Thesis #2 - "Baptist Tradition" Is Broadly Diverse

The Baptist Faith and Message is (still) a wide umbrella. It broadly encompasses many “traditions,” including those about which a local congregation might declare “we’ve never done that before!” When changes are proposed to a local congregation, resistant individuals all too often invoke the BF&M, mistakenly assuming that only their Baptist experience is supported by this great SBC statement of faith. We must realize that the BF&M declares only the baseline of beliefs common to the collective of churches within the Southern Baptist Convention. This confession of faith declares Baptist distinctives, such as baptism of regenerate believers by immersion, and thus has a narrowing, confining effect upon the range of beliefs that its institutions (and some would say its member churches) may express. The degree of theological constraint induced by the BF&M, however, is not so restrictive as to produce cookie-cutter churches. Each church is autonomous, and out of that freedom arises diversity. Even while celebrating the resurgence of Bible-centeredness in SBC churches, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force acknowledged theological diversity within the convention. In part of their 2009 Pre-Progress Report, Ronnie Floyd, et. al. called upon SBC churches to commit to a “healthy confessional center.” Yet, describing that bible-centered confession, they wrote, “Like the best of confessions, the BF&M 2000 speaks most clearly to those doctrines wherein we enjoy greatest agreement and speaks more generally concerning areas where some differing opinions exist.” In other words, while we are all striving towards biblical excellence, we do have differing interpretations in areas that are not quite as essential to the gospel—nevertheless, we agree to cooperate.
The Baptist Faith and Message allows for diversity in several theological areas including a range of views regarding eschatology, charismatic gifts, and ecclesiology. Plainly, we can’t all be right when some of our views are mutually exclusive. Grace, however, permits us to accept some degree of diversity. Thankfully, these divisions will end some day soon: “for now we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end.” (1 Corinthians 13:9-10 HCSB)

Our SBC diversity becomes more apparent when we look at how we “do church.” In the same progress report, the GCR Task Force said, “There are essential and non-negotiable components of biblical ministry like proclamation, evangelism, service to others, prayer, and corporate worship. At the same time, we are convinced there is no specific style or method ordained by our God through which we must engage in these biblical ministries.” Perhaps SBC churches once appeared as uniform in worship style as McDonald’s franchise menus are, but that is no longer true today. In fact, our denominational leadership is pushing for diversity in strategy, methodology and style.

The openness of the Baptist Faith and Message permits local congregations to dig deeper into Scripture in order to align themselves more thoroughly with biblical doctrines and practices. Not all of us are going to be on the same page because we are experiencing sanctification and the transforming renewal of our minds in different areas at different rates.

So next time someone proposes a change for your church, please don't say "That's not Baptist." Search the scriptures and see if the change will push your congregation towards a Bible-centered excellence.

You Let WHO Teach?

Usually, I rant against dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists who rigidly hold to practices they cannot biblically defend--but today, it's the liberals who'll try anything that have me particularly rankled.

I read with some skepticism an article by the Religious Herald Managing Editor, Robert Dilday, titled "Churches try varied ways to approach question of membership and baptism." While I've pondered for some time the biblical link between membership and baptism, this article and others it was nestled amongst seemed to herald a new trend among liberal churches to open up the membership rolls to anybody, whether immersed, sprinkled as adults, sprinkled as babies, or nary a baptism at all. Yes, I too have withstood grumblings from church attendees who might consider membership, but say, "I don't want to be baptized again!" It's really no surprise that compromising churches of our day would cave to this pressure and permit sprinkled Christians to become members. What shocked me, however, was Dilday's quote of Williams Trace Baptist's pastor Phil Lineberger. He says, "We allow them [unbelievers] to become part of our fellowship and we'll watch over them, whether or not they ever become a Christan or a Baptist." Oh, but that's not all Lineberger said! He actually boasted, "One watchcare member--a Jewish man whose wife is Christian--is a teacher in the church's college Sunday School class, where his grasp of the Old Testament and fluency in Hebrew make him a 'rich resource.'" What? I know he's trying to sweeten the attractiveness of the gospel, but hasn't this pastor in Sugar Land, Texas read what Jesus said about teachers? Something about the blind leading the blind, perhaps? (Matthew 15:14, Luke 6:39). And Jesus also said about students, "A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher." (Luke 6:40 NASB) What are we trying to turn our young adults into--unregenerate Pharasees with all the knowledge of the law but having no knowledge of the living savior?

Creating "tradition" - how long does it take?

I haven't found a recipe yet for cooking up a Baptist tradition, but I believe we're watching one currently in the oven.

Over in the "moderate Baptist" kitchen, some liberal thinking has reached back into the pantry of history to pull together the ingredients for a new/old way of doing things. The desired result: some, like the Baptist Women in Ministry organization, want women in the pulpit--at least during the month of February. What's the historical ingredient that adds that special zest? - good ole, Separate Baptist preacher Martha Stearns Marshall. Martha was violating 1 Timothy 2:12 way back in the 19th century, with the full endorsement of her husband Daniel Marshall and brother Shubal Stearns. That's all history; now here in the 21st century, the Baptist Women in Ministry organization gleefully touts this historical bit of information in their bid to have female preachers readily accepted by mainstream churches. The starting point for acceptance is international celebration of Martha Stearns Marshall Day. Could what they've cooked up actually catch on in Baptist circles?

Writing for the Associated Baptist Press, Bob Allen reports that more than 100 churches take part in month celebrating women in pulpit. Citing one example, Allen says "Guest preacher LeAnn Gardner told Providence Baptist Church in Charleston, S.C., she was invited to preach Feb. 7 because moderate Baptist churches across the country had chosen the day to celebrate a female preacher 'who proclaimed the gospel long before Baptists thought there was something weird about' women doing so."

Here we have the main ingredient, a historical fact (Martha did preach in the mid to late 1700's) rendered a bit in revisionism (Baptists didn't think it was "weird" back then.) There has to be more in the mix though, and Allen identifies the secret. He quotes Ms. Gardner further: "So you could conjecture that I am preaching because it is 'women-in-the-pulpit day,' but I have a hard time making sense out of that," she said. "You see, the first time I preached at Providence Baptist Church was in 1999 when I was 23 years old. Several women have been ordained in this church. And perhaps even more powerful is that young girls and boys grow up in this church never wondering why certain people can do this or that because of their gender." Did you catch it? The secret ingredient in creating a new tradition is removal of biblical instruction!

So how long does it take to start a new "tradition?" In Ms. Gardner's experience, someone permitted her to preach to the congregation in 1999, and barely a decade later youngsters are accepting this error as standard practice. Didn't I claim previously that it only takes one generation to create tradition?

What do you do when a congregation won't follow?

You've laid out clear arguments for reform from scripture, but much to your surprise and dismay, individuals or groups within your church openly oppose your proposal--what do you do next?

1) Create an open forum on Blogger--post your proposal and let peer review kick your ideas around.
2) Crawl into a dark hole and lick your wounds.

Ok, #2 isn't biblically sound--Elijah tried it (1 Kings 19), and God sent him right back to the front line.

#1, however, is a modern technological endeaver in the spirit of Beroean inquiry. The Beroeans researched scripture as a group, and together they strengthened each other's understanding of the gospel.

That's why I created this blog: to submit theological concepts for wise, biblical review.

And yes, the correct instruction set would be:
1) Pray for wisdom, patience, love and perhaps eventual persuasion of opponents.
2) Peruse scripture with the assistance of others (including fellow bloggers).
3) Preach on! A little discernment may reveal underlying issues that have to be addressed first.

Thesis #1 - Biblical Truth Trumps Tradition

No tradition of man ever trumps biblical truth. So what if great-grandma and grand-pappy always "did it that way"? The truth is that error perpetuated through just one generation looks to the younger recipients as if it has “always been that way.” Every tradition must be tested in the light of scripture. If a tradition holds to scripture, then it is a good one. If a tradition contradicts scripture, however, then we must reject it and fashion our practices after God’s word. Colossians 2:8 says, “Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.”

Is it wrong to question "Baptist Tradition?"

As a pastor, I've apparently taken a serious tumble while strolling down the seemingly leisure path of simple verse by verse exegesis. The pebble over which I tripped turns out to be a much more firmly anchored boulder, and it's name is Tradition.

"Are you trying to change the way we do things around here?" demanded a few outspoken members of the congregation. "Well, uh, no...not right yet," I ineptly stammered. "We've discussed this point before, and yes, I envisioned that eventually, some day, some year, we might implement something similar to what we see described in scripture. Right now, I am just attempting to expose concepts from scripture that we may have not noticed before."

Let me tell you, dear friends in the pastorate, do not try this at home! You may be tarred and feathered, burned at the stake as a heretic. How dare any preacher contradict heritage?

I'll let you guess which issue triggered this backlash as I post subsequent briefs-maybe in a few days, I'll have completed my own "95 Theses" to nail to the church door.

In the mean time, isn't it appropriate to evaluate our traditions against scripture? Doesn't Colossians 2:8 say, "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ"?