, in my opinion, is, at best, inconsistent. In the meantime, I suspect that the majority of Southern Baptists, whether on Boards of Trustees or not, instinctively know such is the case, and, as a result, are not willing to demand a strict concession on this point.

From what it looks like to me, though, if those who hold the strict views I understand you to advocate really gain ascendancy within the SBC, and consistently carry out what is implicit in your line of reasoning, I believe we are headed for stormy days. It will no doubt mean great division and parting of ways between many whom, up to this point, have been able to cooperate effectively and harmoniously in the enormous common ministry project that is the Southern Baptist Convention.

Such being the case, it seems to me that it would be a real tragedy if these differences, which I consider relatively minor, were to somehow place a barrier between our fellowship and cooperation in ministry. According to data from the World Christian Encyclopedia, out of all affiliated Christians around the world, Baptists comprise less than 3%. Out of all Baptists, the number who would affirm the Baptist Faith & Message is a good bit smaller. To demand a strict adherence to disputed points within the BFM, and then, on top of that, add extra points of doctrine, such as narrow stands on “private prayer language” and “alien immersion,” limits the playing field even more.

At the same time, I recognize that all organizations, such as the SBC, must have some mutually agreed upon set of standards. Perhaps the convictions of people like you demand that this set of standards be relatively rigid and narrow. Admittedly, there are denominations and associations of churches out there that are even narrower. However, I personally think the interests of the Kingdom of God are better served by a Southern Baptist Convention that is not quite so narrow. And, since the interests of the Kingdom of God are something to which I am strongly committed, I find it worth my while to contribute my grain of sand towards the effort against increasingly narrow parameters of cooperation within the SBC.

In the end, I do not know which side will win out in the current conflict in the SBC. What I do know, though, is that, when all is done and told, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church Jesus is in the process of building. And, in the meantime, I am called, to the best of my ability, to “love each stone” being built up together with me to form “a holy temple in the Lord,” – “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that [we] may declare the praises of him who called [us] out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

Blessings,

David

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #18 (Part III)

2007-12-29T09:19:00.000-06:00

Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love and the Limits of Fellowship, Part III, by Malcolm Yarnell

III. Testing the Limits of Church Fellowship

David, I have focused upon the New Testament church as the place for living faithfully the Christian faith because that is what is currently not well remembered. By focusing on the theological fiction of the invisible church, many Christians have turned a primary concern in the Bible, the local church, into a secondary or tertiary issue. The acceptable language of "theological triage" has been misused in order to further this worrisome trend. The evangelical ecumenism that is so popular among some younger Southern Baptists is a cause for concern, because it may compromise the faithfulness of our churches.

Before proceeding, notice the distinction between the recognition of others as Christian and the need to maintain the integrity of covenantal fellowship. Defining true Christian faith is integral to but only one part of the Christian desire to live out the faith in a faithful manner. Orthodox doctrine is insufficient on its own. An isolated effort to define the irreducible faith is ultimately a lowest-common denominator approach to Christianity, and represents an opposing outlook to the call of Jesus Christ for men to follow Him by taking up their crosses daily (Mark 8:34-38).

Southern Baptists have reached a crisis decision, for there is a fork in the road ahead of us. There are two directions before us: either we will continue reducing our church standards in order to "build bridges" to other Christians and even other religions, or we will maintain the ordinances that Christ instituted in obedience to Him. The evangelical ecumenist is committed to the former in the name of Christian unity and the fictional invisible church; the free churchman is committed to the latter in the name of love for Christ and His will for the local church. I personally believe that the best way to love other men is by loving Christ and His church, and that is why I am a free churchman rather than an evangelical ecumenist.

This belief is not a movement away from evangelistic witness, but a reclaiming of it. Evangelism is best done as the church separates itself from an unholy world (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1). How will they know Who Christ is? They will know Christ by the love of Christians for one another (John 13:34-35), and by the bride’s submissive devotion to the bridegroom (Ephesians 5:22, 32). Our Baptist forefathers understood this truth, for they maintained high walls in their ecclesiology at the same time that they were zealous to proclaim the Gospel to a lost and dying world.

Biblical missiology is a function of biblical ecclesiology. Our mission, taken in obedience to Christ, stands or falls with our obedience to Christ. This is so intuitive, that stating it seems redundant. To put it another way, surrendering the New Testament pattern of the church ultimately results in the forsaking of the Great Commission. It is no coincidence that Baptists were the first in the Modern Missions Movement, and that they continued in it long after many mainline denominations lost their zeal. Ecclesiology and missiology are inseparably related, for the Great Commission was given to the churches.

Testing the Limits of the Christian Faith. David, it seems to surprise many to learn that I truly believe in pursuing the prayer of Christ made in John 17:21, 23. I do wish to make visible the prayer that Christ made to His Father. However, I am also enough of a Biblicist to recognize that the fulfillment of that desire for visible unity must be according to God’s way and not my own. We will achieve true Christian unity only insofar as we are faithful to God’s Word. He has already revealed to us how we will achieve unity, and that is through faith in His Son and obedience to His commands. The genius of the believers’ churches is that they have taken seriously both faith in Christ and faithfulness to His will.

This does not mean that Baptists are the only true Christians, nor that Baptists are by and large better Christians. We Baptists have our severe problems just as much as other Christian communions do. Those who personally and congregationally claim the faith outlined in the first part of this letter deserve to be classified by us as Christians. And notice that I advocated a fairly broad Triune statement of true Christian faith that encompasses evangelicals and other Christians. Indeed, it would include all of those who have personally received by grace the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

While I am willing to recognize many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as Christians, at least from a classical sense, I am even more comfortable with recognizing Lutherans, Presbyterians, Charismatics, Methodists, and others as Christians. The doctrine of justification that the more sacramental churches hold is simply not palatable. However, it is not doctrine that saves, but faith. Even those who have a faulty doctrine of justification may be justified by faith. That may sound rather broad-minded for somebody who has been falsely accused of being a Landmarkist, but it is what I have believed for a long time, and I doubt I will change that view.

Testing the Limits of the Faithfulness of Christians. In spite of our faults, one aspect of Baptist theology is far and away superior to that of other Christian denominations, our theology of the church. And, this is where you and I seem to have so much difficulty with one another. From our limited conversation, it is apparent that I consider Scripture as containing a holistic and plain ecclesiology, while you consider Scripture’s doctrine of the church as somewhat difficult to discern and subject to variable interpretations. If it makes you comfortable, you hold the typical view of most evangelicals. Unfortunately, it is also recognized by many scholars that evangelicalism lacks any substantive ecclesiology anyways.

Now, while I am more comfortable with the churches that proceeded from the Reformation, I am still unhappy with broader evangelicalism’s willful or ignorant disobedience of Christ’s will as recorded in the New Testament. Again, this unhappiness is not a claim that Baptists are better Christians, nor even that we are better theologians. This unhappiness with the other Reformation churches recognizes that our theology of the church looks more like the New Testament than the others. Notice that I said, "our theology of the church." Unfortunately, the worldview of an over-tolerant modernity has affected Baptists, even conservative Southern Baptists, just like it has other churches in Europe and America.

But the solution to reclaiming our churches’ faithfulness to the New Testament lies not in the direction of ecumenism, evangelical or mainline. This is why I opposed Tom Ascol’s resolution on regenerate church membership at the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio. As I discussed with him beforehand, Tom’s resolution was an adequate resolution on church discipline alone, but it was inadequate for what it purported to address: regenerate church membership. The way back to faithfulness in our churches is not through a resolution that a good Presbyterian or even a good Roman Catholic could support. The way back to faithfulness in our churches is through a widespread local resolve to obey Jesus Christ as commanded in the New Testament, which reveals highly integrated doctrines of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

This is why I also have opposed the theology of open communion, modified or otherwise, in the Southern Baptist Convention. As a young pastor, I had to face the issues of alien immersion and open communion. The sentimental side of my character wanted to make it easy for Presbyterians and Methodists to become members of my church. But my conscience just would not allow it. I knew that the Word of God and the confession of my church demanded that Presbyterians who become Christians must be properly baptized in order to join with our New Testament church.

It was difficult to tell that first couple that they must be properly baptized, for I did not doubt their very real and long-held faith. What was in question was whether they had received New Testament baptism. Fortunately, they became convicted about the will of Christ, and I had the privilege of properly baptizing this fine and dignified couple according to His commandment. Unfortunately, it seems that there are some Baptists today who are as theologically challenged in this regard as are the paedobaptists. Infant baptism is not New Testament baptism, and the popular identification of the sprinkling of a baby as "baptism" is a reckless innovation.

If I have addressed the Presbyterians here, it is not out of any special animus towards them, for I actually find the Reformed to be very close, more often than not, to Baptists when I am involved in ecumenical conversations. The Presbyterian churches deserve rebuke no more than any other non-New Testament churches, except insofar as some of our more naïve Baptist ministers have become unduly attracted to their unbiblical ways in recent years. We could turn this critique upon the Methodists for their Arminianism and their infant baptizing, or upon the charismatic free churches for their unbiblical innovations with regard to the charismata.

At this point, perhaps we can answer your third set of questions, "At what point do we cross the line from evangelistic and disciple-making ministry into ‘church planting’ ministry? … [A]nd what are the reasons for drawing the line of cooperation at that particular point?" David, there is no biblical precedent for separating evangelism from disciple making, nor for separating disciple making from church planting. These activities are distinguishable conceptually, but they are not separable biblically. Evangelism is the beginning of the process of making disciples, but the making of disciples always entails the planting of churches.

When Paul and Barnabas were involved in planting churches during their first missionary journey, they started by evangelizing the people. Such evangelism resulted in the making of disciples, who were simultaneously gathered into churches (Acts 14:21-23). One evangelizes the world in order to transfer lost people out of the world and into the church through personal salvation. The making of a disciple entails baptism and baptism is a church-administered ordinance. There is no drawing of lines between the activities; there is only the continuous activity of making disciples, which starts with evangelism and results in churches. Rather, the drawing of the line is between the church and the world.

Really, the second question is yours to answer, for I do not separate disciple making from church planting. If a missionary’s disciples are not planted in a church through baptism, can they truly be considered followers (i.e. disciples) of Christ? A follower of Christ will follow His commands, and Christ has commanded baptism (Matthew 28:19) and intentional gathering with the local church (Hebrews 10:24-25). This is what the apostles practiced from the beginning of their ministry (Acts 2:37-47). Who are we to improve upon the authoritative commands of Christ and the inspired example of the apostles?

Testing the Limits of Faithfulness in the Southern Baptist Convention. With this explanation in the background, perhaps now I can address your first two sets of questions. You asked, "Do you believe there is a place for people like me in Southern Baptist life?" David, I most certainly do believe that you and people like you have a place in Southern Baptist life. Fidelity to the entire confession of Southern Baptist Convention has never been a prerequisite for church membership in the SBC, and I am loath to see the Baptist Faith and Message take on such a role.

I do hope that more churches will examine the 2000 confession and adopt it as their own, but I think the convention should be wary about requiring ecclesiastical subscription as a basis for denominational cooperation. The Sandy Creek tradition did not believe the Philadelphia Confession should exercise particular authority over particular churches. There is wisdom in distinguishing the particular and direct authority of divine Scripture from the general and derivative authority of a human confession. Moreover, because Baptist confessions typically change as our theology improves, the effort it would take to require uniform subscription might unduly ensconce a confession requiring amendment.

However, the second part of your first question does create some concern. You asked me, "Do you believe that any of the views I take should disqualify someone like me from service as a Southern Baptist missionary or denominational employee? Why or why not?" David, because you have expressed public disagreement with Article VII, you know you have disqualified yourself from service with at least some of our denominational entities. But notice how this response is qualified. Our denominational entities are overseen by boards of trustees, who have been tasked by the convention of our churches to answer such questions. Because I do not sit on any board, I do not have any authority to answer such a question with anything beyond personal opinion. Moreover, even if I were a trustee, remember that a single trustee also lacks authority, for authority is vested in the board, not the individual.

With that qualification, my personal opinion will doubtless disappoint you. David, if I were your supervisor at the International Mission Board, I would be constrained by a conscience informed primarily by Scripture, and secondarily by the beliefs of the churches expressed in their votes at the Southern Baptist Convention. Theological integrity would constrain me to call you in for a visit, specifically about your disagreements with our common Baptist profession. You will remember that your father chaired the committee that stated that Baptists have "adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability" (Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Preface). I believe he and his committee intentionally inserted these words to address the very issue that we are discussing.

Because our confession was adopted as an instrument of "doctrinal accountability," it carries more than mere preferential authority. Your father argued once, in a press conference, that our denominational employees have the religious liberty to teach whatever they wish, but this does not require us to employ them if they do not teach what the churches believe. If a number of private and confidential attempts over a good period of time failed to persuade you, I would be compelled, again by conscience, to take the matter to my superiors in the entity or to the trustees, if directly responsible to them.

As a result of our denominational polity, the resolution of such a matter would rest upon the trustees. Of course, if they would choose to listen to my voice, I would recommend they act with the utmost of grace and mercy shown to you and your family. Every Christian supervisor and every trustee board should act in such a difficult situation with the greatest sense of personal pain, just as Boyce felt with regard to Crawford Toy, and never with any flippancy. The answer to your second full question is thus dependent upon the outcome of a disciplinary process, which parallels Matthew 18, and which depends on the decisions of a group of Christian leaders. However, even if your supervisors and/or your board chose the course of institutional discipline, we must agree that only a local church carries the spiritual authority of a church.

The Theological Spectrum in the Southern Baptist Convention. Please allow me to close with an illustration from the history of our convention. Charles Fuller, venerable pastor emeritus of Virginia, was the chairman of the convention-created Peace Committee that issued its famous report. The committee met for two years of intense meetings prior to the issuance of that 1987 report. Dr. Fuller shared with me a metaphor that may be helpful to us at this time of intense concern regarding interchurch cooperation. He noticed the Peace Committee was composed of a theological spectrum stretching from one end of the convention to the other. The problem in the committee was that some could not cooperate with others in the committee, because the theological differences were too deep. Specifically, it was not possible for Adrian Rogers on the right and Cecil Sherman on the left to bridge their differences.

In the last few years, we have discovered that a theological spectrum still exists in the Southern Baptist Convention. Hopefully, however, the tensions in today’s spectrum will not result in the denominational departure that Cecil Sherman felt compelled to undertake. I believe that I can hold hands with you, David, as a faithful Southern Baptist, even though I believe our confession is correct in one important area that you do not. I can also hold hands with Mark Dever and Reformed Baptists, and with Dwight McKissic and those who advocate private prayer languages, and with Timothy George and those who are more enthusiastic than I am about theological ecumenism.

The difficulty will come, however, if I am asked to hold hands with others with whom these beloved colleagues enjoy extra-denominational cooperation. My church now cooperates with many churches through the Southern Baptist Convention. Although my church speaks only for herself, I believe she would find it difficult to cooperate with the Presbyterians, the Charismatics, or the Ecumenists in any ecclesiastical sense, such as in disciple making or church planting. We want to be a faithful New Testament church, in spite of our failures, and we want to plant faithful New Testament churches that will seek to implement Christ’s will in its entirety.

I want to cooperate with Baptists like Mark Dever and his church, but until Ligon Duncan is properly baptized and properly baptizes, I will refuse ecclesiastical cooperation with this Presbyterian due to a Christ-submitted conscience. I want to cooperate with Baptists like Dwight McKissic and his church, but until Richard Hogue repents of TBN’s unbiblical views of the Spirit, I will refuse ecclesiastical cooperation with this Pentecostal due to the Spirit-inspired text. I want to cooperate with Baptists like Timothy George and his church, but until Avery Dulles repents of his extra-biblical views of the church, I will refuse ecclesiastical cooperation with this Roman Catholic due to New Testament congregationalism. While I recognize the faith of these non-Baptists and appreciate many of their profound contributions, I reject their understanding of faithfulness.

This outlook does not issue forth from any type of Baptist superiority to these non-Baptists, for we are not their Lord. As far as I know, these men affirm the true Christian faith, and I accept their witness. The problem is that they are not living out the Christian faith in churches that are seeking faithfully to emulate the New Testament pattern for the church. We have no way to judge their Christian faith, other than by their words and their works. And the primary way we possess to judge their Christian faithfulness is in the context of their churches. For at this place, the local church, the Christian life is lived.

Since discipleship to Christ is the key to being a Great Commission church, proper ecclesiology is too important to ignore. Unity must be sought only on the basis of the true Christian faith and upon sincere faithfulness to Christ. Therefore, I invite other Christians to join Southern Baptists and the other believers’ churches in our efforts to fulfill the Savior’s mandate faithfully. This is the only type of ecumenism that I currently see as tenable: sitting down together, listening to one another, and constantly witnessing to the faith given by and the faithfulness required by our Lord. Faithfully pointing to and following Christ’s cross is a great expression of love by one disciple to another. Let us return to the text and exalt the cross of Christ while carrying the cross that He commands, and leave behind the innovations of men.

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #18 (Part II)

2007-12-28T08:39:00.000-06:00

Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love and the Limits of Fellowship, Part II, by Malcolm Yarnell

II. The New Testament Churches

The church was founded by Jesus Christ and exists for His purpose, a purpose spelled out in an orderly manner in His Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Let it be clearly affirmed by every true believer that Jesus Christ is the head of the church, which is His body, and all things exist by Him and for Him (Colossians 1:18). Thus, as our forefathers recognized, the only lawgiver for the church is Jesus Christ. He recorded His will for her in the Bible, encapsulated in the Great Commission and worked out in the New Testament. Every Christian church today must look to the New Testament church as the normative model and realize she suffers significant deficiencies when she departs from the New Testament pattern established by Christ and revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Taking up their crosses, the apostles fulfilled the Great Commission of Jesus Christ through planting local churches. Those who wish to claim that the making of disciples is divorced from regenerate church membership typically refer to the conversion and baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Then, without any textual support whatsoever, they assume the Ethiopian was baptized into the universal church apart from a local church. They neglect the scriptural facts, that Philip was commissioned to act by a local church (Acts 6:5-6), and that there was only one local church mentioned as being in existence at that time, the Jerusalem church. The only church that the Ethiopian could have been baptized into was the Jerusalem church, which was being scattered at the time due to a horrible persecution by the state religion. The gathering (church) at Jerusalem was scattered and created a number of new churches as a result.

Rather than reading one’s preferred theology into a singular text, it is better to read the Bible contextually and canonically. In Acts 2:40ff, the leading proof for the correlation of baptism with church membership, we read that the baptism of the converted masses coincided with their membership in the first local church. However, this is not the only canonical support for baptism and regenerate church membership. In Acts 9:18-19, we read that the baptism of Saul resulted in his fellowship with the disciples in Damascus. In Acts 10:44-11:4, Peter defended his baptism of and subsequent fellowship with the Caesarean Gentiles who converted to Christ. In Acts 16:15 and 16:33-34, Lydia and the Philippian jailer understood that baptism compelled continuing fellowship with other believers. In Acts 18:8-11, Paul and his companions planted the first church of Corinth with numerous baptisms, and continued meeting regularly for worship and teaching.

With the Christological basis and baptismal entrance of the New Testament churches summarized, it may be helpful to discuss more regarding what a New Testament church looks like. In what follows, please note that we are not considering some of the crisis issues facing local churches, today. I have not participated in the so-called worship wars, primarily because most of the issues under debate, in spite of their emotive qualities, do not concern the fundamental nature of the churches. How then do we recognize a New Testament church?

Following a biblical paradigm, Roman Catholic, Reformation, and Baptist theologians have often discussed the work of Christ under the rubric of triplex munus Christi, the threefold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. As our Supreme Prophet, Jesus Christ established the message that His churches must proclaim, and it is the Word of God. As our High Priest, Jesus Christ established the worship that His churches must practice, and it must center upon His ordinances. As our King of Kings, Jesus Christ established the discipline that His churches must maintain, and it is covenantal, congregational, and accountable.

The Church’s Message Is the Word He Inspired. Scripture has a threefold definition of "the Word of God." The Word of God is incarnated, inscripurated, and intoned. The Word of God incarnated is Jesus Christ, and His life and work are the essence of the church’s message. The Word of God inscripturated is the Bible, and its words are the only reliable epistemological basis for the church’s message. The Word of God intoned is the Gospel that we preach, and this Gospel must be proclaimed directly from the Bible with Christ as the interpretive key; otherwise, the church’s message will be distorted.

When Christians fail to preach Christ, they have forsaken the message that Christ entrusted to the church. When Christians fail to preach Christ from the Bible alone, they have forsaken the source of the message that Christ entrusted to the church. When Christians fail to preach Christ as the unique and perfect Savior who has come to save all who will repent and believe, they have forsaken the Gospel that alone saves. These convictions explain why the believers’ churches have typically been hermeneutically Christocentric, relentlessly Biblicist, and tirelessly evangelistic.

Fidelity to the Word of God Christ appointed for the church as its only message explains why Baptists generally reject theology that detracts from Christ, rebuke preachers who depart from the biblical text, and defend religious freedom as helpful for evangelism. Two verses from Paul’s first letter to the gathering at Corinth summarize the free church outlook with regard to their message: we will proclaim nothing beyond Christ and His cross (1 Corinthians 2:2) and approve nothing beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).

The Church’s Worship Practices Are the Ordinances He Established. Christ’s will for His church is explicitly laid out in Scripture. Christian exegetes over the centuries have, through much controversy with the unapproved (1 Corinthians 11:19), settled upon two worship practices as specifically ordained by Christ for His churches. They have also settled upon the Great Commission as the primary mission of the churches while they are in this world.

In the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), Jesus Christ mandated that the church should make disciples. Going, baptizing, and teaching are all activities that help the church make disciples. None of these activities are dispensable, for the making of disciples is the ordained function of the churches. The making of disciples is more than a vocal presentation of the Gospel, although it begins there. Moreover, baptizing churches have recognized that there is a revealed time order that may not be violated: first, we must go to the world to proclaim the Gospel; second, we must make disciples of those to whom we have preached the Gospel; third, the church must baptize the new disciple; finally, the disciple must be taught all things that Christ commanded.

Baptism, reserved only for professed believers, is fundamental for the church committed to obeying the Great Commission. The Triune baptism of believers into a local church is neither secondary nor tertiary but primary for New Testament churches. In addition to the direct mandate of the Great Commission with regard to the baptism of believers alone, there is also the witness of the apostles’ practice. The New Testament knows nothing of the baptism of infants. The so-called household baptism passages, to which paedobaptists often appeal inappropriately, are explicit that the household as an entirety was baptized because the household as an entirety had believed (Acts 16:34).

New Testament churches composed of Great Commission Christians will not baptize unregenerate people. If the International Mission Board’s definition of a Great Commission Christian, to which you referred, is misinterpreted as allowing for collaboration with infant-baptizers, then that institution would be wise to make it clear that they mean nothing such. Otherwise, there remains equivocation regarding the New Testament witness and the historic Baptist witness as to what defines properly ordered churches. We must not allow the will of Christ to be subverted by the innovative traditions of so-called Great Commission Christians who reject or change the Lord’s commands.

That last statement may strike you as intemperate, but it is not intended as such. Rather, take it as an unremitting call to church integrity. Historically, the believers’ churches have been adamant that Christ must be obeyed. Obedience to His ordinances may not be downplayed simply because they have been subjected to diverse interpretations by other Christians (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21). The commands of our Lord—He Who created us, Who died to atone for our sins, and Who established His church—may not be treated as if they were merely debating points or less-than-primary.

Neither is this call to true discipleship a threat to an orthodox doctrine of justification, for those who are truly justified will desire to follow Christ. Let us not appeal distractively to a pristine but incomplete doctrine of salvation. Only those who wish to continue in disobedience to the Lord Who redeemed them by His blood will treat His will as somehow optional, interpret it away into irrelevance, or view His will as a threat to His grace.

Contained in the Great Commission is the command to teach all that Christ commanded. In the Matthean version, this hearkens back to the practices established by Christ for His church in chapters 18 and 26. In Matthew 18, the Lord established discipline as necessary for the integrity of the church. Church discipline is not optional, nor is it subject to diverse interpretations, nor is it trivial. Church discipline must be established. We will speak of this more below.

In Matthew 26:26-30, Jesus Christ led His disciples in the last supper prior to His crucifixion. When coupled with the parallels in Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-23, and 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 11:17-34, we learn that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the superior covenant inaugurated with the broken body and spilt blood of Jesus. We also learn that this practice is to continue until we celebrate it with him at the great gathering of the universal church (Revelation 19:6-9). And we learn that the community is symbolized in the loaf of bread from which communion is dispensed, and that it is the place at which church discipline is reached.

Too often in the believers’ churches of this day and age, we have not paid enough attention to the ordinances of Christ. We rightly decry the existence of theologies that turn the ordinances into sacraments, make the ordinances somehow ex opere operato dispensers of graces, or transform these spiritual symbols into fleshly exercises that force consciences through infant baptism or teach communicants they chew the flesh of God. However, the errors that have attached to baptism and the Lord’s Supper must never serve as an excuse to remove them from the center of Christian worship. Neglecting the ordinances is just as reprehensible as misrepresenting or incorrectly implementing them.

Whatever one’s position in the worship wars, if the New Testament practices of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not central in a church’s worship, it is visibly dishonoring the Lordship of the Savior. Jesus thought the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which teach the Trinity and symbolize Christ’s death and resurrection on behalf of His church, were important enough to command their perpetual observance. Just as the New Testament churches must be careful to proclaim His Word, His ordinances must be practiced according to His commands and not according to our druthers nor fallen man’s endlessly variable ideas of what is deemed culturally relevant.

The Church’s Discipline Is Covenantal, Congregational, and Accountable. As we noted, first, because Jesus Christ is prophet, He establishes the message that His church is to preach. Second, we also noted that because Jesus Christ is priest, He establishes the worship that His church is to practice. Finally, we must now consider the truth that because Jesus Christ is king, He alone establishes the polity by which His church functions. The polity of the church is established quite clearly in Matthew 18:15-20, and it is covenantal, congregational, and accountable.

First, in Matthew 18:19-20, we read that the gathering in agreement of two or more constitutes an authority before the throne of God in heaven. When these verses are read today, they are usually taken casually, as if Jesus were referring to an impromptu prayer meeting. And yet, the disciplinary context of the previous verses and the specific wording point to something more substantial and formative. The agreement (Greek, symphoneo) to which Jesus refers is indicative of a formal contract or covenant. As the early English Baptists recognized, this passage is the theological basis for the gathering of a church. Indeed, it freed the early free churches from dependence upon the state for their authority and returned them to Jesus Christ as their foundation. It is a serious matter to realize that a human agreement has divine approbation. A church begins on the basis of a covenant between earnest Christians desiring to follow their Lord in His commands.

Second, in Matthew 18:17-18, we learn that the gathered congregation, for that is what an ekklesia is, has the final authority under heaven to determine the status of its membership. Again, the decision of the church constitutes a spiritual authority that no other institution may claim. The decisions of the congregation regarding communion and excommunication of members have some measure of eternal consequence. It matters to God what His church decides and He gives His stamp of approval to her spiritual actions. No other group of men, unbelieving or believing or some admixture, receives such authority. The state has no such spiritual authority; extra-congregational gatherings of Christians have no such spiritual authority; and cliques within a congregation have no such spiritual authority. By divine mandate, the congregation is congregationally governed. Elders, priests, and bishops who undermine congregationalism are countermanding a divine ordinance, and they lack any such authority to do so.

Third, in Matthew 18:15-16, we learn that that which ends in the final authority under heaven being granted to the covenantal gathered congregation is a disciplinary process. The local church, established by Christ and to which every Christian will seek to belong, is the locus where the Christian seeks to live faithfully the Christian faith. The congregation of disciples practices church discipline because it knows that regenerate membership is commanded by Christ. According to Scripture, regenerate church membership begins with believers-only baptism by immersion (Mark 16:15-16); regularly demonstrates itself in the entire regenerate membership’s participation in the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:17-18, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13); and is strengthened by congregational judgment regarding the integrity of its membership (Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Corinthians 11:31-32).

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #18 (Part I)

2007-12-27T07:10:00.000-06:00

Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love and the Limits of Fellowship, Part I, by Malcolm Yarnell

Dearest David,

Please accept my apologies for not answering you sooner than this. As you know from our private correspondence, the concussion from the automobile accident set me back. The effects of the concussion have now significantly improved, though they still linger, and the semester here at Southwestern is now at an end. More than the pressures of body and work, however, I have been reticent to answer your question, for our discussion has revealed an apparently deep division in how we view the Christian faith and faithfulness to Christ. I pray the division is more apparent than real.

Today, I re-read your last letter. Rather than rehearsing your many questions in that letter and seeking to clarify the numerous misunderstandings that exist between us, I thought it best to address your three pointed closing questions:

"Do you believe there is a place for people like me in Southern Baptist life? Do you believe that any of the views I take should disqualify someone like me from service as a Southern Baptist missionary or denominational employee? Why or why not?"
"If I do not change my views concerning the matters we have been discussing here, do you believe it would be better for me to serve with some group other than the IMB? Why or why not?"
"At what point do we cross the line from evangelistic and disciple-making ministry into ‘church planting’ ministry? … [A]nd what are the reasons for drawing the line of cooperation at that particular point?"

In order to answer these questions, please allow me to discourse a bit on the Christian faith and faithfulness to Christ. Out of such a discussion, perhaps we can perceive the limits of proper Christian fellowship. The following can be divided into three sections: the true Christian faith, the New Testament churches as the locus for faithfully living out the faith, and the limits of Christian fellowship. This letter is longer than what we originally agreed upon, but I have noticed that your letters have become progressively longer, as the pressure of expressing yourself clearly and passionately rose. Please forgive the length of my letter, as I have now discerned the same pressure.

I. The True Christian Faith

When the New Testament speaks of faith, two aspects are assumed: the personal and the propositional. The personal activity of faith assumes a cognitive reality, and the cognitive reality demands a personal response. Orthodox Christians do not consider faith as lacking substance, but as full of content; alternatively, pious Christians do not consider faith as inactive, but as a vital trust in the message of the faith. The difficulty we face in discussing the faith is that we tend either toward a living faith that can easily become detached from orthodox content or toward an orthodox faith that is satisfied with mere cognitive speculation. Both tendencies result in error: the former ends in a mindless liberalism, the latter in a heartless scholasticism. As we discuss the content of the faith, let us never forget that true faith is a dynamic faith lived personally and communally.

God the Father. The classical creeds begin with a personal and communal confession. "We believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." The Father is the beginning of the eternal Trinity. One cannot claim to be Christian unless one is willing to affirm the Scripture’s witness to God as being eternally one and yet three. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Spirit, the Son is eternally generated from the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son. This profound mystery of the Trinity is what separates Christians from the false religions of paganism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, the Arian sects, and so on.

While a Christian church must affirm the Trinity in order to be considered Christian, our faith is not only about who God is, but what He does. He is the Creator of all that is, and as Creator, He is distinct from His creation. Humanity is humbled by its knowledge that it is not the highest reality, yet exalted in that it is made in the very image of the Creator.

God the Son. The classical creeds, reflecting their origin in the baptismal formula of the Great Commission, are typically threefold in form. "We believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord." The Son of God is fully God, though distinct from God the Father. The Son is God and from God, eternally begotten from the Father. Some two thousand years ago, at the fullness of time, the second person of the eternal Trinity also became a human being. As the formula of Chalcedon affirms, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, without the separation, conflation or diminution of His deity and His humanity.

Following the apostolic kerygma, the classical creeds typically devote an extended section to the work of the Son: His incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and impending return receive especial treatment. Most Christian preaching focuses here on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, for our salvation is utterly dependent upon His cross and His empty tomb. On the cross, Christ died for the sins of the whole world; from the grave, He arose to offer redemption to all that will repent and believe in Him. Until this truth becomes one’s own, one should not consider oneself a Christian.

God the Holy Spirit. The final section of the classical creeds concerns the third person of the Holy Trinity. The Nicene Creed, as modified at Constantinople, declares truthfully that the Holy Spirit is "Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and glorified." Unless a church affirms that the Holy Spirit is fully divine and is to be worshipped alongside the Father and the Son, it may not be considered a Christian church.

Indeed, one cannot become a Christian apart from the sovereign work of regeneration (being born again) by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and apostles to speak the Word of God, and to record the Word of God in the Bible. Today, He continues to convince people that the Bible is God’s Word, and that they must believe in the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, or face eternal judgment. The Spirit continues to lead the church into all truth by pointing her to the inspired text. He also empowers the churches to fulfill the Great Commission given by the Son of God.

While the Christian faith primarily concerns God, Who He is, and What He does, especially in relation to humanity, it assumes a number of doctrines commonly affirmed by orthodox Christians. Among them are divine providence, human constituency, the pervasiveness of sin, the righteous but unmeetable demands of the law, the eternal consequences of disobedience and disbelief, and the gracious nature of the Gospel. And yet, it will be remembered that faith is not only a list of true doctrines, it is a living reality. Just as the Christian faith is to be personally and communally affirmed, the Christian life is to be lived faithfully in fellowship with the local church.

(Reader, due to its length, this letter by Dr. Yarnell has been broken into three parts. The next two parts will be posted in coming days.)

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Merry Christmas

2007-12-24T21:22:00.000-06:00

Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross. Then God gave Christ the highest place and honored his name above all others. So at the name of Jesus everyone will bow down, those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. And to the glory of God the Father everyone will openly agree, "Jesus Christ is Lord!"

Philippians 2:6-11 (Contemporary English Version)

Poppy Joy

2007-12-08T08:08:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, my niece and her husband, Angie & Nathan Luce, buried Poppy Joy, their second daughter. Actually, she only lived 3 1/2 hours on this earth. Back about 4 months ago, they learned that the precious life Angie was carrying in her womb was a trisomy 18 baby. According to the Trisomy 18 Foundation:

Trisomy 18 is also called Edwards syndrome (or Edward's syndrome) and occurs in about 1:3000 live births. Unlike Down syndrome, Trisomy 18 is usually fatal, with most of the babies dying before birth and those who do make it to birth typically living only a few days. However, a small number of babies (<10%) live up to one year.

With such a prognosis, many parents choose to not carry their pregnancy to term. Angie and Nathan, though, believing all human life is sacred, and that God had a special purpose in allowing this to happen, decided to go ahead with the process. Knowing full well that dark days lay ahead for them, they opted to cling to our Heavenly Father's loving hand, and walk through this journey together with Him.

On August 14, 2007, they opened up their blog, Poppy Joy. Along the way, they have shared openly and poignantly about the struggles, doubts, and comfort from the Lord they have found in the midst of this trial. This testimony of God's faithfulness toward Angie & Nathan forged through the crucible of real-life suffering is permeated with authenticity.

If you are interested in reading something that will build your faith in God, and help you to reflect on his tender mercies towards us in the midst of suffering, I invite you to read through the 46 posts so far of Poppy Joy, starting with the opening post on August 14, 2007. I can promise you, it will be well worth the time invested. You will not be disappointed.

Rocks on the Path to Unity

2007-11-28T11:54:00.000-06:00

My last post on "Unity with Other Religions Too?" has got me thinking more about the whole matter of our essential unity with other Christians, and how hard it is, at times, to make it work. A very interesting conversation, in which I was involved, ensued on this topic in the comment string over at Paul Grabill’s blog. Also, I had a conversation yesterday with some family members, including my Mom, in which I mentioned this post, and the various issues involved.

In the midst of this conversation, my Mom shared about how my Dad, early on in his ministry, when he was pastor of a church at Fort Pierce, Florida, decided to drop out of the local Ministerial Alliance, because they voted to include the Mormons. In the latter part of his ministry, here in the Memphis area, I know he was a regular participant in pastors’ meetings in relation to the local Baptist Association. I know he also met together on a regular basis, and actively pursued fellowship, with several other area pastors from other denominations, including Methodists, Presbyterians, and Assemblies of God.

I am proud of my father, and the example he set for me in this area. I believe that biblically, there is a legitimate tension between the injunctions, on the one hand, to not be "yoked together with unbelievers" and "come out from them and be separate" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18), and, on the other hand, to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3).

As I have observed other pastors and Christian leaders in various contexts down through the years, it seems to me that one of the major causes that keep them from more actively pursuing practical unity with believers and churches from other backgrounds is the fear of being "yoked together with unbelievers." I personally find it hard to find fault with someone, whenever their decisions are truly based on a desire to be as faithful as they possibly can to the teaching of the Word of God. However, I am convinced there is still a "more excellent way" (1 Corinthians 12:31).

Back in Extremadura, Spain, where I learned and experienced many of the things that have molded my current thinking regarding Christian unity, at one time, the Seventh-Day Adventists applied for membership in the regional Evangelical Council. The vote among all the participating churches, which included Baptists, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Charismatics, Presbyterians, and Independents, was unanimous to not admit them.

Personally, I have known several brothers and sisters in Christ, who are now solid, committed evangelicals, who shared with me that they first came to a saving knowledge of Christ while they were still with the Seventh-Day Adventists. So, I am not saying that you cannot be Seventh-Day Adventist and saved at the same time. I would say that pretty much the same thing holds for Roman Catholics. However, the official doctrine of both of these groups, as I understand it, if rightly understood and embraced, would preclude salvation, because it is, at its root, a doctrine of "grace plus works."

Because of this, my personal position has always been to pursue fellowship and unity on a personal level with all those who give evidence in their personal life and testimony of being truly born again; and on an organizational level with all those whose official doctrinal position, if truly understood and embraced, would lead to being born again.

What if the Extremaduran Evangelical Council had voted to include the Seventh-Day Adventists? What if they had voted to include the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the Muslims? I freely admit, that, in such a case, things would have gotten a lot more complicated for me. But, I still would have felt a compulsion to do my best to work towards practical unity with those I understood to be true believers, even if I disagreed with them about admitting others who were not.

Within the family of faith, there are plenty of things we can discuss and disagree about amongst ourselves. But, they are, at the root, "in-house arguments." They do not affect our basic unity one with another.

There are also certain individual believers, as well as certain groups of believers, with whom God joins our hearts in a special way, and with whom we have particularly close fellowship. There are also some who, for more pragmatic reasons, turn out to be more conducive partners than others in certain ministry projects.

But the fact that there are difficulties and complications involved in putting into practice our unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ should never lead us to put the topic of unity on the back-burner, or to treat a fellow believer as if he/she were not a true, full-fledged member of the family.

Unity with Other Religions Too?

2007-11-26T09:12:00.000-06:00

Paul Grabill has posted a link on his blog to a story in the Austin American-Statesman about Hyde Park Baptist Church in Austin choosing to not allow Austin Area Interreligious Ministries to use its property for an inter-faith Thanksgiving service, which encouraged the joint worship of Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Bahais, and was to include Muslim Maghrib prayer.

I hope it is clear, when I write about the practice of Christian unity, that I am NOT talking about events like this. I think that Hyde Park Church made the right decision. In the world in which we live, this type of decision can be very unpopular, and expose us to accusations of intolerance. See, for example, the editorials in the Austin American-Statesman here, here, here and here.

Among those accustomed to narrow denominationalism, efforts toward promoting biblical unity can also be unpopular. Sometimes, seeking to be faithful to our Lord's commands leads one to walk a pretty tight rope.

Thoughts from Philippians on the City Church

2007-11-21T11:02:00.000-06:00

I was just reading through Philippians in the New Living Translation, and, with the post from yesterday on the City Church on my mind, the following verses stood out to me:

v. 1. This letter is from Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus. I am writing to all of God’s holy people in Philippi who belong to Christ Jesus, including the elders and deacons.

vv. 4-5. Whenever I pray, I make my requests for all of you with joy, for you have been my partners in spreading the Good News about Christ from the time you first heard it until now.

v. 27 Above all, you must live as citizens of heaven, conducting yourselves in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ. Then, whether I come and see you again or only hear about you, I will know that you are standing together with one spirit and one purpose, fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News.

Would it not be something truly wonderful to be able to say that "all of God's holy people" in Memphis, or Dallas, or Tulsa, or Hot Springs, or Madrid, or wherever, were "standing together with one spirit and one purpose, fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News"?

The City Church Revisited

2007-11-20T14:48:00.000-06:00

One of the posts that has attracted the most comments on Love Each Stone was a guest post, entitled The City Church, by Paul Grabill. There are many misconceptions about the City Church, including the idea that it eliminates the need for individual congregations, and denominations. Grabill, who blogs at Beside the Point, is pastor of the State College Assembly of God in State College, Pennsylvania. As such, he obviously believes in the value of the local congregation, as well as in denominational cooperation.

Christian Unity: Local Movements & Congregational Implications is a paper Grabill wrote fleshing out the concept of the City Church, and proposing some practical steps for putting it into practice. As a conservative Baptist, I, evidently, have a few doctrinal differences with Grabill. Frankly, there are a few things he says in this article that make me a bit nervous, especially when he uses terms like ecumenism and liberalism, and talks about building bridges to Catholics.

Don’t worry. I’m not on the verge of selling out on such matters as the inerrancy of Scripture, justification by grace through faith alone, or believers baptism. It’s just that, in addition to these, I also have a conviction that we, as Southern Baptists, are not doing all we could and should to work towards the unity of Christ’s Body for which he prayed in John 17. And it doesn’t necessarily mean compromising our convictions on other key doctrines.

In the interest of seeking to be as obedient as we can to Christ’s commands, and making "every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3), I urge you to carefully read what Grabill has to say, and prayerfully consider whether it is line with what Christ would want of us as his children.

Another article along the same lines I highly recommend is Shopping for the Right Church, by Nathan Pitchford. It is well worth the read. Please take the time to read the whole thing and take to heart what it says as well.

For some more practical examples where some interesting progress is being made along these lines, see also:

Mission Houston
The Katy Church
Why a "City Church?"
Church Planting Manifesto

Additional Thoughts

2007-11-16T09:20:00.000-06:00

For those of you who, for whatever strange reason, may not have already had more than your fill of my thoughts and reflections on assorted topics, here are a few links...

1. Back in the Spring, Ryan Rice, over at churchpod.org did a pod-cast interview with me, on the topic of church planting in Spain, which he now has on-line here. We did it in a crowded restaurant, so there is a bit of background noise. But, if you turn the volume up, you can follow it pretty well.

2. I still am posting, once every 8 or 9 days or so, at sbc IMPACT! My posts over there, which, for the most part, are different from what I post here, include:

The Role of the American Church in World Missions
The World is a Waffle
The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination" (with a separate comment string from the one here at Love Each Stone)
World Evangelism is a "Team Sport"
Why Did God Destroy Sodom?
The "Harvest Cycle" and Short-Term Missions

While you're at it, don't forget to check out the daily articles by the entire excellent team of writers at sbc IMPACT!

Landmarkism and the Arkansas Baptist Convention

2007-11-13T22:13:00.000-06:00

During the past couple of years, there has been a good bit of debate regarding the influence of Landmarkism within the SBC. Although I am a pretty far cry from being a political pundit, I believe the recent vote at the Arkansas Baptist State Convention may well have been a pretty good referendum on this question (read about it here). I was not there, but here are a few of my observations based on what I have read on the internet:

1. The proposed amendment was to strike from the ABSC constitution the statement: “The Baptist Faith and Message shall not be interpreted as to permit open communion and/or alien immersion.”

While, as I understand it, state conventions are officially autonomous, and are free to make the doctrinal statements they wish, it is interesting to me that, in addition to approving the Baptist Faith and Message, the ABSC has officially gone on record as interpreting it. The problem is that the terms “open communion” and “alien immersion” are open to interpretation themselves. I had always assumed that the phrase “Being a church ordinance, [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper” precluded the option of “open communion.” Inasmuch as, strictly speaking, my personal view is not that of “open communion,” but what some (such as Nathan Finn) have called “modified open communion,” I may not have needed to sign the Baptist Faith and Message with a caveat after all. At least not, according to the way many Arkansas Baptists apparently interpret it.

I don’t have a clue where they get that the BF & M says anything one way or another about “alien immersion,” though.

2. The vote total in favor of the amendment was 383 votes (63%) to 225 votes (37%) against. However, that was not enough, since the constitution requires a 2/3 majority (67%) in two consecutive conventions in order to pass.

It is difficult to know for sure how many of the people who voted in favor of the amendment actually believe in and/or practice “open communion” and the admission of “alien immersion.” However, it seems significant to me that a pretty clear majority appear to at least be open to this possibility. This is in Arkansas, a state that is generally considered to be a stronghold of Landmarkism within the SBC. It is also significant to me, at the same time, that 37% appear to favor an interpretation more in line with Landmarkist views. This is evidence that what Timothy George once called “the ghost of Landmarkism” is still with us, and is something to be taken into account.

From what I read into these statistics, there is a very real possibility, or even probability, that the majority of rank and file Southern Baptists do not expect SBC denominational employees and missionaries to hold to “closed communion” or reject “alien immersion.” At the same time, it is evident there is a real division within the SBC (if the ABSC is representative of the rest) over these issues. That would not be so much of a problem if Landmarkism did not carry along with it the tendency to exclude those who do not give assent to its tenets.

I doubt the authors of the ABSC constitution contemplated this particular situation when they came up with the 2/3-majority, 2-convention clause. However, I think it is ironic, and somewhat ominous, for the SBC at large, that a Landmarkist-leaning minority was able to hold sway in this particular situation.

3. By in large, the people who voted in favor of this amendment were, no doubt, solid conservative Southern Baptists who are supportive of the Conservative Resurgence in general.

Greg Addison, chairman of the committee that presented the amendment, is a personal friend, who grew up with me in the youth department of Bellevue Baptist Church, under the pastoral leadership of my father, Adrian Rogers. He was a staff member of Bellevue for several years, a frequent preacher in the Bellevue pulpit, and someone of whom I know, beyond a shadow of any doubt, my father thought very highly.

It is significant to me, as well, that Ronnie Floyd, Senior Pastor of FBC Springdale & the Church at Pinnacle Hills, as well as candidate for the presidency of the SBC in 2006, publicly supported the amendment. According to his blog, his church practices “open communion,” and handles cases of “alien immersion” on an individual basis.

Pretty good evidence to me that this is not, as some would have us believe, a matter of compromising with the authority of the Word of God. As Floyd says, “Yes, our commitment is to doctrinal purity. We hold the line tight, even to the point of losing possible members to our church. However, we are to be a biblically grounded, Christ-centered people of God. We cannot negotiate away the precious doctrine of salvation as well as other doctrines.”

At the same time, I think it is significant that Floyd defends the right of his church to dissent with decisions they feel are not biblically correct: “Please understand that while we do associate with the Arkansas Baptist Convention, we are an autonomous body of Christ. No convention office dictates to our church how to practice our faith. As a local body of Christ, we have the liberty to interpret Scripture as we believe is right and prayerfully historically accurate.”

Praying for the Sick

2007-11-10T16:27:00.000-06:00

One of the most significant memories that will stick with me from my visit to India is the several occasions on which I was asked to pray, one by one, for sick people after several of the meetings in which we participated. Although, as I have previously indicated on various occasions on this blog, I am a continuationist, and believe in the current operation of the so-called "sign gifts," I have not, in the past, been quite so intensely involved in praying for sick people as I was on this trip to India.

This was not something that I sought out on my own. I was asked, on several occasions, if I would be willing to pray for the sick. Believing that, in some way or another, God might be able to use me, I agreed to do so. After the meetings, the people lined up, and one by one, I asked them what was their particular prayer request, laid my hands on them, and lifted them before the Father. Some of them brought with them a small vial of oil, and handed it to me. In those cases, I poured a little bit on my hands, and rubbed it on their head, as I prayed for them.

While I was in India, I was told that pretty much across the board, throughout all the Christian groups and denominations that are seeing any significant response to the Gospel, a good part of this response is linked to praying for the sick and miraculous healing. From what I have read, in books such as The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins, this is true as well for most areas of the world that are experiencing significant church growth, especially among the so-called "two-thirds world."

I cannot say for sure whether anyone I prayed for was healed as a result of my prayers. I did not ask them directly. However, this experience in my life gave me cause to reflect on the whole issue of praying for the sick. The following are some of my observations:

*God still miraculously heals people today. From my study of Scripture, I see no reason to conclude this is not the case. I have also heard too many credible testimonies of miraculous healing to discard them as mere emotionalism or exaggeration.

*The term "the gift of healing" is a red herring in the whole discussion on continuationism. The biblical text, in the original Greek, says literally, "gifts of healings" (1 Corinthians 12:9, 28). As such, the argument that, if someone had "the gift of healing," they ought to be able to go into hospitals and heal people indiscriminately, is unfounded. I believe that God, in his sovereignty, has distributed the gift of being able to pray for people, and see God heal them as a response, in differing degrees, to different people, in different circumstances, at different times.

*I also believe that physical healing is included in the atonement. A thorough examination of the biblical context of the phrase "by his wounds we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24) makes it hard to relegate it to the strictly spiritual sphere. However, the full effects of Jesus’ death on the cross, especially in the physical realm, are not extended to us completely until "the redemption of our bodies" at the last day (Romans 8:18-25; Revelation 21:4). This does not preclude the possibility of God, on occasion, sovereignly bringing forward, into the present day, some of the blessings reserved for us, as his children, in eternity. In the biblical records of miraculous healing (both O.T and N.T.), I believe this is precisely what happened. Whenever God miraculously heals, whether physically, psychologically, or spiritually, He does so on the basis of the blessings won for us by Jesus on the cross of Calvary (see also Exodus 15:22-26).

*I believe that many who purport to have "the gift of healing" are spiritual charlatans. Whenever people use supposed spiritual gifts, accompanied by manipulative techniques and a motivation of personal aggrandizement, there is no way that God can be pleased. Therefore, as believers, we need to use a healthy dose of spiritual discernment in our evaluation and support of such ministries. However, I believe we need to be careful, at the same time, to not "throw the baby out with the bath water."

*I also believe that the degree of our faith does play a role in the efficacy of our prayers for healing. There are too many verses in the Bible that say this too clearly to deny that it is so. However, I believe that, at the same time, it is a travesty to lay the blame for people not being healed on the supposed lack of faith of those being prayed for. Biblically, there is evidence of God responding to the faith of the sick person him/herself, the faith of the one praying for the sick person, and the faith of the one bringing a sick person to someone else so that they might pray for them.
I also believe that it is blatant Scripture-twisting, not to mention extreme irresponsibility, to suggest that going to the doctor and taking medicine manifests a lack of faith.

*One of the main motivations for healing in the Bible is compassion towards those who are suffering. As a result, whenever we pray for someone who is sick, we need to be very careful to do so in such a way as to not add to their suffering by either laying the burden of the responsibility for their healing on their faith or lack thereof, or raising their expectations for miraculous healing, only to send them crashing down to the ground afterwards.

*Although it is certain that not all sickness comes as the result of individual sin (John 9:1-3), it is also true that many ailments, whether spiritual, psychological, or physical, have their root in unconfessed sin in our lives. I believe the context of the passage in James on calling for the elders to pray for the sick (James 5:13-16) implies taking this possibility into consideration ("if he has sinned, he will be forgiven"). As ministers of God’s grace, though, we need to be very careful, compassionate, and spiritually discerning, in the way we deal with this.

*I do not believe all sickness comes as a result of demonic activity. However, there does appear to be a clear link, in many instances recorded in the Bible, to certain physical conditions and spiritual bondage. I believe that some people are more spiritually gifted than others at discerning when this is the case. I also believe that our authority, as believers, over the power of the enemy and the spiritual bondage he inflicts, is more direct and complete in this present age, than any authority God may happen to give us over purely physical phenomena. As a result, I believe it is generally a good thing, whenever we sense that demonic activity or spiritual bondage may be at the root of physical sickness, to appropriate in faith the authority God gives us as his children over "all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19).

*For some reason, God’s miraculous power in healing seems to be more active in certain areas of the world, and in certain periods of history, than others. We therefore need to be careful not to judge what God may be doing in a certain place, at a certain time, on the basis of what we may have observed at another place and another time.

*At the present time, from all evidence, God appears to be working in unusual ways in many places around the world to raise spiritual awareness and prepare a great harvest of souls. Much of this seems to be tied in with miraculous healing. I believe that we, as God’s servants, and particularly as those associated with Southern Baptist missionary efforts, need to be "in tune" to what God is doing, and join him where He is at work around the world. While we do need to use discernment and not be too quick to jump on the bandwagon of the latest spiritual fads, we, at the same time, need to be just as careful to not cast a scornful eye, and miss out on some of the mighty works of God, as a result of our spiritual skepticism and cultural presuppositions.

IMB in South Asia

2007-11-03T08:53:00.000-05:00

During my recent trip to India, I had the privilege of spending some quality time with several members of the IMB South Asia Region’s leadership team. In the same spirit as my last post, I would like to dedicate this one to the tremendous things God is doing through our Southern Baptist IMB workers in a different region of the world than the one in which I normally work, Western Europe.

I must say I was totally blown away by the vast spiritual needs and ministry opportunities in this significant region of the world that comprises the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives. In my time with the South Asia regional leaders, I learned that, among the various ministries in which they could invest their efforts, our IMB workers have chosen to focus their energies on reaching the most unreached of the unreached. They are strategically working to train national believers in discipleship and church planting methods that have proven to yield the greatest fruit in terms of spiritual multiplication. Inasmuch as IMB work in much of the region is comparatively new, I was especially pleased to learn of plans to give priority consideration toward building stronger relationships with the various Baptist unions and other Great Commission Christian groups scattered across the region, helping to mobilize them towards greater effectiveness in reaching the unreached in their midst.

The South Asia region has a very informative and extensive web-site, which I strongly recommend you to check out for yourself. A good place to begin would be the Fast Facts page, and the Frequently Asked Questions page. But for those of you who don’t go there for yourselves, here are a few of the more noteworthy statistics:

More people live in India than in all of North America, Central America and South America – combined!
The seven countries of South Asia are home to about one out of five people in the world. Most have never heard the Gospel even once!
South Asia has 51% of the world’s Unreached People Groups (UPGs), nearly 3/4ths of the world’s Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs) and one out of every four lost persons on the planet!
South Asia is home to more unreached people groups and more unengaged unreached people groups than all the rest of the world combined!
As an IMB region, South Asia still has one of the lowest numbers of personnel compared to other regions!

I am extremely grateful that God allowed me to have a first-hand glimpse at what He is doing in this part of the world. I also have a deep admiration for those who have made the decision to actually move to South Asia, and pour their lives into helping to reach the unreached and minister to the needy in this very challenging place to live and work. And, while not neglecting other areas, including Western Europe, I have been inspired to be more faithful in praying for the needs of South Asia, as well as becoming an advocate, whenever I have the opportunity, for the work of the IMB in this high-priority arena of God’s redemptive work around the world today.

RIMI - Mission India

2007-10-25T20:58:00.000-05:00

Back in 1984-86, when I served as a missionary volunteer on board Operation Mobilization’s ministry ship, MV Doulos, there were several things that deeply impacted my life. One of them was the weekly Thursday nights of prayer, in which we would pray for the needs of countries and ministries around the world. In addition to the blessing of praying so intensely and regularly, I was very impressed by the fact that, on so many occasions, the prayer requests were not just centered on the ministry of Operation Mobilization, but rather, as well, on those of many other sister organizations and ministry efforts.

During my time on the ship, one story was relayed to us that brought home in a very poignant way this significant principle of unselfish cooperation and solidarity in the Body of Christ. Back in the late 60’s, the leaders of both Operation Mobilization (OM) and Youth With A Mission (YWAM) were praying and seeking God’s provision for their first ship to launch in ministry around the world. YWAM had received significant donations, had their eyes on a particular ship, and were involved in initial negotiations to purchase it. When the deal fell through, though, the leaders of YWAM felt led by the Lord to transfer the money they had received to OM, enabling them to buy the MV Logos, the ship that would end up becoming the pioneer vessel of world missions ship ministry. Now, years later, as many of you are aware, both OM and YWAM have several different ministry ships.

As a missionary of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, some might question why I am writing to plug the ministry of another mission organization. However, it is in the spirit of what I learned years ago during my time with OM that I want to share about the strategic ministry of a wonderful organization with which I had the opportunity to partner on my recent trip to India: Reaching Indians Ministries International (RIMI), or Mission India (as it is known within India).

According to RIMI’s web-site:

RIMI is an international, interdenominational, evangelical Christian missions agency, established in 1993, with the compelling vision of glorifying Christ by training national (indigenous) leaders who plant reproducing churches in India and beyond. This is implemented by the PARTNERSHIP of God's people everywhere.

RIMI's India based ministry is called Mission India which is located in Nagpur, Central India. Today we have over 980 church planters with over 4,000 house churches, a leading theological seminary in Nagpur with 22 satellite training centers and many compassion projects including 20 Mercy Homes, which serve over 500 children. This year about 850 students will be trained to become tomorrow's influential leaders for Christ's Kingdom.

Mercy Home Kids

During my time in India, I was able to observe first-hand how RIMI/Mission India is doing everything they say here and more. Many times, it is difficult to know, when dealing with national indigenous ministries, whether the money donated is really being used wisely or not. I am happy to say, though, I was extremely impressed by the servant heart, responsible stewardship, and personal integrity I saw exhibited by the various members of the Mission India leadership team with whom we were privileged to work during our time there. I was able to see first-hand the magnificent seminary and ministry center in Nagpur, as well as the satellite training centers in Warangal and Goa. I was able to fellowship, work, and pray together with a good many of the Mission India national leaders on a close, personal level.

Mission India Leadership Team, Nagpur

The scope of the vision of RIMI Founder and President Saji Lukos, and the rest of the Mission India leadership team, is enormous. They are very close to fulfilling their goal of having a Ministry Training Center in each of India’s 28 states. They are providing valuable training for national pastors and church planters, and preparing them to reach out in obedience and faith to the unreached millions scattered throughout India. They are doing a fantastic job of ministering the love of Christ to the needy by way of their Mercy Homes and many other compassion projects.

I absolutely love RIMI/Mission India’s Core Values Statement, which I found, by experience, to be more than just mere words, and which reads as follows:

Christ before Career: We have absolute trust and faith in the Word of God, and we are committed to honor Christ by obeying everything that He commands us to do, and living humbly and sacrificially.
Character before Ministry: We are committed to develop Christ-like leaders through various innovative programs so that the people will see Christ and want to follow him personally.
Unity before Growth: We are committed to being truly evangelical, inter-denominational and multi-cultural.
People before Program: We are committed to build people on the basis of their specific call and gifts in order to develop various ministries to meet the needs of people in the community. Disciple making is the number one priority of RIMI churches (Faith Gospel Church).
Ownership before Organization: We are committed to establish autonomous and self-supporting churches and church-based projects. This is ownership, and avoids long-term dependency.
Unreached before Reached: We are committed to reach the unreached strategically, region by region with the help of local trained leadership.
Integrity before Popularity: We are committed to practice absolute integrity and accountability.

I could say more, but I will leave you to visit the RIMI web-site yourself, and learn more about what they are doing, and how you could play a part in helping to support the vision of this wonderful, God-honoring ministry that I whole-heartedly recommend.

Seminary Class

Mission India, Warangal

"Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute" in India

2007-10-22T12:46:00.001-05:00

Pastors Training Conference in Mission India Seminary, Nagpur

During the last several years of my father’s life, he set as a major goal to mentor and train younger pastors, sharing with them the wisdom that God had given him through his more than 50 years of ministerial experience. Together with my brother Steve, who assisted with logistical and technical aspects of the ministry, he put together a three-day conference for pastors in the States entitled What Every Pastor Ought to Know. They decided to call the ministry the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute (PTI).

In the following months, God allowed them to put together several different Adrian Rogers PTI events around the country that were a real blessing to the hundreds of pastors who were able to participate. Six months before my father’s death, and one month before he was first diagnosed with cancer, Steve had the idea to professionally video-tape the entire conference. As a result, we have a high quality 10-DVD set of the entire 21 hours of teaching done before a group of about 100 pastors in Memphis, Tennessee. Steve has since edited the materials, put together a workbook, and packaged them attractively in a box, so that the What Every Pastor Ought to Know course is now available by purchase for pastors in the States (see http://www.pastortraining.com/).

Since my father’s death, several one-day, condensed version, What Every Pastor Ought to Know conferences have been organized and carried out in various places around the States, by way of DVD large-screen projection before a live audience. Thus far, the response to these events has been very positive. Upon praying and reflecting on what might be the best stewardship of these materials, though, Steve had the idea to make them available free of charge to pastors around the world, who, so many times, have very little access to training materials like these. As he began to publicize the availability of this key resource, various Christian ministries from around the world got in contact with him, inquiring about the possibility of holding Adrian Rogers PTI conferences in their countries.

Back in February of this year, the first international Adrian Rogers PTI conference was held in Nairobi, Kenya with a group of about 200 national pastors. Despite the cultural differences, and the fact that many of the attendees had never heard of my father, the overall response was extremely positive.

Among the other invitations that Steve received, two came from the country of India: one from Pastor Saji Lukos of Reaching Indians Ministries International (RIMI)/Mission India, and another from Pastor Sudhakar Rao of Newlife Ministries in the city of Hyderabad. After a lot of soul-searching, and not knowing quite what to expect, Steve began to make plans to travel to India, together with his wife Cindi, from Sept. 21 to Oct. 10. About a month before leaving, they suggested I might want to accompany them; and three weeks before leaving, I made the decision to go along as well.

I am very grateful to the Lord, Steve & Cindi, RIMI/Mission India, and Newlife Ministries, for the opportunity to participate in this tremendous venture. All told, we were able to share a condensed version of the What Every Pastor Ought to Know video-course with some 1,200 pastors and Bible Institute students in 6 different events in 4 cities in different parts of India.

The challenges were enormous, but the blessings were well worth the effort:

*We brought with us two DVD players, a projector, and a portable large screen. We used the local sound equipment. In spite of all the precautions we took, it was practically always a challenge getting everything set up and running on time. On several occasions, we had power outages. It was hard to explain to our local hosts, in way that they could understand it, exactly what we wanted to do. But, in the end, after a bit of fretting and running around, in each occasion, the “show did go on.”

*Although English is widely spoken in India, we found the language barrier to be bigger than what we had expected. In each different state we visited, there is a different main local language. Although we had capable interpreters, with the teaching on DVD, it was not practical to do simultaneous interpretation. The solution we found was for someone, at the end of each 30-60 minute teaching session, to give a summary in the local language of what had just been said in English. In spite of drawing out the time quite a bit more than we had anticipated, the listeners were very patient, and did not seem to mind at all.

*Culturally, we wondered how well the concepts originally directed toward a group of American pastors would prove to be relevant in India. It is certain that a number of the jokes and anecdotes my father told in the original setting did not make much sense to the majority of the Indians. Also, the general context of the churches and ways of doing things made some of the teaching less applicable than in the States. However, if we were able to read correctly the reactions of the audience, they found the basic material to be extremely helpful. As we were presenting a condensed, one-day version of the 21-hour course, we were able to pick the sessions we felt would be most relevant and helpful for the Indians in their particular context. It was interesting to learn that many Indian believers and church leaders are exposed to a steady stream of Christian television from the West, a large part of which is comprised of “health and wealth” prosperity teaching. The teaching of my father on topics such as integrity in ministry, proper priorities, and a biblical view of spiritual authority, were very well received. The comments of the attendees were very encouraging.

From a missiological point of view, one of the biggest questions is what will happen on an on-going basis, as a result of our visit, after we are gone. We are very pleased that the leadership of Mission India has taken on the vision of helping us to translate the materials into several local languages of India, beginning with Hindi and Tegulu, and continuing on with others, as the Lord provides the means. We were also able to leave the DVD players and screen with them, as well as train Mission India’s Director of Conference Ministries, Jesroon Levi Polepaka, in technical and practical aspects of the ministry. We are thrilled that Mission India has plans to take the DVDs to many places around India in the near future, and make the teaching a vital part of their on-going Bible Institute training and Conference ministry.

Jesroon Levi Polepaka, Sudhakar Rao, Ebenezer Rao & Me

Overall, despite the challenges and difficulties involved, it was incredible for me, as a veteran missionary, to see how God used this training in the lives of so many different pastors in such a strategic way. I am pleased that my father’s ministry continues to impact lives, even beyond the United States, to the far corners of the earth. I am also proud to be able to support and partner with my brother Steve, and the ministry of Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute, as he continues to work towards the global advance of this exciting and fruitful vision. Plans are already underway to take the training to pastors in places such as Russia, Nepal, South Africa, and Latin America. We would appreciate your prayers and support as God continues to open doors to use this training to bless pastors and believers among the nations of the world (for more information, see http://www.pastortraining.com/).

Mother India

2007-10-16T14:27:00.000-05:00

After three life-changing weeks in India, I am now back in the USA. During this time, I had the very special privilege of visiting the cities of Delhi, Agra, Nagpur, Warangal, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Goa, and Mumbai.

India is a land marked by stark contrasts. There are so many things I could say about this trip. Here are a just a few of my first impressions (more to come in upcoming posts)…

Sumptuous palaces, modern hotels, and luxury shopping, side-by-side with unspeakable filth, squalor, and poverty.

Enormous cities, with millions and millions of inhabitants, many of which I had never heard before. And yet, 70% of Indians live in the rural areas and the more than 550,000 villages.

The bright, vivid colors of the saris and salwar kameezes of the Hindu and Christian women, and the monotone burqas of the Muslim women.

The spicy, pungent panoply of multi-faceted flavors that make up the standard bill of fare of the tasty Indian cuisine.

The lovely, polite, hospitable Indian people who are proud and eager to show off the beauty of their native land, but who, many times, are very difficult to understand.

The dusty, serpentine streets that weave endlessly through the booths and tiny shops of local merchants.

The insane traffic, replete with high-octane aggressive taxi drivers artfully dodging their way through the daily obstacle course of cows, rickshaws, motor scooters, bicycles, pedestrians, and other assorted items.

The "330 million gods" of Hinduism, the "one true God" of Islam, and many, many spiritually open people, hungry for the truth.

The amazingly intricate tapestry of humanity made up of people from a vast array of different ethnic groups, languages, castes and religious beliefs. It is incredible to think that the thousands and thousands of people we saw personally on this trip are only a drop in the bucket of India’s more than a billion souls. Although there are many Christian churches, and evangelical believers, India is home to 70 % of the unengaged, unreached people groups in the world, and 50% of the total of unreached people groups.

Truly, my life has been greatly impacted from the time I have been able to spend in India. The song "Mother India," by Caedmon's Call, from their phenomenal missions-inspired album Share the Well, expresses well my own thoughts and emotions…

Mother India

Father God, you have shed your tears for Mother India
They have fallen to water ancient seeds
That will grow into hands that touch the untouchable
How blessed are the poor, the sick, the weak

Father, forgive me, for I have not believed
Like Mother India, I have groaned and grieved
Father, forgive me, I forgot Your grace
Your Spirit falls on India and captures me in Your embrace

The Serpent spoke and the world believed its venom
Now we're ten to a room or compared to magazines

Father, forgive me, for I have not believed
Like Mother India, I have groaned and grieved
Father, forgive me, I forgot Your grace
Your Spirit falls on India and captures me in Your embrace

There's a land where our shackles turn to diamonds
Where we trade in our rags for a royal crown
In that place, our oppressors hold no power
And the doors of the King are thrown wide

Father, forgive me, for I have not believed
Like Mother India, I have groaned and grieved
Father, forgive me, I forgot Your grace
Your Spirit falls on India and captures me in Your embrace

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #17

2007-09-25T12:54:00.000-05:00

Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

I have noticed in the comment thread of your last letter that you plan on making your next letter your last in this series. In the event that ends up being the case, I want, first of all, to make sure to speak to several points you bring up in your last letter. After that, I want to pose a few brief questions I would like for you to answer before we close off this current dialogue.

In your section on “Clarification Regarding ‘Faith’ and ‘Order,’” you say that I define "secondary matters" in terms of "order" with my references to "baptism by immersion" and "common loaf." Actually, if I am understanding correctly the traditional theological distinction between “faith” and “order,” I would say that I do not define “secondary matters” in terms of “order.” While I would agree that many matters of secondary importance do, in fact, coincide with what have been termed matters of “order,” I am not so sure that the actual division between “primary” and “secondary” always falls neatly along these same lines.

As I tried to make clear, especially in Letter #13, I certainly do not “dismiss” the importance of obeying any command of Christ, whether it concerns matters of “faith” or “order.” However, there are certain commands that, due to confusion in interpretation, or a certain degree of ambiguity in the biblical text itself, have been understood differently by sincere followers of Christ down through history. At the same time, there are certain matters that heretical groups and false cults have twisted in order to prop up their false doctrinal systems, and are of such central importance to the Gospel message itself, that to misunderstand and misapply them would compromise the very essence of Christian discipleship. Perhaps these are what you would call matters of “faith.” If such is the case, I do not have any real objection to this distinction. At the same time, I wish to make perfectly clear, once again, that I do not advocate any compromise whatsoever regarding one’s personal obligation to obey, as well as he/she is able to understand them, each and every one of Christ’s commands, whether they be matters of “faith” or “order.”

In your section entitled “Where Do You Stand?,” you say that several things I have written suggest that “disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands is not something with which disciples should be overly concerned.” I forcefully disagree with this conclusion. I do not see a contradiction between the statements of mine that you quote, and a concerted effort towards “disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands.” The fact that we will not be judged according to our observance of the law, but rather in virtue of the righteousness vicariously gained for us by Christ at Calvary, does not, in any way, devalue the importance of obedience to his commands, whether in so-called issues of “faith” or “order.”

At the same time, you correctly understand me to voice a conviction consistent with a traditional Baptist interpretation of baptism. However, I believe you misinterpret me when you suggest I am confused about what I believe. Properly understood, I believe there is no contradiction whatsoever in my personal convictions regarding the biblical teaching on believers baptism by immersion, and the possibility of cooperating and fellowshipping with authentic followers of Christ who are sincerely mistaken in their views of baptism, and/or other “secondary” and “tertiary” matters.

While, in the spirit of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda, I am open to growth in my understanding of biblical teaching in many areas, I do not, at the same time, consider myself to be in a “precarious position” of abandoning important principles due to an unhealthy influence of “modern missionary thought and practice.” Actually, the views I take on the particular issues we are discussing are views at which I have arrived after a heartfelt and diligent study of Scripture. They are matters of strong conviction for me from which I will not easily be moved.

With regard to your section on “The Definition of a Great Commission Christian,” I think it may help to “clear the smoke” a bit, at this point, to recognize that the term “Great Commission Christian” is not in itself a biblical term, and has only recently come into use among evangelical Christians and Southern Baptists. As such, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in the definition we choose to give it.

The International Mission Board, when they first began to publish material on “New Directions” in regard to missionary strategy and philosophy of ministry around the world, gave the following definition to the term Great Commission Christian: “an evangelical Christian actively engaged in or committed to the fulfillment of the Great Commission” (from Something New Under the Sun, Glossary).

In addition, the following description is a bit more specific:

“…within the great sea of Christianity there are many born-again believers--men and women--who have experienced a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ and look to God's Word as their authority for faith and practice. These evangelicals are scattered all over the world and are growing in number. Current global estimates put their number at up to 500 million. They are found in more than 20,000 denominations with over 1,000 foreign mission agencies worldwide. It is these fellow believers who offer us tremendous potential as co-laborers in fulfilling the Great Commission” (from Something New Under the Sun, ch. 5).

On the comment thread to your Letter #16, several others have already pointed out that, according to the criteria you appear to be using, we ourselves as Baptists would be disqualified as Great Commission Christians. None of us is perfect, neither in our understanding of nor our obedience to the Great Commission. Undoubtedly, at the same time, however, many Baptists are sincerely trying to understand and obey as consistently as possible the Great Commission. But, then again, if that is the understanding we have of “Great Commission Christians,” so are many others in many, if not all, of the groups you reference in your letter. The real issue for me, however, is not who we may call “Great Commission Christians”, and who we may not, but rather with whom we fellowship and cooperate for the advance of the Kingdom of God in our desire to be obedient to the Great Commission.

In your section entitled “Unrepentant Sinners” and “The Baptist Renaissance,” you make the assertion that Christians who do not understand and practice baptism in the same way as Baptists are, in fact, “unrepentant sinners.” The question that must be answered at this juncture is whether or not someone who has made a heartfelt commitment to submit to the Lordship of Jesus as transmitted to us in Holy Scripture, but who is sincerely mistaken in their attempts at understanding and obeying certain commands, is truly “disobedient.” In American society, a commonly quoted maxim is “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” However, as I understand it, the correct application of the principle enunciated in this maxim only applies in the case of laws that are punishable by condemnation and penalty. If, however, we have been set free from the bondage of the law (Galatians 5:1), and “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1), I do not understand sincere but mistaken attempts to obey as actual “disobedience.”

Under the New Covenant, we seek to understand and obey out of love, not obligation, or fear of punishment. As such, the true degree of our obedience is commensurate with the degree of our love. As a matter of fact, we can be completely flawless in our external adherence to the commands of God, and yet, at the same time, if we do not have love, be nothing more than resounding gongs or clanging cymbals. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

While I readily recognize, together with you, the dangers of compromising our convictions of the truth due to “sentimental gullibility,” I do not, by any means, concede that all of us who are diligently working towards progress in our understanding and application of Christian unity are doing so out of a lack of solid conviction. In my case, personally, I do not believe I am naïve or deceived when I affirm that my convictions regarding Christian unity are rooted first and foremost in my understanding and diligent study of the Word of God.

Malcolm, I can’t help but ask myself, in relation to what you have written here, whether you are really being obedient to Christ’s commands concerning unity in his Body. I am disappointed that you have not responded, as far as I can tell, to what I consider to be the main thesis of my Letter #13--even though we may be convinced of how we, in our personal practice, ought to obey specific commands of Christ, it does not necessarily follow that, in order to avoid disobedience in our own lives, we must demand the same understanding and manner of obedience from others. My thesis, as I understand Scripture, is that the most obedient option is many times the one of greater tolerance and acceptance of those who differ with us in their understanding and practice of secondary matters. From my perspective, it is not that I am being any less obedient to Christ’s commands concerning baptism, and other secondary matters, but rather, perhaps, I am being more obedient in regard to his commands concerning unity.

In your section entitled "A Positive Conclusion," while I appreciate and am humbled by your comments regarding my love for other people, you indicate that I seem to misinterpret John Gill in some way or another. Recognizing the breadth of your studies of Baptist history, I dare not call into question your understanding of Gill’s theology. However, in my post on Romans 14, I limit myself, for the most part, to quoting directly from Gill’s commentary. It would help me to know on what specific point you feel I have mischaracterized Gill.

While, most assuredly, you, I, and Gill are all totally convinced of the correctness of the Baptist view on the subject and mode of baptism, I think you are missing the point I was making from Romans 14--we may be totally convinced of our particular position, but the degree of certainty we have regarding our interpretation of a particular point is not what makes it a “disputable matter.” What makes it “disputable” is the fact that other sincere disciples of Jesus understand it differently than us.

Frankly, I cannot understand how you can call clear biblical teaching on the “common loaf” a mere personal preference, and, at the same time, call baptism by immersion an inviolable command. It seems to me that, in stating that baptism symbolizes the Gospel, and the common loaf symbolizes church unity, you yourself are making the same distinction between “faith” and “order” about which you forewarned me earlier. Malcolm, as the popular adage states: “You can’t have your cake, and eat it too.”

Now, for my closing questions to you:

1. I hope that by now you have a fairly good grasp on my theological views, at least on the particular issues we have been discussing during this dialogue. Do you believe there is a place for people like me in Southern Baptist life? Do you believe that any of the views I take should disqualify someone like me from service as a Southern Baptist missionary or denominational employee? Why or why not?

2. If I do not change my views concerning the matters we have been discussing here, do you believe it would be better for me to serve with some group other than the IMB? Why or why not?

3. If I understand you correctly, you allow for certain cooperation with non-Baptists in certain ministry projects. Where you (and recent adjustments to IMB policy) draw the line is specifically in regard to cooperation in “church planting.” As someone who has participated actively over the last 17 years in “church planting” ministry, I want to know: At what point do we cross the line from evangelistic and disciple-making ministry into “church planting” ministry? My experience has led me to conclude that this line is, in many cases, very blurry and hard to define. In actuality, practically all of what we do, as “church planters” on the mission field, involves, to a large degree, evangelism and disciple-making. I would like to know, if you can help me understand it, at what point do we specifically cross that line, and what are the reasons for drawing the line of cooperation at that particular point?

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Trip to South Asia

2007-09-20T23:20:00.000-05:00

Today, I am flying out for a 3-week-long ministry trip to South Asia. Together with my brother Steve, and his wife Cindi, we will be cooperating with several indigenous ministries to train local pastors through the DVD large-screen presentation of the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute materials entitled What Every Pastor Ought to Know.

David Garrison, IMB Regional Leader for South Asia, has said this about the region in which he serves:

South Asia is a huge gaping hole in the Great Commission. With more lost persons per square mile and more Unengaged Unreached People Groups than all the rest of the world combined, this region of the world continues to warrant the kind of attention it has only begun to receive from the IMB and other corners of the Evangelical world…In spite of South Asia being home to one out of every four non-Christians on earth, it is also home to millions of radiant born again believers…We feel that the greatest potential for reaching the 1.4 billion lost of South Asia is to mobilize and train South Asia's indigenous Christian population.
As you can well imagine, I am very excited about this trip, and the possibilities for strategic ministry it represents. All told, we are supposed to have training conferences with approximately 1,200 pastors.

I hope to be able to give some more specific information once we return, and perhaps even some pictures. But for now, for security purposes, it is probably best not to be more specific. I would appreciate very much your prayers, that the Lord would use us and keep His hand upon us during this time.

Also, I hope to have internet connection, at least from time to time, while I am gone. If so, I will do my best to continue to post, including my next letter in the Yarnell-Rogers Dialogue on the Great Commission.

"Evangélico" or "Protestante"?

2007-09-18T20:27:00.000-05:00

In the midst of discussion on Evangelical unity and inter-denominational cooperation, a false stereotype is often portrayed by some that assumes compromise on essential issues.

My friend, brother in Christ, and missionary colleague in Spain, Enrique Montenegro (missionary from the Church of God in Argentina), has written the following incisive commentary on the use of the terms "Evangélico" and "Protestante" in relation to recent news on the Anglican church and the ordination of homosexual priests. The cultural context in Spain has led to a vigorous debate among some regarding whether it is better, as Bible-preaching Christians, to identify ourselves as Evangelicals or Protestants. I post this article with the hope that it will not only provide insight into the particular missionary context in Spain, but also help to correct some general misconceptions regarding working together with Great Commission Christians. (By the way, I totally agree with what Montenegro says here.)

What follows is my translation of Montenegro’s original text in Spanish…

I have always openly declared myself Evangelical and have rejected the term "Protestant" for the mere fact that, in the first case, I identify with the message, content and commandment of Jesus to "preach the Gospel" (Spanish = Evangelio), and the second term identifies us with one moment in history in the life of one part of the Church. From a contemporary perspective, anchored in the past.

But upon reading this article in "EL PERIODICO" (a leading newspaper in the Cataluña region of Spain) about the acceptance and ordination of homosexual priests and bishops in the Anglican church (see links to the articles below), in this case and only in this case, I must say that I am a protestant. Today, I identify myself as a Protestant because I protest the improper use of the identification of the Anglican church as evangelical. A church that is most assuredly Protestant, and without a shadow of a doubt is not Evangelical (as demonstrated by its sense of ethics and morality, and the content of its message), and even less so in practice.

I protest because the above-mentioned institution, rather than protesting the practice of homosexual behavior, even among its own leaders, not only refuses to condemn it, but also protests against those of us who dare to raise our voice to proclaim that there are news of Salvation for them as well.

I protest against the press, which, whenever they refer to the immoral actions of these churches, that identify themselves as Protestants, throws them in the same sack as us, calling them Evangelicals.

I protest against those brothers and sisters that constantly insist on declaring that our identifying label is "protestant", when our message, identity and content clearly is not so.

I protest against those within the Evangelical people who have a representative voice and something to say in regard to this, but prefer to remain silent and not commit themselves.

I protest those who could and should clearly condemn homosexual practices, but hardly even take sides to make a few ambiguous statements on the subject.

I protest against those who, although they still call themselves Protestants, are not consistent with their own name by raising their voice in protest for these immoral actions.

I protest those who take on an evangelical identity, but do not fulfill the duty of clearly proclaiming the gospel (evangelio) in order to counteract the poison of this type of Protestantism.

Last of all, I ask forgiveness of my brothers and sisters for becoming protestant, even if it was just for a moment. I promise that I will keep on being evangelical, and I will not renounce being consistent with our identity and mission, that is none other than proclaiming the Gospel (Evangelio).

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."

At least, that’s how I see it. What do you think?

http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=442384&idseccio_PK=1021

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/224485/0/pablo/epistola/romanos/

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #16

2007-09-17T09:02:00.000-05:00

A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Dearest David,

Your last three letters clarify the basis of your desire for unity among those who claim to be Great Commission Christians. If I am not misreading, the thesis in letters 13 ("Obeying the Commands of Jesus") and 14 ("John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7") is that Christians should not divide over "secondary matters" or "disputable matters." You then provide the example of the use or not of the "common loaf" in your addendum letter ("The Illustration of the Hypothetical ‘Common Loaf Denomination’").

Clarification Regarding "Faith" and "Order"

Before proceeding to answer your thesis, please allow me to clarify one important issue: the distinction between faith and order that apparently caused some concern. Although I recognize the common theological distinction between faith and order, the thrust of my last letter (#12, "Enduring Submission to the Great Commission") was that the distinction never excuses disobedience to Jesus Christ. The only reason that I introduced the terminology of "faith" and "order" is because it is an established one that many theologians find useful and may help you in our conversation. (It actually does not help my argument.)

Moreover, another reason I raised the distinction is that it appears to be part of your own argument. The distinction that you use, following Gill, is between "what really matters" or "the grace of faith" on the one hand, and "secondary matters" or "disputable matters" on the other hand. You then proceed to define these "secondary matters" in terms of "order" with your subsequent references to "baptism by immersion" and "common loaf." David, as far as I can see, you have followed the very distinction that I introduced, but circuitously rather than directly.

The distinction of "faith" and "order" seems to be, though I might be misinterpreting you here, at the bottom of your search for a "hierarchy of values." I sought to limit the usefulness of this common distinction with this sentence: "Speaking and expositing about the essential of one’s ‘faith’ in Christ while dismissing the essential of obeying the ‘order’ established by Christ is utterly sinful." Unfortunately, I do not seem to have won you over to my position in this regard, for you still seem to treat at least some dominical issues of "order" as "secondary" and perhaps even "disputable."

Where Do You Stand?

With that clarified, perhaps you could help me interpret your letters better. Tell me if I am wrong, but you seem to waver on the issue of whether matters of "order" are important or not. On the one hand, you say such things as, "[W]e will not be judged according to our observance of all the different rules and regulations given to us by God in his Word." Again, you say, "However, when it comes to obedience of some commands of Jesus, at least from a certain perspective, it would appear the intent of the heart, despite the degree of correctness of our understanding, is indeed what really matters." This suggests that disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands is not something with which disciples should be overly concerned.

On the other hand, you then defend believers-only baptism in a comment thread on the blog of Micah Fries, who copied your "Common Loaf Baptists" post. I will remind you of your assertion there: "As far as timing and mode of baptism are concerned, I would be inclined to agree that a ‘baptism’ that is not after a true conversion, or that is not by immersion, is not an authentic baptism." This suggests you believe that disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands, at least with regard to the order of baptism, is something with which disciples should be very concerned.

David, if I were to make a guess, it would be this: you, my friend, are still searching out exactly what you believe in many of these matters! Such doctrinal growth is admittedly part of the Christian life, but my fear is that you have been brought to a precarious position by some of the worrisome trends in modern missionary thought and practice. These worrisome trends include, among many others, a confusion as to what exactly constitutes a Great Commission Christian, the invention of a distinction between "Baptist" and "baptistic," the affirmation or denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, confusion as to what it really means to cooperate with other Christians, and lack of clarity regarding a Baptist hierarchy of values.

The Definition of a Great Commission Christian

First and most germane to our ongoing conversation, please consider the definition of Great Commission Christians. It seems that the hasty move to recognize other evangelicals as Great Commission Christians has introduced thoughts and practices that undermine the biblical mandate. Rather than rehearsing the historical basis of this destructive error in Southern Baptist life, David, let me propose that we seek to answer the following question: Does a Great Commission Christian have to obey the Great Commission of Jesus Christ in its entirety and in its God-given order, or may we summarily dispense with some aspects of it, or practice it contrary to the God-given order, or emphasize something else?

The problem in postmodern missionary practice in the Southern Baptist Convention is largely due to the unwillingness to maintain the beliefs that our biblicist forefathers held in this matter. In other words, David, let us be clear that on the basis of the long-standing Baptist interpretation of the Great Commission, the following groups specifically do not qualify to be called Great Commission Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians (and other Reformed Churches), Non-Baptist Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. I will not provide an exhaustive list, for that would require a dictionary, but suffice it to say that any other Christian group that believes or practices what these Christian denominations distinctively believe and practice may not be legitimately classified as Great Commission Christians, even if some of them may be classified as "evangelicals."

The reasons that these Christian churches do not deserve to be classified as Great Commission Christians are that they violate Christ’s will in one or more of these three ways: 1) They do not obey the entirety of the Great Commission. 2) They do not follow the order of the Great Commission. Specifically, many of them place baptism prior to the making of disciples. 3) They do not emphasize the faith delivered by our Lord, but add other requirements. For instance, some of them elevate or transform the gifts of speaking in tongues or of healing, and then seek to sway other Christians to their unbiblical positions.

"Unrepentant Sinners" and "The Baptist Renaissance"

The errors of these other Christian churches are why some Baptists are more than willing to refer to them as "unrepentant sinners." When you disobey Christ, you are a "sinner." When you refuse to change your ways, you are "unrepentant." Thus, those who refuse to repent from their disobedience of Christ are "unrepentant sinners." This terminology seems to rub evangelical ecumenists in an especially noticeable way, which is probably why some of us readily use it. It helps bring forward important issues that are being buried in the rush of some naïve and errant children of the free churches to convert to Azusa Street, Canterbury, Geneva, Rome, and Constantinople.

The use of this language is not a claim, however, that such people are not Christians. Rather, it is a claim that they need to repent and follow Christ alone and in full. Moreover, the use of this language is not a claim that Baptists are superior to other Christians. Rather, it recognizes that God has given Baptists further illumination with regard to His Word. This compels us to help others understand His Word better. The gift of further illumination of God’s Word carries with it a greater responsibility to teach that Word with conviction and humility. Baptists are not perfect Christians, but Baptists are responsible for obeying and proclaiming with conviction what they do know, and for seeking to know even more from God’s inerrant Word.

Moreover, Baptists would do well to listen humbly to other Christians in order to learn what we may. This does not stifle communication with other Christians, but calls for it. However, this is a call for informed communication and convictional witness rather than sentimental gullibility in the name of "Christian unity." This is probably the one area where most of my detractors have totally misread me. Indeed, they might be surprised to learn that when living in a foreign country, I learned to disagree agreeably while maintaining an ecclesial distance alongside a spiritual harmony with other believers who were not Baptists. I may appreciate evangelical Anglicans and Presbyterians for their understanding of the Gospel, but I have learned not to surrender the biblical order in the name of Christian unity even when living in a difficult context where Christians are a small minority.

When I speak of a "Baptist Renaissance," I am not compelled by Baptist hubris, but by a dynamic biblical conviction. I am a Baptist because I believe that our churches are the closest examples to the churches that Christ established in the New Testament. This does not mean we are perfect, for we are decidedly not! One need only consider the continuing erosion of our fidelity to Christ in the matters of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church discipline, and the priority of proclamation to know better. What it does mean is that the Baptist tradition is a purer and deeper tradition than any existing alternative, for it is intentionally grounded in the oldest Christian tradition, that of the apostles and of Christ Himself. If I may continue the city metaphor, we should bypass these other cities and be content with Jerusalem as our home.

A Positive Conclusion

David, I mentioned four other issues wherein there appears to be some indefiniteness in your theology: the distinction between "baptistic" and "Baptist," the affirmation or denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, the true meaning of cooperation, and this idea of a hierarchy of values. Rather than discuss what seems to be an equivocal treatment of these ideas, let me conclude with a positive review of some of your other ideas.

First, please allow me to laud you on your love for other people, especially other Christians. I wish that all of us had that deep love for "each stone" that you have. You, my friend, are a treasure. Second, please note that I generally agree with your review of Romans 14, although I disagree with your characterization of John Gill, and I wonder at what exactly you would classify as "disputable matters." Believers-only baptism by immersion is beyond dispute (and here Gill would agree with me), and that includes not only the subject of baptism, but the mode of baptism, too. According to Paul, the mode of baptism as immersion is what makes baptism symbolically powerful. Baptism by immersion is the only mode that properly represents the death and resurrection of our Savior (Romans 6:1-6).

Third, although I actually agree with your preference for the "common loaf" as better fulfilling the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10, I do not think it is as debilitating a problem as baptism by sprinkling or by pouring. The fact is that the common loaf symbolizes church unity while baptism by immersion symbolizes the Gospel itself. Finally, please allow me again to thank you for the privilege of interacting with you and your readers. I love you more every day, my brother in Christ, even when I question your theology, especially your ecclesiology. In the midst of our discussions, I find that my own theology grows under the influence of your love. Then again, I also think your daddy, were he here, would often agree with me more.

In Christ,

Malcolm

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination"

2007-09-12T17:02:00.000-05:00

Update: Although I had originally intended this post as independent from the Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, upon consultation with Malcolm Yarnell, I have decided to include this as Letter #15. This is because the content is related to our on-going discussion, and Malcolm's Letter #16 responds to this content, as well as that of Letters #13 and #14.

Please understand that what I am writing here is just an illustration to prove a point. I am emphatically NOT suggesting the founding of a new "Common Loaf Denomination." I have already written about this on a previous post. At that time, I was using essentially the same illustration to make a slightly different, though related, point, on the difference between planting "baptistic" and "Baptist" churches. Here, I am pulling out the same illustration again, because I believe it forcefully and poignantly drives home a point I have been trying to make on the last couple of posts in my on-going dialogue with Malcolm Yarnell on the Great Commission. I am not writing this as a separate letter in that series, but rather as a sort of detached addendum to the actual letters.

The illustration is the following:

Many Baptists in the past, as well as some in the present, have made such a major issue of the timing and mode of water baptism that it has led them to effectively separate, both in church fellowship, as well as in partnership in obedience to the Great Commission, with other authentic born-again disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let me make perfectly clear that my own views regarding the timing and mode of baptism are totally "baptistic," and in line with the Baptist Faith & Message.

As "baptistic" Christians, we believe in baptism by immersion, as I understand it, on the basis of three primary reasons:

Linguistically, the greek term baptizein, translated "to baptize" in the majority of our translations of the Bible in English, means literally "to immerse."
Symbolically, we believe, on the basis of Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12, that baptism is a physical and visual representation of our identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
Historically, in the examples we read in the New Testament (Matthew 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:36-38), baptism seems to have been administered by immersion.

In addition to believing in believers baptism by immersion, I also happen to believe in celebrating the Lord’s Supper with a "common loaf" of bread. The reasons for my belief in "common loaf" communion are essentially the same as my reasons for believing in baptism by immersion:

Linguistically, the term "breaking bread," generally accepted as referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, directly implies the use of a "common loaf."
Symbolically, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 10.16-17, the use of a "common loaf" represents physically and visually an important spiritual truth: the essential unity of the Body of Christ ("For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread").
Historically, in the examples we read in the New Testament (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19, 24:30, 35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35; 1 Corinthians 11:23-24), it is apparent that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a "common loaf."

*I will leave aside, at this time, the evidence that the Lord’s Supper was also apparently celebrated with a "common cup", as part of a complete meal, with unleavened bread, and with fermented wine.

Much has been made of the point that those who practice baptism by any mode other than by immersion are effectively disobeying the command of Jesus regarding baptism. By the same token, however, I cannot avoid the conclusion that those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper with individual wafers, or crackers, or pieces of bread, are not truly being obedient to the command of Jesus to "do this in remembrance of me." Yet, for some reason, as Baptists, we are much more tolerant with those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper in a defective manner than we are with those who are sincerely mistaken in their practice of baptism.

What is the solution to this dilemma? Should those of us who are convinced of the biblical truth concerning "common loaf" celebration of the Lord’s Supper separate from those who still insist on celebrating the Lord’s Supper with individual wafers or their equivalent? Should we form our own denomination that ensures that the missionaries we send out will only teach the churches they plant to practice "common loaf" communion? Or, should we take it to the extreme of refusing to even cooperate on the mission field with those in other groups who are mistaken in their interpretation of this "clear biblical truth"?

I hope, by now, the absurdity of what I am suggesting is obvious. Even though I am totally convinced of the accuracy of my biblical interpretation regarding "common loaf communion," it would be "nit-picking" for me to separate with other authentic disciples of the Lord Jesus, who are sincerely doing their best to submit to his commands in their own life, over something as secondary as this. Much more important than our differences on this point is our essential unity as joint members of the Body of Christ, who have been given a joint task to fulfill, and should work hand in hand, as brothers and sisters in Christ, to obey together the commands of Christ, to the degree each one of us is able to understand them.

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Chinese Christian Growth and Missionary Vision

2007-09-09T16:44:00.000-05:00

Check out this interesting article in the Asia Times about the growth of Christianity in China. Pay special attention to what it says towards the bottom about the Back to Jerusalem movement, and the vision of Chinese believers for taking the gospel to the unreached Muslim peoples of the 10-40 Window.

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #14

2007-09-07T23:45:00.000-05:00

John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

At a previous point in our dialogue, we have already had reason to refer to the thoughts of great Baptist theologians of yesteryear such as John Dagg, B.H. Carroll, Andrew Fuller, and Benjamin Keach. In the present letter, I will be referring largely to the thoughts of John Gill, generally considered to be the first major writing Baptist theologian. I find it both interesting and gratifying, in the midst of our present discussion on differences of opinion between true believers on secondary matters, to be able to reference the words of the good Dr. Gill, who interestingly enough, served as pastor in the same church Keach had served earlier, and where years later, the venerable Charles Haddon Spurgeon would so effectively grace the pulpit. Throughout this letter, I will reference various of Gill’s comments on Romans chapter 14, and the first few verses of chapter 15, taken from his Exposition of the Entire Bible.

As I mentioned in my last letter, I believe that Romans 14 (including, as well, as part of the larger context, Romans 15:1-7) is the classic passage dealing with the questions currently before us. The general topic of this passage is what Paul calls "disputable matters" (v. 1). Although the specific examples given are those of "eating everything" vs. "eating only vegetables" (v. 2), and "considering one day more sacred than another" vs. "considering every day alike" (v. 5), it would appear these are merely representative of any number of potential "disputable matters" on which sincere believers may take different positions.

On certain matters, it is true that sincerity, in and of itself, is not sufficient. Our faith in Christ in not limited to a willing disposition, nothing more. There is an objective, empirical content behind our faith, which if denied, would actually invalidate our faith altogether.

However, when it comes to obedience of some commands of Jesus, at least from a certain perspective, it would appear the intent of the heart, despite the degree of correctness of our understanding, is indeed what really matters. As v. 6 states: "He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

Commenting on this verse, Gill observes:

The apostle strengthens the above advice with this reason, because what is done both by one and the other, is done unto the Lord. The weak brother that esteems one day above another, and regards the passover, pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, a new moon, or a seventh day sabbath, does it in obedience to the commands of the Lord, which he thinks are still binding, not knowing that they are disannulled by Christ; and the worship performed by him on any of those days is done in the name and strength of the Lord, with a view to his glory, and as believing it was pleasing in his sight; and whether he is right or wrong, it is to the Lord he does it, and to his own master he stands or falls (comment on Romans 14:6, emphasis mine).

The point is, the hypothetical individuals in disagreement with each other are brothers (and/or sisters) in Christ (vv. 10, 13, 15, 21). As Gill states:

The emphasis lies upon the word "brother", in both branches of the expostulation; and the force of the apostle's reasoning is that they should not judge or despise one another, because they were brethren, stood in the same relation to God and Christ, belonged to the same family, were partakers of the same grace, and had no pre-eminence one over another; they had but one master, and all they were brethren (comment on Romans 14:10).

That is, neither party maintains a position of doctrine and/or practice that would preclude an authentic faith relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not talking, for instance, about those who would deny the divinity of Jesus, or teach that salvation comes as a result of one’s adherence to the law.

As I alluded to in my last letter, if such were the case, our response would need to be different. There is an essential difference, both in the nature of the individual, as well as in the treatment that should be given, between "false prophets" and genuine believers who are sincerely mistaken in their beliefs and practice regarding certain points.

Nonetheless, although both parties have faith, the faith of one is relatively "weak" when compared to that of the other. The strength and weakness of faith alluded to here has to do, to a large extent, with one’s level of doctrinal understanding.

Commenting on this point, Gill refers to those "who are strong in the grace of faith, and are established and settled in the doctrine of it; and have a large and extensive knowledge of the several truths of the Gospel," (comment on Romans 15:1, emphasis mine) and also to "one that is weak in the doctrine of faith; has but little light and knowledge in the truths of the Gospel; is a child in understanding; has more affection than judgment; very little able to distinguish truth from error; cannot digest the greater and more sublime doctrines of grace; stands in need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat; is very fluctuating and unsettled in his principles, and like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine" (comment on Romans 14:1, emphasis mine).

Furthermore, the doctrines and practices involved, though legitimately referred to as "disputable," are not necessarily doctrines over which the respective parties might have a certain degree of uncertainty or misgivings with respect to their particular positions. As v. 5 states, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind," and v. 14, "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself."

However, one’s degree of certainty regarding the correctness of his/her particular view is not the issue. Even though we may be fully convinced, without one iota of doubt, that our position is right, and our brother’s position wrong, that is not to come between our fellowship in the service of the Lord.

As Gill observes:

The advice the apostle gives, in reference to such a person, is to receive him; not only into their affections, and love him equally, being a believer in Christ, as one of the same sentiments with them, only in this matter, but also into church fellowship with them. The Syriac version reads it, (adya hyl wbh) , "give him the hand": in token of communion, a form used in admission of members. The Gentiles were apt to boast against, and look with some contempt upon the Jews, and were ready to object to their communion, because of their want of light and knowledge in these matters; but this was no bar of communion, nor ought a person to be rejected on account of his weakness, either in the grace, or in the doctrine of faith, when it appears he has the true grace of God (comment on Romans 14:1, emphasis mine).

…because God had received both the one and the other into his heart's love and affection, into the covenant of grace, and into his family by adoption: they were received by Christ, coming to him as perishing sinners, according to the will of God; whose will it likewise was, that they should be received into church fellowship, as being no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and God had also received them into his service, and they were made willing to serve him, as well as to be saved by him… (comment on Romans 14:3, emphasis mine).

…they are not to be despised for their weakness; and if in the church, are not to be excluded for their mistakes; and if not members, are not to be refused on account of them; since they arise from weakness, and are not subversive of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel: they are not to be treated as wicked men, but as weak brethren; and their peevish tempers, morose dispositions and conduct, their hard speeches and censorious expressions, are patiently to be endured; they should be considered as from whence they arise, not from malice and ill will, from a malignant spirit, but from weakness and misguided zeal (comment on Romans 15:1, emphasis mine).

The crowning point, in Paul’s line of reasoning, however, seems to come in chapter 15, vv. 5-7, where he exclaims:

"May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God."

Taken in the context of the discussion of chapter 14, it would seem that Paul is making the argument that, in the hierarchy of values in the kingdom of God, the "spirit of unity," which allows us "with one heart and mouth" to "glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," trumps the degree of our doctrinal correctness on "disputable matters." And, the way we put this unity into practice is by "accepting one another, just as Christ has accepted us," even though the other party may be sincerely mistaken about certain matters of doctrine and practice. And, when we do this, as a result, true, pure, authentic praise is brought to God.

Blessings,

David

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #13

2007-09-02T17:24:00.000-05:00

Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

In Matthew’s narration of the Great Commission, Jesus tells us, as his disciples, that, as a part of the process of making new disciples, we are to "teach them to obey everything [He] has commanded us." This raises the question: "What, then, are the things He has commanded us?"

The answer to this question is not quite so simple, however, as identifying a list of "dos" and "don’ts" in the Bible. Paul, writing with the apostolic authority delegated to him by Jesus, tells us we are no longer "under law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14), and that He, at Calvary, abolished "the law with its commandments and regulations" (Ephesians 2:15), and "canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us" (Colossians 2:14).

That is not to say that the law has become entirely irrelevant for us as Christians, but rather that, in the last day, when we stand before the throne of God, if we are in Christ, we will not be judged according to our observance of all the different rules and regulations given to us by God in his Word. Instead, we will be judged in conformance with the righteousness gained for us by Christ when He paid the just penalty for our sins on the cross of Calvary.

However, there are, no doubt, certain guidelines, both in the New Testament, and the Old, that help us better understand God’s will for us, and line up our lives in accordance with that will. While we, as participants in the new covenant, are no longer judged by our degree of adherence to a set of rules, we do, out of love for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, desire to conform our behavior, as closely as possible, to that pattern laid out for us in Scripture. In addition, we strive to be sensitive toward the voice of the Holy Spirit within us, and submit to and obey that voice.

In a sense, there is a certain degree of subjectivity in our discernment of this pattern of behavior. God’s Word, in and of itself, is, in the words of Psalm 12:6, "flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times." It is, as the Baptist Faith & Message describes it, "totally true and trustworthy" and has "truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter." At the same time, however, our ability, as fallen and fallible human beings, to perfectly understand God’s Word, and interpret correctly everything that He has revealed to us therein, is many times fraught with weakness and imperfection.

This is not to infer that the Bible is so complex and convoluted that there is no use in trying to understand and obey it. In the great part of what it relays to us, the message comes through loud and clear. As heirs of the foundational truths of the Protestant Reformation, we do well to insist on the general principle of the perspicuity of Scripture.

In spite of this, however, honesty and objectivity force us to recognize that, down through the course of history, equally sincere and dedicated disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ have come to Holy Scripture with a heartfelt desire to understand and obey its injunctions, and yet reached slightly different conclusions regarding the proper interpretation of certain details contained therein. Humility should lead us, while never giving up on our attempt to understand and obey better the Word of God in our own lives, to be somewhat tenuous in our claims to interpret correctly those points of doctrine on which other sincere students of the Bible have come to different conclusions.

This does not mean we, in the spirit of postmodernity, should adopt an approach of "anything goes." Malcolm, in your last letter, you make reference to a supposed division between matters of "faith" and matters of "order". Although, for the sake of analysis, this may be a useful way to distinguish between specific areas of our lives in which we are to obey, I do not personally see these as categories delineated in the Bible itself. As I understand the will of God, as revealed in the Bible, the question is not so much whether a particular command is a matter of "faith" or of "order", but whether or not it is a command we are expected to obey. And, indeed, we are expected to obey all of his commands.

At the same time, though we should indeed strive, to the best of our ability, to obey everything that Jesus has commanded us, and we are not free to pick and choose, at whim, which commands we prefer to obey and which ones not, it is also true that certain commands are more central to the gospel than others. Consider the following examples:

Jesus, when asked what is the greatest commandment of the law, replied: "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’" (Matthew 22:37-39).
Paul also tells us: "The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’" (Romans 13:9).
Jesus spoke to the Pharisees of the "more important matters of the law" (Matthew 23:23).
Paul, when referring, in his instructions to the believers in Corinth, to that which he considered to be "of first importance," encapsulated the core truths of the gospel: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:3-5).
Paul, understood in the context of the entire epistle to the Galatians, also seems to make justification by grace through faith a comparatively crucial matter, when he says: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8).

The direct implication of these verses is that there are other matters of belief and practice that, although not entirely without importance, are of not quite so high a priority as those things referred to here.

One particular point of practice that seems to have led to some contention among Southern Baptists, both in recent days, as well as in the past, is to what degree should we cooperate in our efforts to obey the Great Commission with other believers who differ with us on some of these finer points. It is my opinion that, in order to come to a correct conclusion regarding this question, we must first seek guidance from the very same Word of God.

Does the Bible address this particular issue? Inasmuch as I am able to discern, yes, indeed, it does.

First off, it is important to recognize that there are certain passages that instruct us regarding separation from false teachers (Galatians 1:6-10, 2:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). There are, without a doubt, those who "twist" Scripture, and whose views, instead of being tolerated must be opposed and rebuked (1 Timothy 5:19-20; 2 Timothy 2:24-26, 3:1-9; Titus 1:9-11, 2:15; 2 Peter 3:16).
Next, there are other passages that teach us about the importance of unity within the Body of Christ (John 17:20-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, 3, & 12; Ephesians 2:11-22, 4:1-16).
Finally, and more directly relevant for the issue at hand, there are certain passages that teach us specifically about how to deal with differences of opinion on matters of interpretation with other members of the Body of Christ:

In Luke 9:49-50, the disciples of Jesus, upon seeing someone casting out demons who did not belong to their group, asked their Master whether or not they should rebuke him. Jesus' reply to them, in that context, seems to be instructive in regard to the issue we are discussing here: "for whoever is not against you is for you."

The classic passage on differences of opinion between true believers, however, is Romans 14. Due to the length limitations of the format in which we are working, I must leave a more detailed discussion of this passage for a future letter. For the time being, however, the following summary must suffice:

It is one thing to be as scrupulous as possible in our own personal obedience to what we understand to be the commands of Christ. It is something different, however, to take the same standard we apply to ourselves and to impose that as a litmus test or shibboleth of cooperation upon other believers who may come to different conclusions regarding how they should best obey the commands of Christ.

We must not forget, at the same time, that Christ does indeed enjoin us, by way of the teaching of Paul, to not be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Neither should we forget that there are false teachers and prophets who masquerade as believers (1 John 4:1). Therefore, the fact that someone claims to be a Christian is not, in and of itself, sufficient, when deciding to partner together with them in our efforts to be obedient to the Great Commission.

However, if some people, by their professed doctrine and observed practice, give us good evidence to believe they are indeed authentic blood-bought disciples of Jesus Christ, I find nothing in Scripture that adjoins us to refrain from fellowshipping with them and cooperating with them in the furtherance of the Gospel. We are to call into account those who fall into sin, and practice appropriate church discipline should they refuse to repent. But nowhere are we taught that we are to shun those who, in their sincere attempts to follow the commands of Christ, may find themselves in disagreement with us over points of doctrine and practice that do not compromise the essence of the gospel message itself.

Blessings,

David

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #12

2007-08-29T22:29:00.000-05:00

*Malcolm Yarnell and I have agreed together to post this second consecutive letter of his now, before my next letter, which will respond to both letters #11 and #12. --David

Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Dearest David,

The first evidence we have that Matthew 28:18-19 was identified as Christ’s "Great Commission" in the English language was apparently by Francis Johnson. He was a leading Separatist who exerted influence upon the earliest English Baptists, being the professor of John Smyth at Cambridge. In discussing Christ’s "last and great commission," Johnson stressed that all of Christ’s commands must be obeyed, no matter what others might say or do.1 The second reference to it was made my Robert Parsons, a Roman Catholic apologist for the papacy. But he believed the granting of the keys in Matthew 16 was the delegation of a plenitude of power to Peter, the presumed first bishop of Rome and his supposed papal successors. The final, evangelistic commission of Christ was not in Parsons’s mind.2

Intriguingly, it was a leading Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, who was the first to repeatedly and forcefully develop the idea that Matthew 28:16-20 is the Great Commission from which the Christian churches should live their lives.3 While Keach would agree with Johnson on the importance of obeying every one of Christ’s commands, the very order of the Great Commission was also inviolable to Keach. His response to a paedo-Baptist proponent should inform all who call themselves Baptists today,

Sir, All that are to be baptized, are, by virtue of the great Commission of our Saviour, to be first taught and made Disciples by teaching; and take heed you add not to his Word, nor attempt to invert the Order of the Charter and gracious Grant of the King of Heaven and Earth; nor go about, as you do, to make void his Commands by your own Traditions.4

I have exposited the Great Commission from Scripture elsewhere, and refer your readers, David, to that work,5 and to your own comments upon it. Rather than rehearsing that exposition, please allow me to focus in on at least one important implication of verses 18 and 19. This implication is what drives a lasting wedge between evangelical Baptists and other evangelicals. It is an implication that cannot be dismissed in the name of obeying Christ’s prayer for unity in John 17. Unity based on disobedience to Christ is not really unity in Christ but a spurious unity. "Bridge building" efforts, even if sentimental in emotion and loving in intent, that ignore the Great Commission of Jesus Christ are to be summarily rejected by true Christ followers.

The leading implication of the Great Commission proper that we must stress here is that it is Christ’s enduring commandment to the church. Indeed, Johnson is utterly correct in pointing out the Apostles planted the first churches upon the authority granted by Christ and according to the commands given by Christ. Johnson taught that Christ prescribed to the Apostles both "faith and order," and that Christians must be careful to stress both aspects in their teaching.6 We need to keep in mind here two ordered but coordinate essentials: First, obeying Christ’s "order" will not save you if you are not first born again by "faith" in Christ. In other words, we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone as a gracious work of the Spirit alone. Justification by God is necessary and prior to Christian obedience.

Second, however, true "faith" is immediately accompanied by obedience to the "order" of Christ. Speaking and expositing about the essential of one’s "faith" in Christ while dismissing the essential of obeying the "order" established by Christ is utterly sinful. The tendency known as Antinomianism, characteristic of especially the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, is to be identified by true Christian disciples as a perversion worthy of immediate rebuke and disciplinary exclusion by the truly ordered churches of Jesus Christ. Keach and the overwhelming majority of early Baptists (and their Anabaptist forefathers) understood this and acted upon it. This is why they would not hold communion with apostates or Independents or Presbyterians or Anglicans or Roman Catholics. Though these others might claim to be true Christians, they certainly did not (and do not) act as such.

I would agree wholeheartedly with our Baptist and Anabaptist forefathers. We must obey the Lord’s commission ourselves totally, even when others arrogantly or ignorantly refuse to submit entirely to Christ’s commands. Our forefathers suffered extreme persecution, including imprisonment, torture and horrendous execution from the hands of these other "Christians." It would be a betrayal of their witness to the truth that Christ’s Great Commission is to be obeyed in its entirety and according to its own order for Baptists to adopt open communion with those who subvert, pervert, or invert our Lord’s commands.

Yes, we need to unite around the essentials of the Christian faith, but we also need to unite around the essentials of the Christian order. Those Baptists who relegate the Christian order to a non-essential status significantly undermine the Great Commission of our Lord and Savior. Christ’s commands are essential for Christian obedience. Moreover, those Baptists who seek communion with disobedient Christians or naively refer to them as "Great Commission Christians" should repent.

We show love to others by pointing them to the grace available even to disobedient Christians (including ourselves) in Christ and by pointing them to the enduring nature of Christ’s orderly command. Let us love other Christians and ourselves by maintaining a distinct witness to the truth of the Great Commission and challenging all Christians to truly follow Christ. And if they will not follow Christ with us, let us weep over their hard hearts and pray that we do not likewise in this or any other area. Let us follow Christ, not men, even good men with whom we naturally desire Christian communion.

In Christ,

Malcolm

__________________________________

1"I proceed yet further to show that Christ that Prophet requireth not onely acknowledgment in word, but obedience indeed to all his ordinances given to his Church. This we learne both of Christ himself and of his Apostles. Of Christ himself, in his last and great commission given to his Apostles, when he sent them into the world, to publish his faith, and plant his Churches therein. In which he straitly charged them to teach all his people baptized in his name, not to acknowledg onely but, to keep and observ whatsoever he had commaunded them: and that even to the end of the world: not making any exception of Christian or heathen Magistrates, of theyr allowance or disallowance, or of any other worldly respects whatsoever. The Apostles also as they were commaunded, so they performed: both planting the Churches in that faith and order which Christ prescribed them, and requiring of the Churches so planted and of all other after them to the end of the world to keep that faith and order wherein they were sett, and to admitt of no other whatsoever, but to keep that without spot and vnrebukeable, untill the appearing of owr Lord Iesus Christ. And thus much concerning this matter." Francis Johnson, A treatise of the ministery of the Church of England (1595), 32.

2Robert Parsons, The warn-word to Sir Francis Hastinges wast-word (1602), 29.

3Benjamin Keach, The glorious lover (London, 1670), 256; idem, Pedo-baptism disproved (London, 1691), 1; idem, An appendix to the answer (1692), 1; idem, The ax laid to the root (1693), 21; idem, A counter-antidote (London, 1694), 1, 29; idem, Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness (1696), 54, 97, 229, 240, 305; idem, The Jewish Sabbath abrogated (London, 1700), 175-76. Cf. John Bunyan, Differences in judgment about water-baptism, no bar to communion (1673), 73.

4Keach, The rector rectified and corrected (1692), 78 (cf. pp. 27, 51).

5See http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/TheHeartofaBaptist_001.pdf.

6Unfortunately, Johnson refused to follow the implications of his teaching and opposed the reintroduction of Christian baptism in the English churches.

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

sbc IMPACT!

2007-08-28T21:25:00.000-05:00

On Sept. 1, a ground-breaking new group blog entitled sbc IMPACT! is set to begin.

According to the launch announcement:

sbc IMPACT! is the vision of a group of Southern Baptist bloggers who desire to host a truly edifying, thought-provoking, civil community for the examination and discussion of issues that affect Southern Baptist churches.

Instead of dwelling upon SBC politics and personalities, sbc IMPACT! will be a place where issues, even the tough issues, can be discussed and debated in a God-honoring manner. It will be a place where Southern Baptist ministries, churches, and missionaries can be highlighted and lifted up. It will be a place where differing views can be stated in an atmosphere of dignity and respect.

In short, the contributors at sbc IMPACT! want to work to bring Christ-like character, honorable speech, and real ministry to the discussion of Southern Baptist issues in the blogosphere.

I am excited and honored to form part of the list of regular contributors, along with editors Geoff Baggett and Rob Ayers, as well as fellow contributors Hariette Peterson (SelahV), Bowden McElroy, Tony Sisk, Roger Ferrell, Les Puryear, and Cyle Clayton.

Since arriving in the States from Spain a little more than a month ago, I have not posted quite as often as usual here at Love Each Stone, due to the busyness of transition, and, intermittent internet access. I hope to get back to my regular rhythm of posting here soon, though, as well as my additional contributions about once every 10 days at sbc IMPACT!

For the meantime, I invite you to go ahead and check out the launch announcment for sbc IMPACT!, as well as the Purpose Statement and Standards for Posting and Commenting, which are already on-line.