NOTE FROM CM: I regularly direct people to Michael Spencer’s classic essay, The Original Talk Hard: Defending the Role of the Critic in Christianity. I do this when we get criticism that we are being unloving and judgmental. I’m sure we fall into that trap sometimes, but the point is — there is a place for healthy, robust public critique, disputation, and debate within the Body of Christ. This lies at the heart of the prophetic tradition, and was exemplified by Jesus and the apostles. We need to be careful, yes. We should not jump to conclusions about motives. We try to publicly critique only those who put themselves forward publicly. We remain open to critique from others. Etc.

Today, we present a follow-up piece that Michael wrote to his original essay, which focuses on the place of dissent and individual conviction within a common culture.

• • •

Recently, I received an email from someone who has been a longtime reader of this blog, giving his reasons for being a regular reader and generous supporter.

This particular reader appreciated the writing I’ve done on the subjects of mental illness, psychiatric medication and emotional health. As this person is a professional in those fields and far beyond me in understanding, I was understandably happy to read that email.

I have received many thousands of emails in the last 8 years of Internet Monk. A sizable portion express appreciation for something that deserves a moment’s consideration: that this blog is one of the few places some folks have found where certain points of view can be discussed with relative civility.

I won’t attempt a listing, but any regular readers will know that I’ve made it part of the mission of this blog to be present an alternative view of any number of issues within evangelicalism in particular. I do so with provocative writing if possible, and with active moderation of the discussion. I’ve done this without expectation of finding there would be thousands of people reading and thinking: “O I’m not the only person who feels this way.” In fact, I’ve expected considerably more hostility and objection than I’ve received.

Recently, the IM comment threads have started routinely going over 100 comments. Interpret that as you will. In all the time I’ve done this blog, I have temporarily banned around 20 people, and absolutely banned 2.

Yesterday, a commenter aired the usual complaints at me:

• I don’t affirm inerrancy.
• I’m critical of “my brethren.”
• I give “Papists and liberals” plenty of space.
• I limit conversation.

Of course, as most readers know, I fully affirm the truthfulness of the Bible in the language of the Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession. Ask any of the dozens of advocates of gay marriage and gay ordination how I’m doing on taking the Bible seriously. What I’m not doing is allowing the word “inerrancy” to become a code word for a set of positions I don’t believe the Bible teaches. I’m not turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy that the “inerrancy” stampede has foisted on my denomination. Give me a confession made before the word “inerrancy” was invented, and I’m perfectly content.

There are thousands of people who don’t buy the kind of flat, literalistic inerrancy that is being sold among conservative evangelicals today, and, sorry to disappoint the gallery, but we don’t have to. Being a Baptist doesn’t force me to buy the search for the ark, young earth creationism, Hamm/Hovind, complementarianism, homeschooling, conspiracy theories, Dobson’s view of politics, bad Christian art, arrogant leaders, bad scholarship or the SBC’s view of itself as compared to other denominations.

Yes, I am critical of some of my brethren. I’ve never lived a day in Protestantism that there wasn’t a critical conversation going on. If the memo has gone out that we’ve stop asking questions and contending for answers, I didn’t get it. My blog is one tiny voice in the midst of a massive evangelical self-promotion machine. When I first called for the outing of Osteen as a motivational speaker, what had you heard from anyone in the evangelical establishment about him? (Oh, that’s different. Of course it is.)

The animosity some have towards this writer and this space comes simply because I have staked out a different position than they’ve been led to believe is the only allowable, God-endorsed, position allowed by the Christian worldview. Their orthodoxy, and the God who sponsors it, requires that dissent be quenched as an act of faithfulness. When I express dissent and protect its expression by others, I’m certain to be told by some amateur fundamentalist Freudian there’s something psychologically wrong with me. (Friend, if you believe you are the ultimate measure of mental health, please go on a world tour so the rest of us can see what it looks like. But just between you and me, I wouldn’t quit my day job on that one.)

The commenting voices at this site give witness to another view. There are Protestants who aren’t Catholics and don’t hate Catholics. There are Catholics willing to talk with Protestants as fellow Christians. There are Orthodox and mainliners seeking to relate to evangelicalism. There are Lutherans insisting we all know nothing about law and gospel. (That’s a joke.) There are Baptists who question the “What we need is more evangelism!” mantra. There are evangelicals who have nuanced views on the issue of abortion, women’s ordination, the nature of homosexuality and the Christian view of mental illness. There are people who give “Papists” and “liberals” space to talk just like the other kids in the class. There are many of us lost in the evangelical wilderness trying to find a drink of water and some food.

I don’t endorse all these views or their opposites. There are a number of issues where I’m not sure what I think, but I am determined to not be railroaded into being told that I must endorse or bow down to positions that I do not hold, am not required to hold and are not my conviction. I’m just as determined to tell my audience that other views exist as held by REAL PEOPLE.

Roger Williams

If you look out in the back yard of the last twenty years of battles in the Southern Baptist Convention, there’s a baby in the bathwater. That baby’s older name was “soul competency.” More recently, he went by the name “priesthood of the believer,” but I like the previous name much better. In the “battle for the Bible” in the SBC, the moderate/liberals took those terms and used/abused them, causing conservatives to spend most of two decades bad-mouthing “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer” as anathema to Bible-believing Christianity. Some of that response was necessary, but some of it has been singularly unfortunate and overblown.

In truth, Baptists have historically stood with the individual in his right to have his/her own convictions in regard to what scripture or a person’s own religion teaches. We sided with that principle when it caused us to defend Muslims and atheists. We sided with that conviction as a proper summary of Luther’s contention that his conscience about the Bible was adequate defense as to why he stood against the Pope. We defended that principle as essential to the classic definition separation of church and state endorsed religion. We understood that, without embracing all the tenets of anarchic individualism, it was right to protect and hear the minority. We rejected, historically, the tyranny of a class of theological enforcers and their political ambitions. We defended confessionalism, but we did not mindlessly defend all levels of uniformity. We realized, after painful lessons in the civil rights era and beyond, that the majority and their Bibles can be completely wrong.

Today, we live in an evangelicalism that is enamored with numbers and success. And of course, those vast numbers are told they must think, write, worship, vote, educate, live, preach and teach identically to one another because they possess the truth. (Or someone at the home office does…somewhere.) This is the sadness of being ranted at about the “sin” of refusing to use the proscribed word to describe inspiration or of daring to differ with some well-funded, fat cat majority with a mailing list. I may be wrong, but this web site is exercising something Baptist Christians used to care deeply about: DISSENT.

But in today’s atmosphere of sheeple following the media and denominational shepherds, we place no value on dissent. It’s far more impressive to rant about my failure to appreciate the fact that anyone who waves a Bible around should be free from having anyone actually differ with them. It’s now good, conservative sport to tell a dissenting fellow Christian that, as I heard today, my faith is about to collapse and/or I’m going Catholic. All this- ALL- because you have steadfastly decided other views are not worthy of your RESPECTFUL appreciation.

The reason I am unafraid to side with the dissenters and those asking questions that aren’t allowed is that history is moving to our side. The manipulators of orthodoxy are in trouble. They’ve taken our confidence and put the screws to us for the sake of their own power. The celebrity-driven churches are, for the most part, going to be exposed as having no clothes. The laboratories that produce these evangelical clones are shutting down as the experiments seem to have gone horribly wrong. The deluded majority can act as if they have squashed everyone’s arguments and rendered all competing opinions foolish, but in fact, quite the opposite is happening. A lot of people are dissenting, even in an atmosphere of intimidation and spiritual abuse. Write all the books and blogs you want. Have a conference and get 3000 men to wring their hands with you. You aren’t gong to stop the collapse of the kind of authoritarian fundamentalism that wants to keep all of evangelicalism in a stranglehold. It’s over.

Occasionally, I write with the express purpose of sounding a wake up call. I’m provocative and my audience appreciates that in my writing. I am not sounding so much of a call to arms as a literal wake up alarm to the sluggish and the sleepy. We are standing on the brink of momentous changes in the evangelical world. Many Christians brought up in a fundamentalism with all of the answers have discovered things are much different than they would have anticipated. They are exploring this new world, even as the old one is still shifting beneath their feet. Part of that experience is being told you shouldn’t speak or write what you feel. The better part of the experience is ignoring that, and speaking exactly what you’re thinking, feeling and discovering. “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say,” as Will Shakespeare put it.

In the meantime, I consider IM a public service to people who need to get out of the way before a chunk of crumbling evangelicalism falls on their head. If the house isn’t falling where you are, that’s wonderful. Make whatever you want out of the reports from my part of the house. That’s your privilege as a reader.

Classic iMonk Post

Note from CM: A reader wrote me this week and asked about whether she should be re-baptized. After being baptized as an infant, she grew up in a nominal Catholic home, came “back to God” (her words) as an adult, and now the church she is attending requires her to be baptized to become a member. I gave her my view of baptism, which discourages the practice of re-baptism, since I view baptism as a sacrament through which God works rather than a human work by which we testify to God. At any rate, the exchange reminded me that Michael Spencer, a Southern Baptist, wrote quite a bit on the subject of re-baptism. Today, we present some of his classic thoughts, taken from posts that were published in September of 2008.

• • •

I know there are several angles to this subject, varying according to your own denominational preference. I am going to be writing from my position as an evangelical, a Southern Baptist and a lifelong minister to youth.

I’m going to write about rebaptism, an issue that has deeply affected and weakened my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and an issue that touches every Christian communion I am aware of in some way.

Rebaptism is a very emotional issue. One reason we don’t talk about it is how quickly it becomes an occasion for disagreement and division. I have seen many tears and heard many angry words over this subject. Just thinking about it and remembering what I have experienced has brought strong emotions back to me, even as I wrote.

Baptism stands at the entrance to the Christian experience. Christians may differ on exactly where that doorway occurs in relation to faith or forgiveness, and they may quibble about how directly that doorway leads into full communion in the church, but all Christians place baptism at the beginning of the Christian life, and assume that those who walk through it are, in some way, a part of the visible people of God.

In baptism, all Christians believe divine promises are heard. All Christians believe that baptism is, in various and very diverse ways, related to faith. All Christians believe that when the Church baptizes, it speaks a word from God to the one baptized, and a word to all Christians and all other persons who know the one baptized.

Amidst all the diverse and differing beliefs regarding baptism, there is a great common belief: This person is a part of God’s people, and is the recipient of God’s great promises in the Gospel.

I say all of this to make one point: For anyone to reject baptism- either their own or another’s- is a powerful and serious statement. It is powerfully divisive.

To reject one’s own baptism is to say something deeply revealing about what one believes about baptism, but more importantly, it is to say something revealing regarding the Gospel itself.

Rebaptism and the rejection of baptism that precedes it are full of ironies.

For example, my own Southern Baptist tradition does not believe in baptismal regeneration nor in the efficacy of baptism being tied to a particular congregation, yet Southern Baptists reject the baptisms of Roman Catholics- whether as adult believers or as infants- while the Roman Catholic church, which does believe the waters of baptism remove sin and that their church is the one and only true church, accepts the baptisms of Southern Baptists as valid.

It is Roman Catholics and most mainline Protestants who will refuse to rebaptize, while evangelicals often will rebaptize the same person multiple times over a period of a few years. Rebaptism by request for sentimental reasons- “My wife is being baptized and I want to be rebaptized with her”- is now commonplace.

Evangelicals will justify their own rebaptisms glibly, as if nothing were at stake at all in saying “I was baptized when I was 12, but I didn’t know what I was doing.” In fact, such a statement, while obviously meaningful as a description of an individual’s journey, has deep implications for the church and the Gospel.

In my own tradition, churches frequently refuse to accept other evangelicals baptized on their profession of faith, including other Baptists, without rebaptism. Such a posture has enormous implications regarding baptism, the Gospel and the church.

Those being rebaptized are seldom asked about their previous baptism, discipleship or Christian experience. Those who baptized and received them as Christians are left to assume they were wrong.

But most evangelicals seem clueless as to the seriousness of the issue of rebaptism. Submerged in the clamor for church growth, baptism has become a generator of statistics, and in that role rebaptism is seen as a blessing.

Only a few critics have the courage to point out that many “growing, evangelistic” churches are baptizing a percentage of their own members 2 and 3 times, while they are rebaptizing other Christians and acting as if these are conversions when they are not.

What does rebaptism look like among evangelicals today?

It looks like this:

• A growing church requires anyone not immersed in a Southern Baptist Church to be rebaptized.
• An evangelistic crusade at a church-related college results in over 200 decisions. Almost 2/3rds initially indicate that they are not Christians. Many will be rebaptized, even though they came to a Christian school after professing faith in Christ at their home churches for years. A local church will rebaptize many of these students who were baptized in their home churches.
• After a revival, several of the deacons of a Baptist church- and the pastor’s wife and children- are rebaptized. The deacons continue serving as deacons.
• A Baptist woman marries a Pentecostal man. The pastor who marries them says it would be a good idea of the man were rebaptized.
• A woman is saved in a Baptist church. Her husband and children all ask to be rebaptized with her.
• The entire youth group returns from summer camp and the youth minister asks the pastor that all the students be rebaptized. These are all the children of church leaders, and all were baptized in the past. The pastor baptizes them all at the next worship service.
• A young adult woman asks her pastor to rebaptize her because, after a recent Beth Moore conference, she’s much more serious about her faith and wants to say that she’s starting over as a Christian.
• A pastor tells the congregation that he is rebaptizing a man because, the man “just wants to be sure” that he’s a Christian.
• A girl at a Christian school is rebaptized for the 4th time in 2 years. A teacher asks the pastor why, and he says “I don’t want to discourage her in her walk with Christ.”
• A woman tells her pastor that she has not been living as a Christian the past few years, and now she wants to be resaved and rebaptized.
• A man immersed in believer’s baptism in a Presbyterian church is told that in order to join a Baptist church he’s visiting, he must be rebaptized because Presbyterians believe in infant baptism.

Today, rebaptism is most often a witness to the decreasing meaning of baptism among Baptists and evangelicals.

Today’s rebaptism crisis exists because Baptists have largely evacuated their previous convictions on theology and the importance of the local congregation, and have replaced those standards with a complete surrender to personal experience and the wisdom of the church growth movement. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper create major issues for the agenda of today’s evangelical churches, and the inevitable response is going to be 1) a misreading of any doctrinal distinctives regarding baptism and 2) a subordination of the meaning and practice baptism to Christian experience and church growth.

The evacuation of theology and the triumph of the church growth mentality have left Baptists with few resources to understand what is meant by “one baptism” in Ephesians. Baptism has become an extension of denominational identity (“Baptist” baptism) and the servant of whatever religious experience the individual wants to report as re-conversion or appropriate for baptism.

Baptism’s place and purpose in the Christian life are narrow and not subjective. It is not open for reinterpretation as a witness to the distinction between Pentecostals and Baptists. It does not represent denominational distinctives, but the heart of the Gospel. Baptists who insist on rebaptism because a denomination speaks in tongues or believes in the possibility of apostasy are twisting baptism to have a meaning it does not have. It is a local church ordinance, but it witnesses to the oneness of all Christians in being joined to Christ.

Baptism is not available to bear witness to recommitments or other experiences. It witnesses to the inauguration of a person’s entrance into the new creation.

Further problems with rebaptism arise because of a lack of practical theology of the Christian life, in particular the normal experiences of growth and sanctification. Baptists and other evangelicals have become so confused about the Gospel that millions of Christians come for rebaptism when they have simply experienced normal growth, repentance, sanctification or other experiences that are part of the Christian life.

Christian leaders and preachers bear a huge responsibility for failing- or refusing- to discern the proper response to rebaptism situations. It takes a mature leader to lay aside ego and look at what is Biblically appropriate, rather than what will generate more baptisms.

Pastors must find the courage to raise issues related to baptism and to do the right thing. This may mean rebaptism in some instances. As Anglican Peter Mathews said, Baptists are showing integrity in their own principles when they define baptism in a way that excludes infant baptism. Where I might disagree slightly is on the “Piper Proposal” for accommodating those who believe that rebaptism violates their conscience and rejects a legitimate form of baptism. I see no damage to Baptist principles to allow a form of fellowship, an allowance for service and a freedom to come to the Lord’s table for those with different baptisimal convictions who are part of the larger “one church, one faith, one baptism” family.

Read the Original “Re-Baptism” Posts

• Re-Baptism: What Is It?
• Re-Baptism: How Did We Get Here?
• Re-Baptism: Where Do We Go from Here?

We like the creeds….except for the catholic parts.

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints…” -The Apostle’s Creed

“And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;… Amen.” – The Nicene Creed

I’ve been in probably 3000+ Baptist led worship services. With the exception of seminary and two years that I was on staff at Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, I have almost never been in a Baptist church service or class where we used the Apostle’s or Nicene Creeds for any reason. (OK…the Founder’s Conference. You guys get some love.)

That’s because we knew they were trouble. And I know why. Let’s journey back to my youth among the Landmark version of Southern Baptists, a common variety in Kentucky in the 50′s and beyond, even to this day.

The anti-Roman Catholicism in my SBC upbringing extended to a general suspicion that “creeds” were instruments of Roman Catholic superstition. So while we were devoted to the King James Bible, the 1956 Baptist Hymnal and Southern Baptist Sunday School literature, the great creeds of the church could take a hike. A long hike.

If, however, by some strange circumstance, these two creeds were to somehow have found themselves used in worship or teaching, and our people had been able to hold them in their hands and see the words for themselves….they would have not been happy.

“Catholic.” That word. The “c-word.” The word that must be explained a thousand times. The word that is so much trouble, some have reworded those lines of the creeds to avoid the controversy.

It’s not just in Baptist circles…or in conservative evangelical circles, for that matter. I’ve had to explain the term “catholic church” to almost every visitor who has ever come to my church. (Yes…mostly Baptists.) They listen and nod, but I don’t think my explanation does much good. Given the choice of “No creed but Christ,” or “We believe the Apostle’s/Nicene Creeds,” the majority of Christians in my environment would have no trouble choosing door number one.

The Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed were never going to surface in my Baptist circles, because the language of those creeds defined the church in a way that opened all sorts of difficulties for people who believed that the church was their local congregation, and local congregations just like them.

The Campbellites (Church of Christ) and the Roman Catholics would engage us Baptists in debate about which church was the “one, true” church Jesus founded. Landmark theology allowed my church to give an answer: the true church was the church that had the New Testament marks of the church.

What were the marks of a true church?

“MARKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH”

1. Its Head and Founder–CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)
2. Its only rule of faith and practice–THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)
3. Its name–”CHURCH,” “CHURCHES.” (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)
4. Its polity–CONGREGATIONAL–all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)
5. Its members–only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)
6. Its ordinances–BELIEVERS’ BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20)
7. Its officers–PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)
8. Its work–getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God’s Word), teaching them (“to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”). (Matt. 28:16-20)
9. Its financial plan–”Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel,” (I Cor. 9:14)
10. Its weapons of warfare–spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)
11. Its independence–separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

Or, from the same source…

1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
6. Its members. Believers only, they saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all New Testament laws.
8. The various churches–separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to God–but cooperative in work.
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
10. Absolute Religious liberty for all.

What these distinguishing marks did was very good. What they did not do, however, was address two issues raised in the creeds and in our interactions with other Christians.

First, what is the “universal,” or “catholic” church? The invisible, one body of Christ through all time and history? Is there such a thing?

How does this universal church relate to the local church? Are they identical? Particularly, how does membership in the universal church relate to membership in the local church?

It appeared quite possible to my Baptist friends that if one admitted that the Methodist pastor was a member of the true body of Christ, then the local Baptist church’s claim to being the “true” church in the above list was compromised. Here was someone who was accepted by Christ, but unacceptable to our local congregation.

This caused a host of problems. As the idea of the “universal” church was virtually eliminated from our way of thinking about the church (and even ridiculed), it became necessary to tell a host of people that they could not be members of our church unless they were rebaptized (or in most cases, reprofessed their faith in Christ from scratch, as if they had never been Christians.)

This eventually came to mean something else; something that was said, not loudly, but plainly: our church, the Baptist congregation, was the one, true church that Jesus founded, and other churches were…were…well….

This was the second issue—What were other churches? The Roman Catholic Church was the whore of Rome and the home of the future anti-Christ. But what about the Methodists? Pentecostals? Presbyterians?

Our church was straightforward. These other congregations were not churches. They were “religious societies,” and the persons in them were, generally, lost, or at least so confused and poorly taught that you should approach them as unbelievers and seek to get them saved.

One, holy, catholic, apostolic church? Such a concept played no part in our church at all. Our church was the church. Our denomination was not a church. There was no invisible, universal church. There was a New Testament list of the characteristics of local congregations, and our church had them all. No other church did.

(Non SBC Baptists really bugged us, by the way. Our church finally decided that if they didn’t use Southern Baptist literature and participate in our denominational missions program, then there was good reason to assume they were not “real” Baptists.)

Now a majority of trustees of the IMB and an increasing number of conservative SBC leaders are ready to move the SBC back toward the atmosphere and claims of my youth among the Landmarkers, where you were about as likely to hear a sermon on the “catholic” church as you were to hear a list of the pastor’s favorite beers.

Today, these advocates are prepared to say that those not baptized in a Baptist church that believes in “eternal security” (i.e. any Arminian/Charismatic/independent church) and ties that endorsement explicitly to baptism have not been baptized legitimately and must be rebaptized. They are prepared to say that baptism is an endorsement of an entire slate of conservative Baptist theological positions, and any church that falls short of those commitments is not providing a legitimate Baptism.

They are prepared to say that there is no legitimate Christian church, no Christian baptism and no Christian ministry outside of what is practiced by non-Arminian Baptists in local churches. They are prepared to, once again, emphasize an understanding of the church that will never be disturbed by the question of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church existing outside the distinctives of contemporary conservative Southern Baptists.

I will not roll call the names of the churches, ministers and fellow Christians whose legitimacy in the Body of Christ will be rejected by this shift. Most Baptists are not interested in a return to the catholic Christianity of the creeds. I am well aware of this. They will stand side by side with brothers and sisters in the cause of the contemporary culture war, but they have no interest in seeing the church itself in larger, more catholic terms.

What does this mean? It means that, for all intents and purposes, until someone comes to a Baptist congregation, walks a Baptist aisle, is immersed in Baptist water by a Baptist minister, they will not be accepted as one who is legitimately part of the Body of Christ. It may take a while for this to be revealed, but it is the case.

Those of us who believe in the catholicity of the church are also, generally, persons who value our denominational confessions and who understand the differences in our churches. We grieve over the divisions in the family/body, but we recognize that we cannot take the church seriously one one level (catholicity) and not on another level (local congregation/denomination.)

I have no quarrel with those who derive a “list” of New Testament church characteristics from the Bible and seek to live by those. But I do reject the notion that our churches are so right, so correct and so in conformity to scripture that we can pronounce other churches, baptisms and ministers as merely “religious societies.” Rejecting those who profess faith in Christ and seek to follow him as I do is a serious business, and I am unsure why we seem to be relishing the opportunity to do more of it.

In other words, we need a “generous catholicity.” Not a competition where the winner plays the role of the brat, but a humble and sincere attempt to see Christ in his church, and not just in ours. It will not hurt us to say that Christ’s church is larger than our own, or to act like it.

• We differ on Baptism. Can we agree that Baptism belongs to Christ, and is not dispensed by the church?
• We differ on matters such as “eternal security” and speaking in tongues. Can we agree that the Holy Spirit manifests himself in his church according to his good pleasure, and not only within the bounds of our preferences (or nice theological conclusions?)
• We differ on church government. Can we agree that Christ is the head of the church?
• We differ on how we profess our faith. Can we agree that we receive a brother in Jesus name’ and not our own?
• We differ on the Lord’s Table. Can we agree that all of us read the same texts with the same passion to be connected to Christ through that table, and that even if we cannot share it together, we can agree that it is our table, and the table where our elder brother seats us all in places of honor?

We differ on much and always will. Can we agree that we are all…all of us…the church catholic? The one, holy, apostolic, blood-bought, inheritance of Jesus? That we are all the fruit of his incarnation and suffering, and that our divisions do not divide Christ (I Corinthians 1:13), but only ourselves from our family?

I am glad for all the Baptist tradition gave to me and to my family, but if my Southern Baptist brothers are going to all but erase the “catholic” church from our common faith, I will pray that the project fails and that God will raise up a better generation, with a deeper love for all the church.

By Chaplain Mike

This week’s Christianity Today magazine has a cover feature on Beth Moore. I have not read all of it yet, but while I am in the process, I thought I would give our Internet Monk community a chance to answer the question the title implies:

Why are people (especially women) so attracted to Beth Moore and her teaching?

CT labels her “the most popular Bible teacher in America.”

I will admit that I am not familiar with her teaching, but I do know that she is Southern Baptist, sells obscene numbers of books, that many, many churches are using her studies and videos, and that her events in cities across the country draw record crowds.

What has been your experience with Moore and her teaching ministry? What have you appreciated? What, if anything, concerns you?

Sisters, speak out! Since Moore’s ministry is directed to women, we need to hear especially from you.

By Chaplain Mike

I both loved and was troubled by David Platt’s bold, clear book, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. It’s an impressive first effort, but I have my concerns.

For starters, the author must be deemed a prodigy. I mean, the guy was in his mid-20′s when he was called to pastor The Church at Brook Hills, in Birmingham, AL, which now has over 4000 members! Platt has two undergraduate and three graduate degrees, has served as Dean of Chapel and Assistant Professor of Expository Preaching and Apologetics at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and as Staff Evangelist at Edgewater Baptist Church in New Orleans. Now he pastors a wealthy suburban megachurch. He’s 31.

Michael Spencer expressed appreciation for Platt’s words to a national meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention last year, calling him, “one of the young lions in the SBC who are changing the face of a denomination by dealing with the denominational idolatry that is our greatest problem.”

Then there is Platt’s church and the emphasis he is calling for among the people at Brook Hills, a congregation of over 4000 members and a multi-million dollar budget. Platt describes the church as, “a predominantly suburban congregation made up of middle-to-upper-class individuals and families trying to figure out how to forsake the American dream for the sake of Christ’s glory in all nations.” The Vision, Mission and Goal Statement of Brook Hills is a well-stated description of a church that desires to see itself more and more as a missionary organization, “a base of ministry, not a place of ministry.”

Platt seems ideally suited to lead such a congregation. He has traveled widely, ministering in some of the hard places around the world, including working with refugees in Sudan, the underground church in China, and serving in India and Indonesia. His book is filled with personal anecdotes from these global experiences, and it is obvious that he has been affected deeply by them. Platt and his wife have adopted orphaned children from overseas. He can speak credibly and with personal perspective to Americans about lifestyle issues, sacrifice, the persecuted church, and the world’s needs.

Platt is Bible-centered. He is passionate about preaching and teaching the Word of God. Listeners have been impressed with his grasp of the Scriptures and ability to communicate their message. In a 2009 CT interview, he stated his commitment: “God by his grace provided men in my life who poured the Word into me and taught me the supremacy of his Word, that any power in walking with Christ, even more so leading a church, is dependent on understanding God in his Word.” His chapter explaining the Gospel provides a clear (though simplistic) evangelical statement of the world’s need and Christ’s provision.

What’s not to like?

First of all, let me say wholeheartedly, there is a LOT to like. In my view, Platt should be commended for his commitment to the Bible, for his plain speaking about its implications for our (wealthy) American lifestyles, for his love for the world and enthusiastic call for the church to be a missionary people. He represents much that is right about evangelicalism.

I admire his courage in boldly challenging his comfortable suburban congregation to take clear, simple steps to help them break free from their attachment to the American Dream in order to make Christ known. “The Radical Experiment,” which originated in the Brook Hills church, and is outlined in the book, challenges us, over the course of a year, to:

1. Pray for the entire world;
2. Read through the entire Bible;
3. Sacrifice your money for a particular purpose;
4. Spend your time in another context;
5. Commit your life to a multiplying community.

Stories throughout the book illustrate how individuals and families in the church have grasped the teaching and made significant changes, simplifying their lifestyles, practicing redemptive acts of service, going and sometimes moving overseas or into other needy areas to reach people with the gospel. Pastor Platt and his wife sold their house, downsized, adopted orphans, and by his own report are on a continuing journey to learn how to follow Jesus so that the world might be reached with his love and salvation.

Radical is a simple, clear, exhilarating, inspiring read with much to commend. However, I do have some thoughts on the concern side as well.

First, Platt’s book is characterized by the pure, kinetic zeal of radical youth. One almost hyperventilates reading it. He is so passionate, so earnest, so zealous and direct in making his points that Platt often comes close to Michael Spencer’s dreaded “Wretched Urgency,” an imbalanced enthusiasm lacking in perspective and nuance. It’s “saved to serve” for a new generation. But—how radical must I be to be truly radical? If the book is any indication, it’s pedal to the metal, 24/7. Not realistic, nor sustainable. I wish his vision was more specifically and deeply grounded in the Cross, grace, worship, contemplation, suffering, and spiritual formation, and his writing more tuned to the rhythm and pace of walking with Christ. Perhaps in time.

Second, Platt doesn’t say much about how this radical approach is affecting his church as an organization. In several places, he alludes to the disconnect readers may sense (and which he himself admits to having) between what he is saying and the fact that he pastors a rich suburban megachurch committed to impressive, comfortable facilities and a full program of activities. In the church’s vision statement, there is this goal: “We must become decreasingly dependent on ministries that require large budgets and large buildings,” but nowhere in Radical does he flesh that out. It is clear that Platt believes small groups are the “multiplying communities” out of which the radical mission is best lived, but beyond that, he says little about the actual community life of the congregation and how the church’s “lifestyle” may be changing because of this teaching. That would be especially helpful for other pastors reading this book.

Third, I can’t help but thinking that, to the American mind, Radical represents yet another form of spiritual technology designed to transform us as we apply it. It can come across as a program—One year + five practices = Result: transformation & impact. Platt is “methodistic” in his approach to faith and mission, Henry Ford-like in his pragmatism. The step-based motivational approach appeals to American practicality and love of the “how to” way of solving problems and “taking care of business.” He could do highly successful infomercials for missions. I felt a sense of dissonance at times reading about disengaging from the American Dream when the the alternative was being stated in such an “American Dream-like” style. Platt himself may be soaked in Scripture and have a broader world perspective, but one could see how followers might grab hold of the “program” and develop a gung-ho American type of zeal lacking depth or knowledge.

Conclusion
I recommend reading Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. It is invigorating and challenging.

If we accept this book as:

1. the direct, passionate appeal of a gifted young Christ-follower
2. who is on an ongoing journey of his own,
3. who has God’s heart for the world,
4. who has written these words specifically to American Christians,
5. who need a strong introduction to the implications of the Gospel for their lifestyles,
6. and who need to be challenged to deeper, more sacrificial involvement in God’s mission,

then it will serve a salutary purpose as one part of the move toward less churchianity and a more Jesus-shaped participation in the Missio Dei.

As a student at Southern Seminary in the early 80′s, I was blessed beyond measure to have a young, brilliant and engaging church history professor named Dr. Timothy George. I’ve long admired Dr. George and his teaching on the Reformation ranks as some of the most formative teaching I ever received. His books and talks bear all the marks of a true Christian statesman, scholar and ecumenist. He ranks among the foremost Baptist historians in the world.

Today Dr. George continues to serve as the founding dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham and a senior editor of Christianity Today. He is a participant in the project known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together and also serves on the International Baptist-Catholic Dialogue team.

I recently wrote Dr. George and asked for his comments on this question: “How can Baptists respond to Catholic and Orthodox Christians who challenge our view of the Lord’s Supper as having no deeper historical/Biblical roots than Zwingli?”

Dr. George was kind enough to send along this reply. I’m deeply appreciative of his generosity.

Among many Baptist Christians there is a growing awareness that the Supper of the Lord should have a more prominent (and frequent) place in the life of worship, as it certainly did in the early church. There is also the realization that a more robust doctrine of (what Calvin called) the real spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper is called for by the participationist language of the New Testament itself and is in keeping with the best traditions of Baptist life. No less a figure than Charles Haddon Spurgeon portrayed the Lord’s Supper as nothing less than an encounter with the living Christ himself: “At all times when you come to the communion table, count it to have been no ordinance of grace to you unless you have gone right through the veil into Christ’s own arms, or at least have touched his garment, feeling that the first object, the life and soul of the means of grace, is to touch Jesus Christ himself.”

For most of our history, Baptists have been more concerned with the externals of the Table—grape juice or real wine, who may preside, who may partake—rather than with the question of what actually goes on at this sacred meal. It is well known that Luther and Zwingli differed strongly, and actually broke fellowship with one another, over the meaning of the words of institution, “This is my body.” Historically, Baptists have belonged more to the Reformed (whether Zwinglian or Calvinist) side of that debate, but it is important to realize that all of the mainline reformers reacted against the displacement of the Lord’s Supper as the central focus of Christian worship in medieval Catholicism. They criticized the fact that the Eucharist had become clericalized (the service in Latin and only bread for the laity), commercialized (votive masses used as a fundraising scheme in much of the church), and scholasticized (the dogma of transubstantiation and the view of the mass as a sacrifice).

The reformers harked back to the teaching of the New Testament, the practice of the early church, and especially to the theology of St. Augustine. Augustine argued that in the sacrament the sign must be identified as a sign by a word spoken about it, thus making the sacrament itself a “visible word.” In commenting on John 6:50, Augustine wrote: “ ‘He who eats of this bread will not die.’ But that means the one who eats what belongs to the power of the sacrament, not simply to the visible sacrament; the one who eats inwardly, not merely outwardly; the one who eats the sacrament in the heart not just the one who crushes it with his teeth” (In Ev. Joh. Tract. 26.12). While Luther could speak of the manducatio impiorum, “the eating of the ungodly,” the Reformed tradition picked up Augustine’s distinction and emphasized the cruciality of faith for the proper reception of the beneficium of grace in the Supper. This same theology they found echoed in other pre-reformation figures including Ratramnus, Wycliffe, and Hus. What they rejected, in keeping with Luther, was an understanding of the sacrifice of the mass as an expression of works-righteousness, a theology which seemed to them to undermine the all-sufficiency of Jesus’s once-and-for-all death on the cross—where, as Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer put it, he offered “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.”

Since the sixteenth century, and especially in the liturgical renewal stemming from Vatican II, many of the changes called for by the reformers have been accepted in the practice of the Catholic Church. Yet important, church-dividing differences still remain and I think the Church of Rome is right to resist the kind of easy-going ecumenism that would ignore such differences in order to achieve a false unity. In our discussions with our Catholic brothers and sisters, we Baptists and evangelicals must learn to distinguish the unity we are called to affirm and the divisions we must still sustain. But this we should do in the spirit of Jesus’s high priestly prayer for his disciples in John 17—“that they may be one, Father, as you and I are one so that world may believe.”

Sources:
Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers
Steve Harmon, Towards Baptist Catholicity
Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology

Communion (Really) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.

A commenter in the previous post asks,

For those of us who live in pretty close knit baptist circles, give us a short run down – playing devil’s advocate- of the weaknesses you mention in the Baptist view…Other than the whole “real presence” argument, I’m not aware of any other complaints or criticisms.

This gives me an excuse to write about the Baptist and evangelical situation involving the Lord’s Supper, which I’m always glad to do.

For starters, it might do us good to consider what happens when the various traditions articulate a theology of the Lord’s Supper at their best. In my opinion, the primary difference isn’t the issue of “real presence.” Baptists and the Reformed can come up with language that’s so close to the language I hear in some Eucharistic prayers that the differences become matters for theologians. No, the primary differences, in my view, are transubstantiation, i.e. [I was going to offer a simple definition, but that's a fool's errand], and the issue of the nature of the bread and wine themselves, which in my view eventually becomes a discussion of some aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit, no matter what you believe. Of course there are other issues, but these two seem to stake out the largest differences on a practical level. I don’t see any real possible progress on either, so we should move on.

As to Baptists- well, it’s a mess and I challenge anyone to show me that it’s not a mess. Really, it’s embarrassing and quite a personal matter. If my tradition of Baptists had some kind of moderately serious approach to the Lord’s Supper my wife and I would probably not be looking at the reality of never communing together again. I place that painful disaster at the feet of the Baptist failure to understand their poverty in this area. Don’t get me started.

Even more grievous is the knowledge that this failure isn’t necessary. Baptists took the Supper seriously in Spurgeon’s church. The 1689 Confession takes it seriously. Our failure to do so is simply an example of gnosticism traveling in a Protestant disguise and sheer, unapologetic neglect. Most of the Baptists that I know who have thought about this have come around to Calvin’s view of the nature of the Lord’s Supper anyway (which is what you have in the 1689 Confession.) Most Baptists wouldn’t defend our practice of the Lord’s Supper if they were paid to do so. The sermon by Chanski- like it or not- couldn’t be preached in 95% of the Baptist churches I know because no one has thought that long about what’s going on.

The singular worst part is the mad rush to deemphasize the meaning of the Supper so as to not have a shred of sacramentalism anywhere in sight. Most pastors are afraid that anything other that constant assurances that the supper means nothing will lead to rampant fascination with magic. When someone suggests emphasizing the supper more, all these pastors see is problems: sacramentalism, Catholicism, high church liturgy, issues of church discipline, boredom, confusion. The idea that Christ is present and preached in the supper seems to be intolerable. Now if you said the highest possible sacramental things about the Bible, they would be all over it. But not the supper.

The current reign of church growth pragmatism has virtually killed the Lord’s Supper among many evangelicals. It’s a high crime, as bad as any liberal betrayal of the Gospel. If it were an innocent omission, I could understand. But it’s not. It’s been radical surgery, and if you said that our church is only going to do this once a year, you’d hear very little opposition.

Talk about your “Jesus disconnect.’ “Yeah, Jesus inaugurated it and commanded we continue to do it, but I think we need to be careful not to emphasize it too much or else it will mean nothing.” Follow that path for a couple of generations, and it will mean nothing. It gives me a headache.

So here are the weaknesses enumerated. Enjoy.

1. The historical problem. How do Baptists relate their view of the Lord’s Supper to the ancient church’s far more eucharistic, real presence language? Do we believe the ancient church was wrong until the Baptist reformation? Yes? No? What?
2. Articulation. Despite having helpful confessional resources that articulate the Supper beautifully, all Baptists can do is denigrate the supper as “not this” and “not that.” We need an entire revolution of the language- liturgical and confessional- we use with the Lord’s Supper.
3. Frequency. Four times a year or less. Insane.
4. Teaching. No one teaches on this subject in any depth or seriousness.
5. The theology of the supper itself. Our view should be far more open to the Lutheran and Reformed approach, but we’ve simply gone over the edge in refusing to come out of our bubble, so we have a lobotomized practice of the Lord’s Supper and we are the only ones who can’t admit it.
6. The elements themselves: Baptist Chiclets and shot glasses are not Biblical. One loaf. One cup. And lose the grape juice. Good grief. Can’t we do the simple things right?

Chanski doesn’t make the Lord’s Supper-Passover connection, which I think is absolutely essential to rightly understanding our view. Understanding that the Lord’s Supper is a Passover meal given a new focus is quite important. We also don’t get much of the Anabaptist emphasis on covenant community, which is also important to see how Baptists understand the supper in reference to the church.

I’m turning off comments so we don’t have a debate. I know we disagree on this. I am simply making available a resource that gives the Baptist view in the hope of greater understanding and more reasonable discussion when it occurs.

UPDATE: I posted this earlier, and was soon reading a steady stream of negative comments. For a moment, it rattled me, and then I spent a couple of hours writing, remembered why I blog and put it back up.

I’m well aware of the weaknesses of the Baptist view. I’m aware of the weaknesses in practice and in historical justification. I am aware that the first thing that appeals to anyone about a liturgical church is the Eucharist. It was for my wife. And the treatment of the Lord’s Supper by Baptists is a big reason some Baptists can’t stay on board. I truly and deeply respect that.

Someone said we should just admit we are restorationists. I suppose if we aren’t claiming to be identical in doctrine and practice to the apostles, then we’re all restorationists of some kind.

When I’m not writing a book, I’ll keep studying this subject. I’m happy with what the 1689 Second London Confession says. I’m happy with what Spurgeon did with the supper. I’m confident in my own reading of scripture. I’m in agreement with Chanski. (Sorry to disappoint, but you can’t have everything.)

I’ll do more research. If someone will send me Sam Waldron’s address, I’ll ask for an interview. If you want to write me an intelligent note on why Baptists are right or can’t be right, then I might publish it.

But here’s the thing: being in the blogosphere and having an audience of thousands isn’t going to put the integrity of my own journey to where I am or who I am up for compromise. Until I’m convinced, all the applause or derision in the world won’t move me. YOUR journey won’t move me, though I am happy for you to share it. I’m going to put this in its place in my quest for a Jesus shaped spirituality and I’ll change it when I’m convinced of another position.

NOTE: Jim Savastio of the Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville, Ky does a message on the Lord’s Supper as expounded in the 1689 Baptist Confession. Thank God for reformed Baptists who care enough to teach on the LS and to expound their confessions on this topic. It is incredibly frustrating to try and find resources on this subject from most Baptists.

I appreciate Mark Driscoll and Acts 29. Southeastern has no formal relationship with either, but I am thankful for many aspects of both ministries. I think there is much that our students can learn from them. Mark and I have become good friends, but I do not agree with everything Mark says or does. In particular, I disagree with some of the language he has used in the pulpit in the past (though not in several years!) and I am uncomfortable with his position on beverage alcohol. I do appreciate his courage to tackle the difficult book The Song of Solomon and to address sexual issues with the adults in his congregation who have serious and important questions needing answers. Many of you know I have had a similar ministry through Marriage and Family conferences for years. I also wrote a book on the Song entitled God on Sex. Now it is the case I have chosen to address these issues in a different manner than has Mark, and at certain points I think he might have addressed some sensitive sexual issues in a more careful manner. But, I believe we can learn from those with whom we differ, and on the whole I believe Mark has much to teach us about missional living, theology-driven ministry, and culturally relevant expositional preaching. I also think our students, and Southern Baptists in general, are mature enough to treat Mark Driscoll (and every Christian leader) with appropriate discernment.

I want to remind our readers that good seminaries continually expose their students to diverse opinions, including the opinions of those with whom we disagree. There are few textbooks, guest lecturers, and even chapel speakers with whom I am in 100% agreement! Several times in the last decade the SBC annual meeting has been addressed by speakers who differ with Southern Baptists, including Condoleeza Rice (a Presbyterian who describes her views on abortion as “mildly pro-choice”), James Dobson (a Nazarene who is egalitarian and consistently Arminian) and Bill Bright (another Presbyterian). Individual Southern Baptists also learn from others every time they read a book by Augustine, C. S. Lewis or John Stott and every time they listen to a sermon by John MacArthur or Chuck Swindoll. It is a healthy thing to interact with and appreciate fellow Christians with whom we have theological differences and even strong disagreements on secondary and tertiary matters.

Let me invite any of our readers who have concerns about Mark or Acts 29 to do three things. First, make sure your criticisms are up-to-date rather than rehashing issues that were settled several years ago. Second, acquaint yourself with the doctrinal convictions of both Mars Hill Church and Acts 29. Finally, please note that all of the Driscoll addresses are available online at our website. I would encourage you to listen to them as well as an interview David Nelson conducted with Mark last spring. I think you will be blessed and encouraged by what you hear. If you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to email me or call my office. I would be happy to talk with you, listen to your heart, and hopefully put your concerns to rest.

The relevance to the debate between Frank Turk and myself is rather obvious. As in all things here at IM, think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I’m with Akin.

If Akin’s approval of Driscoll means he should resign as well, then you’ll have to find another blogger to defend that one. I’ve got a book about Jesus to research/write.