Archive for the 'Defining Terms' Category

A New 95: Numbers 1-8

Published on October 31, 2007 in Church, Defining Terms, SBC and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

Luther Nailing His 95 ThesesOn this day in 1517, in Wittenberg, Germany, an Augustinian monk nailed a piece of paper to the front door of the church. That paper contained ninety-five statements intended for disputation among his colleagues. Martin Luther’s students, however, swiftly copied the arguments written in Latin and translated them into the vernacular German. Thanks to the newly-invented printing press, within a very short time, Luther’s ninety-five theses were all the buzz in every hamlet in Germany. And thus the fuse was lit that eventually exploded into the Protestant reformation.

Many have cried for a new reformation in our day. Many have stated that the need is greater today than it was five centuries ago. In light of the 490th anniversary of the nailing of Luther’s 95 theses, I propose A New 95, aimed at reformation from within and not without, if at all possible possible. It proved impossible in the sixteenth century. Let us pray God’s mercy upon us, that by his spirit it may be possible. I am going to post only a few a week, as I think of them, and how to articulate them. I welcome your suggestions in the comments section. Any serious thesis submitted by you will be considered for future postings. In a few days I will create a static page called A New 95 in which I will add subsequent theses in the future as they are posted.

  1. Let us not merely raise hands of praise during the singing on Sunday. Let us faithfully and lovingly raise the hands of our hearts in praise daily to our God, by how we live among a lost, perishing, and longing people. 1 Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6; Matthew 12:7
  2. In worship let us learn to sing with our minds as well as our hearts so that the one may inform the other. 1 Corinthians 14:15; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 10:5
  3. As we sing a wide variety of music in our worship services, let us refrain from referring to one style of music as “praise and worship,” as this implies that all other music styles employed in church somehow do not involve praise and worship.
  4. Protracted church meetings employing a special preacher and music minister do not a revival make. We should be careful not to presume that God’s spirit will blow among us just because we post it on the sign out front. John 3:8; Daniel 4:35
  5. Numbers can be a mighty tool in the hand of the devil. Which is better, a whole barrel of half-rotten apples, or a half barrel of whole apples? Revelation 3:17
  6. Your church’s youth minister is not responsible for the souls of your children; you are. Ephesians 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:7
  7. Is there any reason to believe that a man is a Christian when he never drives like one? Matthew 7:16
  8. When a woman, whether she claims to be a Christian or not, dresses like prostitute she should be considered as such. Proverbs 7:10

Defining Terms: Righteousness

Published on March 9, 2007 in Defining Terms. 0 Comments

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.(Romans 3:21-26, ESV).

We all basically know what righteousness means. A good dictionary definition would be the quality of moral uprightness or justice, being virtuous, having no sin. But when you use righteousness in connection with God you have a totally different definition. To get an idea of what I am talking about, here is a brain teaser that I learned years ago:

The righteousness of God is that righteousness which His righteousness requires Him to require.

When you get your mind around that definition of righteousness then you realize that there must be punishment for sins, and there must be perfect righteousness for any one to be able to stand in the presence of God. That is why Jesus came and suffered for sinners like you and me.

Defining Terms: Landmarkism

Published on March 1, 2007 in Defining Terms. 2 Comments

I have been sitting on this post - all but these first two paragraphs - for a couple of weeks for unknown reasons. I have been eager to hear the addresses from the Baptist Identity Conference II, and maybe something associated with that anticipation held me back. A few weeks ago it occurred to me to listen to the audio from the first Baptist Identity Conference, held back in April of 2004, so that I would have something with which to compare when I began listening to this years speakers. Getting a late start, that set me back a good bit on the current conference messages. A few days ago, when I finally heard Dr. Patterson’s address from this year’s conference, I realized that there must be an Anabaptist fixation going on over at Southwestern.

I am not sure what Dr. Patteson’s address, entitled What Contemporary Baptists Can Learn from Anabaptists, was intended to do, but I found nothing noted in the address that we couldn’t, and haven’t learned from our 17th century separatists brothers and sisters in the Presbyterian and Congregational denominations. There was one thing Dr. Patterson didn’t mention that contemporary Baptists can learn from the Anabaptists: how to pour water from a pitcher. Although Anabaptists practiced believer’s baptism, generally the mode was by pouring and not immersion. I just don’t get it. This is nothing more than wishful thinking, a subtle Landmarkism. This address may be Dr. Patterson’s work solely. I don’t know, but this has the smell of Dr. Yarnell all over it. And that is where the rest of this post comes in.

Wade Burleson, in a post late last year got it right when he identified Landmarkism as at least one source of much of the problems that currently ail the internal workings of the International Mission Board and subsequently the Southern Baptist Convention. But what is Landmarkism? As with many words ending in -ism, Landmarkism is not an easy term to nail down. Much like the Hydra of Greek mythology, the one body has many heads, slithering, constantly moving, difficult to get a firm grasp on any of the singular parts. Landmarkism is an elusive term to define, so instead of attempting to define it myself, I am going to rely mainly on definitions and explanations of others. First lets turn to Nathan A. Finn, who is the associate archivist at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He also is presently pursuing a doctoral degree in church history at Southeastern and teaches Baptist history and church history adjunctively at Southeastern College, Southeastern’s undergraduate school. You should make Nathan’s web log a regular part of your internet reading, especially if you are interested in Baptist history:

“A second view, which is often called “Landmarkism,” claims that there have always been Baptist (or baptistic) churches. Sometimes this claim is made via a belief that there is an historical succession of churches present through history. This is popularly called the “Trail of Blood” and is basically the Baptist version of apostolic succession. More often the claim is made that there has been a perpetuity of Baptist principles, which cannot necessarily be historical verified by looking at a succession of churches, but nevertheless is accepted by faith. The strength of this view is that it recognizes that immersion baptism was not “forgotten” sometime between 100 and 400, only to be “rediscovered” sometime between 1525 and 1645. The weaknesses of this view include its historical unverifiability, its tendency to “de-church” (and sometimes “de-Christianize”) other traditions, and its tendency to take any immersing group–including some heretical ones–and attempt to make them card-carrying Baptists.” Nathan A. Finn, “The Question of Baptist Origins”

Now add to that a brief bit taken from an address at the Baptist Identy Conference held in 2004 at Union University:

“Those who have sought to trace Baptist succession to John the Baptist and the Jerusalem church have regarded the Anabaptists as an essential link in the claim of succession. . .” James Leo Garrett, Jr., “The Pre-1609 Roots of Baptist Beliefs”.

Moving from these two short quotes, look now at this startling opening comment from a white paper released from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:

“Throughout its twenty centuries of history, the Baptist movement has been under attack from numerous directions, from the outside by individuals, both non-Christian and Christian, and by hostile public authorities; and from the inside by those who would compromise the integrity of the Baptist faith.” Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, “The Heart of a Baptist”.

In this same white paper Dr. Yarnell moves on to make the following statement seeking to establish an historical link between the English Baptists of the early seventeenth century and the continental Anabaptists of the same era and just prior to it:

“Of the four Reformation era traditions just mentioned, Baptists come closest to the Anabaptists, for we are their theological heirs, even if we may or may not claim to be their direct historical heirs.”

Concluding Thoughts

Landmarkism is a lot like tracking a deer you have just shot, it doesn’t matter if the drops are ten yards apart, or if there is a steady steam, it is still called a Trail of Blood. Let me conclude this post with the concluding remarks of Nathan Finn’s post that I quoted at the first:

“So I am all for breaking out of the too-simplistic either/or approach to Baptist origins (Anabaptists versus English Separatists). And I am definitely all for breaking away from the “pop history” that desperately wants to believe that Baptists have always been around and are the only “good guys” in a world of ecclesiastical villains. They were English Separatists, under biblical conviction, influenced and encouraged by Anabaptists, aware that they were just the latest group in church history to reject infant baptism and the territorial church.”

In upcoming posts I will comment on some of the other addresses at the Baptist Identity Conference II. Time has been at a premium, as I have taken on a couple of new projects, so please be patient.

Defining Terms: Orthodoxy

Published on January 6, 2007 in Defining Terms. 2 Comments

If this first week of 2007 is any indicator of what is in store for the coming year of the SBC blog world, then it is going to be a thriller, somewhat akin to last Monday night’s Fiesta Bowl.

It all began with Marty Duren breaking his Blog Fast this last Saturday morning, with a post entitled The Great Divide. In this lengthy post (with an even greater volume of comments), Marty divides those in the SBC into two categories, which he calls reformers and tories.
This general division is formulated on the heels of the statement that
“it seems that everyone in the convention at the moment falls under one of two philosophical umbrellas”. I read this post to my wife as she drove us to church Sunday morning, which is something I often do, since we have about a 20-minute drive from home to church. The post was interesting, well written, and, I believe, by creating and defining terms, helped to shed light on the current problem facing the SBC. The basic thrust of the post was nothing new, however. Those on the dissenting side still want a large tent, and those on the Conservative Resurgence side want a small tent.

This post prompted a couple of posts in response, one by Ben Cole on January 2nd where he gives a peaceable biography of Dr. Malcolm Yarnell (who plays a large part in the comments section of The Great Divide) entitled Malcolm in the Middle…. The other post, by Nathan Finn was entitled Is the SBC a Two-Party System? in which he argues that Duren’s terms don’t fit everyone in the SBC, and shows a bias against the one group and favors the other group. No real comment on this, just to let you know some of the related posts that I found. I am sure there were more. The next day, on January 3rd, Marty posted a follow-up entitled The Great Divide Exemplified, which draws from comments from his first Great-Divide post.

What I found interesting in all of this was the comments in these two posts by Druen, especially the comments by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, and those comments that his comments prompted. Dr Yarnell is the Associate Dean for Theological Studies, Director of the Center for
Theological Research, and Director for the Oxford Study Program,
Associate Professor of Systematic Theology” at Southwestern seminary. Originally I had not read the comments of Marty’s first post, we had arrived at church before I got to that, and my browser wasn’t tabbed up with the comments anyway, and then later it had just slipped my mind. It wasn’t until yesterday (the 4th) that, reading a post by Art Rogers entitled Oligarchy that I realized that I was missing the “big show”. In the comments of Marty’s two posts all of the big-name dissenters were there: Alan Cross, Art Rogers, Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, both Littletons, and many more besides. Dr. Yarnell was in the middle of it all, seemingly not ruffled at all. All of this is really not why I started this post. That was all just intro to what I really wanted to say.

In his defense of a small-tent, narrow-parameters for cooperation, Dr. Yarnell used the term orthodoxy in comment #71 of The Great Divide, and it appeared from the context, and the ensuing discussion, that he applied the term incorrectly. I believe it would have been helpful in revealing the true nature of the tory position as just plain wrong if someone would have challenged him as to his usage and application of the word soon after he used it. Ben Cole did challenge him on the use of the term the next day in comments (#84) in the second Duren post, but I believe too much water had flowed under the bridge by that time to do much good. Cole hit it right on the head, though. Here is his comment: You and I both know that the “orthodox faith” is a fence, not a fence post. Orthodoxy allows for a variety of interpretations of sacred scripture within a well defined perimeter outside of which the gospel is not preserved.

Orthodoxy Defined
My electronic version of The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines orthodoxy as: “authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.” and the word’s origin comes from the Greek: orthos ‘straight or right’ + doxa ‘opinion.’ It is this broad, general definition that I believe that Dr. Yarnell was using, so that orthodoxy, as he was using it, meant right thinking on all of theology, concerning all matters of all degrees of importance. Historically in the Church, orthodoxy has not been used in this broad manner. Orthodoxy historically came out of the great theological controversies of the first few centuries. The great councils of Chalcedon, Nicea, and others were conviened as a result of these controversies, and the great historical creeds were the products of these councils. The purpose of these creeds, as Ben Cole put it, were intended to put up a fence to mark the boundaries between the Christian faith, and that which was sub-christian, non-christian. Those historic creeds contain the items that make up orthodoxy. To be sure there are critical doctrines missing from those creeds, doctrines that were not threatened by aberrant views and teaching. The nature of the atonement, or the doctrine of hell, for example don’t find their way into those creeds, but the principle still applies. The creeds are almost synonymous with orthodoxy. You don’t find secondary or tertiary items in those creeds. The creeds were intended to define what true Christianity was.

I believe Dr. Yarnell’s broader use of the word orthodoxy is not accidental, but intentional. This is very telling of the two camps, the reformers and tories. The latter group views that fence as the Great Wall of China, keeping any and all out, even those with the slightest of differences. They view all who are even slightly different as invaders, wanting to take over. The former sees that fence as a garden fence, intended to keep the dogs out, but not family, friends, and neighbors. It is just here where the trouble lies in this great SBC strife. We would do well to realize that these two groups often do not work with the same definitions of terms.