Monday, February 08, 2010

A Poignant Visit to an Old Church in England


On this rainy, with spots of sunshine, Saturday, 19 May 2007, I sit in the church occupied by my forefathers: St. James Church, Oddingley, Droitwich, Worcestershire, England. The sense of history is, if I may say so, palpable. The church is not very large, though perhaps deemed quite respectable in the 15th century (ca. 1460), when a window above the altar, was dedicated to John and Joanna Yarnold. Yarnold, which derives from the Norman words for "eagle's rule," has been spelled also as Yarnell and Yarnall.

The Yarnolds/Yarnells/Yarnalls of today may trace their ancestry from this small church in the west of England. It is a quiet place with a wonderful view, being set on the side of a hill looking over a valley through which a small canal flows. The horses run at their leisure in a field to the north, a large home is located to the southeast and fields of various types stretch into the distance. One can only imagine why the Yarnells left this paradise on the northwestern edge of the enchanting Cotswolds, if one were to realize that persecution will often drive people of conscience to change their location rather than their religion.

The Yarnells of the 15th and 16th centuries were at least nominally faithful children of the medieval and then Reformation church of England. But in the 17th century, they were swayed mightily by the preaching of the Quakers. Some of the Yarnells then immigrated to the new colony established by the wealthy Quaker, William Penn. The largest cluster of Yarnell families in the United States thus may be found in Pennsylvania and the surrounding states. There are significant branches represented in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, and now Texas, too.


The Oddingley stained glass window, in the left part of the trifold, shows a middle-aged couple richly but chastely dressed, bowing in prayer to God. His head is uncovered, his hair is neatly cut, his eyes are raised heavenward, and his hands are gently opened as in supplication. Her head is covered, she is somewhat shorter than him, her eyes are raised heavenward, and her hands are positioned as her husband. The window above them is occupied by a queen, standing with a sword under her left hand and a wheel under her right. The window below them is occupied by a tonsured cleric in prayer. They are the only ones in the stained glass window to have their hands open in prayer, while the rest have their hands closed. The middle portion of the window is occupied above by saint Matthew with a bishop’s staff and below by another monarchical clerical figure with a cross. Both figures have their right hands raised in blessing (two fingers raised, two fingers lowered. The right part of the trifold is occupied above by a king. In the center of the right part is another couple praying with a monk below in prayer. The arms on the left and on the right, above the king and the queen, are unknown to me. (The window was obviously damaged at some point, for the right and central portions have pieces that have been rearranged in reconstruction.)

The Yarnold window asks in Latin for the observor to pray for the souls of John and Joanna. And so I shall, though perhaps not in the way intended by these pious medieval Christians. For, though I am no Quaker, I am a fellow free churchman among the baptizing churches. I have a history of Christian piety in my family, alongside a history of military servants, and I pray that this tradition will continue among my children and theirs. Although the destiny of our ancestors is determined already by their faith or lack thereof in Christ, we may pray for (and witness to) those who are alive now or are yet to be born. Medieval society was divided between those who pray, those who fight, and those who work. It seems that my ancestors have included all three estates, though not very high in any, except in the new world, which opened the door for meritorious achievement, including ministers, the calligrapher for a very famous writing by Thomas Jefferson, as well as admirals, physicians and managers.

Thank you, Lord, for allowing me this poignant moment in the beautiful countryside from which my family descended. It is nice to know that there were people who were respected in society as being faithful in your eyes in the past, stretching at least into the 15th century, and perhaps far beyond. Interestingly, not only is the window dedicated to Matthew, but a recent grave to the left of the entrance door is occupied by an Elizabeth Joy Fabricius who lived to see grandchildren and was beloved. My own Matthew and Elizabeth Joy would find that of interest.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

What Did Jesus Think of Scripture?

A decade ago, Paige Patterson addressed the subject of Jesus' own view of Scripture. It is an excellent presentation for a popular audience of the high view of Scripture which Jesus held. According to Patterson, Jesus believed that "the Word of God as revealed in Old and New Testaments is without error, scientifically, historically, philosophically or theologically." In other words, a high Christology and a high view of Scripture are necessarily interdependent. Enjoy!


Patterson looks to Jesus' standards to determine beliefs about Bible
By Tammi Reed Ledbetter
Sep 5, 2000

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (BP)--How Southern Baptists answer the question of "how you know what you say you know is true" is reflected in their statement of faith, said Paige Patterson, speaking in the closing chapel of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Week of Preaching, Aug. 29-31.

Taking students through a Bible drill, Patterson described evidence that Jesus believed in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible, as well as its infallibility and inerrancy.

In his first sermon of the week, Patterson spoke of "three profound, defining moments in the history of Christianity," referring to heresies that spawned "intellectual activity and spiritual concern." Each era led to the adoption of a conclusion widely accepted within Christendom, Patterson explained, regarding Christology, soteriology and epistomology. (News coverage of all three messages is available at www.mbts.edu.)

"After having occupied the first seven centuries of the church's history discussing who is Jesus [the field of Christology], it then became necessary in the Reformation to decide how it is you get to Jesus once you've decided who he is [soteriology]," Patterson said. "The soteriological controversy determined whether or not the church should be viewed as the lifeboat or the lighthouse." And with the Enlightenment came the question of whether such conclusions about Jesus Christ were true (the arena of epistemology).

The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, Patterson explained, added two statements that had never been used in previous confessions of faith by Baptist groups. The Bible was presented as a record of revelation, with Jesus Christ as the supreme standard by which the Scriptures should be judged, Patterson said.

"On the surface, both of those seem to be perfectly understandable. The Bible is certainly a record of revelation. And certainly the standard by which the Scriptures are to be judged is Jesus Christ, the ultimate revelation." Patterson asked, "Why were they put into the 1963 statement and why were they taken out of the 2000 statement? And why is there so much commotion about it?"

Patterson cited the influence of followers of philosopher Immanuel Kant in wanting "wiggle room" to "kick all faith into the upper story" and say there is no way to verify one's faith. "And since we cannot reduce it to any of the phenomena that we know, therefore it is purely a faith matter," Patterson said in explaining the position of the 1963 revisionists. "And faith is basically up to the individual and there are no guarantees" of its truth, he further recounted, as compared to the scientific verification available for the law of thermodynamics.

"I'm glad we took it out," Patterson said of the 1963 language. "We needed to take away the wiggle room."

Borrowing the language of critics of the 2000 revision who insist that Jesus must be the standard by which Scripture should be judged, Patterson asked, "Do we not do the right thing to believe about the Bible what Jesus believed? Whatever it is Jesus thought and said about the Bible is what I ought to think and say about the Bible."

Traditionally, evangelicals have said four things about the Bible, Patterson said, dealing with verbal and plenary inspiration as well as infallible and inerrant content. In order to show that Jesus believed in these same principles, Patterson directed his audience to Matthew 22. Jesus demonstrated his confidence in the verbal inspiration of Scripture on the basis of the Holy Spirit directing David to call his descendent Lord, Patterson observed.

"If they'd known the Scriptures they could have said this one is both the root -- gives rise to David and was before David and Abraham and everybody else -- but in incarnation becomes a son of David born to Jewish parents in the line of David, so he is both the root and the offspring of David."

Turning to Luke 24:25, Patterson asserted Jesus' belief in the plenary inspiration of Scripture, the belief that all of it is inspired of God. Jesus referred to the foolishness of the men for being slow to believe Moses and all the prophets, a typical Jewish reference to the whole of Scripture, Patterson explained.

"I never called anybody a fool for not believing everything that's in the Bible," Patterson emphasized. "Let the record show that was done by Jesus the Christ. I just read you what he said. That's all. He said that a man who doesn't believe all that is in the prophets is a fool." Quoting Psalm 41:1, Patterson reminded, "'The fool has said in his heart there is no God.' And another kind of fool says, 'Yes, there is no God, but we don't know for sure that you can trust anything that he claims to have said.'"

Patterson asked, "How much of the Bible did Jesus believe? Every single solitary syllable of it. Don't tell me you're a disciple of Jesus Christ and you're following him and he is the supreme standard by which the Scriptures can be interpreted, and then take a view contrary to that of Jesus concerning the Word of God."

Moving on to Jesus' perspective on infallibility of Scripture, Patterson said it means "the documents in the Bible properly understood and interpreted will lead to God and it will never lead you astray."

Pointing to Jesus' statement in John 5:39 as evidence that "the scriptures are they which testify of me," Patterson reminded that almost nothing is known of Jesus except what is said in Scripture. Those who say they don't follow Scripture so much as they follow Jesus should be asked, "Which Jesus?" Patterson said. "If you're following the Jesus who's the real Jesus and not some Jesus manufactured by the Jesus Seminar or Albert Schweitzer in years gone by, then you follow the Jesus of the Bible because the only place we know anything about Jesus is from the Bible."

In John 5:45, Jesus declared that Moses wrote of him (Jesus), questioning how they would believe his words when they didn't even believe the writings of Moses, Patterson recounted. He then paraphrased Jesus' response in John 5:47, stating, "The truth is, you don't believe me. The reason you don't believe me is that you didn't believe those who wrote about me."

From Matthew 5:17-18, Patterson argued for Jesus' belief in inerrancy, defined as a belief that "the Word of God as revealed in Old and New Testaments is without error, scientifically, historically, philosophically or theologically." Patterson acknowledged poetic license, metaphor and figures of speech which served as "normal human language" by which the Bible could be understood.

Noting the use of a double negative for emphasis, Patterson said the text conveys the sense that "under no circumstances never" will any part of Scripture pass away. "Now Jesus said," Patterson began, interjecting, "mind you Paige Patterson didn't say, Adrian Rogers didn't say, Jerry Vines didn't say, Al Mohler didn't say ... Jesus said it," he continued with a reminder that Jesus is "the supreme standard by which the New Testament and Old Testament will be judged." He continued, "Jesus said the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet found in the Scripture shall not pass until heaven and earth pass away. That's a pretty powerful claim."

He described a "tittle" as an extended line on the end of the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet. "You say, 'My goodness, a tittle couldn't be very important.'" Patterson admonished, "Don't you dare leave your tittle off! If you leave your tittle off, you didn't write a Beth [the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet] at all; you wrote another letter of the Hebrew alphabet. And because most Hebrew words are in three radicals, you changed the whole meaning of the word. You may have changed the whole sentence, the whole meaning of the paragraph just because you didn't watch out for your tittle."

To get a better sense of the size of a tittle, Patterson joked, "I got my Kittel and my ruler and I measured my tittles." He concluded, "Jesus is saying, 'Under no circumstances never shall the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet or a little mark of one thirty-second of an inch pass from my Word until all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth will pass away before that will happen.'"

Recalling Martin Luther's defiance of the Pope during the Reformation, Patterson recalled that he determined that "the boy that drives a plow shall know more of the Scripture than the pope does." He added, "That's what Reformation Christianity is all about. That's what biblical Christianity is all about. What Christ is all about is a sure word and revelation of God in the living word, Jesus Christ, and in the written word, the Bible, which is never to be separated from the Jesus, the living Word."
--30--

© Copyright 2010 Baptist Press

Original copy of this story can be found at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=6445

Monday, January 18, 2010

A Southern Baptist's Pilgrimage From Racism

Below is the first non-academic theological essay which I wrote as a pastor, back in 1996. It was originally accepted for publication in the Christian Century, if I would modify the language of inerrancy. I refused and it remained unpublished. In commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr., I offer it here for the first time publicly.

It Started in Panama

Parked in a shady spot near a gas station along a highway in the Central American country of Panama, I noticed a dark object in the road a little bit away in the opposite lane. Four-year olds often perceive what others may miss. That ebony object in the road was not a dog or a wild animal, but a human being. What was amazing to my little mind was that a truck came barreling along and ran over that man's body as if it was nothing--I can still see the indentations in his flesh where the wheels of more than one automobile had crushed him. I had often taken my toy cars and pushed tracks into the wet mud in a similar manner. I looked to my father, "Daddy, why doesn't anyone stop?" He turned, surveyed the scene, and quickly hustled my brothers and I back into the car. He drove away without a word, but with an unexplainable look on his face. How do you tell a three-, four-, and five-year old that a black man's life is cheap?

Some months later, my father drove us into the "wrong" section of Panama City. There were several black boys who began throwing rocks at us. My father quickly turned the little red car around and gunned it out of danger. "Daddy, why did they throw rocks at us? We didn't do anything to them!" Again, no answer.

My daddy was from the mountains of central Pennsylvania, a stronghold of abolitionist Quakerism, but where few minorities dwelt. However, my mother was from the swamps and hills of northern Louisiana, a stronghold of racial segregationism, and a nearly balanced black-white population. My father was a life-long military man, and as he was transferred quite often, we were exposed to numerous cultures on the North American continent. We had lived for periods of one to four years in New York, Panama, Louisiana, Illinois, Alaska, Maine, Indiana, and back to Louisiana again.

In the military of the 1960s and 1970s, the official policy was racial desegregation, and as we grew up in the same schools, most Air Force "brats" took little notice of the differences between our races and originating cultures. That is, until we were exposed to the local, native schools. In the north, they used to ask me to talk so they could hear my southern accent. The local bullies would jeer, "Hey, listen everybody! He's going to say 'ya'll' again!" I became sensitive to being different. With every new move came a sense of depression. I lost old friends and had to make new ones all over again--an agonizing process for an introverted child. It was as if God had arranged my life to make me empathetic to those who do not fit the mold, or who do not find it easy to change like chameleons with new situations.

I learned to take people as they are, without a lot of misconstrued, cultural judgment. How? Well, I had learned to lean on the Jesus of my mother and father. This Jesus came to me in songs, songs like "Jesus Loves Me" and another old favorite,
Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world,
Red and yellow, black and white,
they are precious in his sight,
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Like most children, I took those songs and the red, printed words of Jesus in my Bible quite literally. Jesus spoke of loving your neighbor. In the story of the "Good Samaritan," I learned that my neighbor was anyone who was near me. So I loved anybody near me. Color did not matter. In my foolish, simple, little mind, that was the way it was supposed to be.

You can imagine my confusion when a young friend and I were beaten up by a group of black boys in North Chicago because we happened to be the wrong color and had accidentally missed the bus home that day. You can imagine my confusion when I heard the kids in the high school in Maine call each other "Nigger" and "Honkie" with such invective that the walls shook. I thought Jesus commanded us to love each other. Soon, I learned that not everybody revered the words of Jesus. Unbelievers could be excused to a degree for their hatred--they just did not know any better.

However, my confusion increased a hundred-fold after I became pastor of a medium-sized church in a transitional neighborhood on the edge of a major city in Louisiana. Before that, at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, we had been presented with the Church Growth Movement as the ultimate expression of a vital church. Imbibing such a view, I had pastored a new mission into existence in a run-down western Fort Worth apartment complex. We had forty or more black and white adults and children to serve. Nobody really noticed the dissimilitudes. It is hard to notice "otherness" when you have to fend off drunken fathers, addicted mothers, swarming cockroaches, absent landlords, and excruciating poverty--you tend to rely on others who may help you, no matter their external oddities. God moved powerfully in that human-forsaken place.

Louisiana and Racism

But in Louisiana, the differences were profound--the old, gentlemanly segregation remained. I led Lakeview Baptist Church to begin reaching the neighborhood for Jesus Christ. Some of the youth wanted to know if they could invite their black friends. The very question shocked me. Why not? So, the black youth came. Then came the whispers, but I had heard whispers before and had survived them. Why would anyone object to a black boy or girl coming to know Jesus? Doesn't he love the little children? That's what the Bible said. That's what the songs said.

I did not realize it, but I had violated a strong cultural more--blacks and whites do not mix in church. They may go to the same schools, the same stores, the same jobs, but they must not worship on the same sacred ground. In the 1950s, both Billy Graham and Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed disgust that "eleven o'clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America." These two friends did all they could to rectify the situation in their own ways. Surely, by the 90s, things had changed. Sadly, they had not.

The church watched as the youth brought their friends and the grumbles progressed towards a roar. Try as I might, the Lord would not let the situation settle quietly down. During preparation for a revival, we took names from anyone who wanted the church to pray for the conversion of their family and friends. One black youth offered up his sister's name. We prayed for her along with forty or fifty others--be careful about what you pray for. Soon after the end of the revival, on September 26, 1993, his sister came to church.

She was twenty-three years old, seven months pregnant, and wore no ring on her finger. During the invitation, she came down the aisle. I knew the trouble this might cause. So when she told me she was being called by God to join the church in baptism, I became very tough on her. "When were you saved?", I queried. This was going to be just the first of many questions. Such a question was not bad in and of itself. Rather, these questions should be asked. But I had not asked any other convert such specific questions before then. Her answer still shakes me to the depths of my bones. "On the eighth of this month," she said so meekly. And then . . . well, then, she began to cry. I had never seen such a genuine display of Christ in my life. All I could think of before was how to keep her out, and now God had given me a new child to disciple, a child I did not want. When I presented her for membership, the church was still in shock and many voted yes. Others sat in their comfortable seats, arms folded, staring dumbly. There was no open dissension, yet.

Realizing my own sinful attitude, I felt the need to involve someone who could hold me accountable. Many white pastors in such a situation usually contact a local black pastor and quietly shuffle the convert into a black church--an older, white pastor encouraged me to take this very route. Every member of that church would have applauded or excused me if I had done so, but that was not the way of Christ. Moreover, she was convinced that God called her to Lakeview Baptist Church. There was no meanness or point to be made on her part. She was just humbly convinced this was God's will. Who am I to argue with God? She needed baptism, discipleship, and loving fellowship, and God had sent her to bless Lakeview Baptist Church.

I called Rev. Milton Boyd, pastor of a black Southern Baptist congregation. I considered asking him to take her off my hands--that was my temptation. It would have been easier to put her off, save my career, and seek a means to put a salve on my torn conscience. But what I asked him to do seemed to come off the top of my head. "Milton, you don't know me. But I know you, and I want you to hold me accountable. I am the pastor of a white church and a pregnant, black, unwed teenager has just come for baptism. Will you meet with me on a regular basis to make sure I treat her no differently than I would anyone else?" Milton needed no time. His answer was simply, "When do we get started?"

Pragmatically, I should never have done such a thing. We lost a number of families, tithing families. I faced a myriad of dilemmas, social and theological. The questions from the congregation were almost always of a social nature. How do we keep the white girls from marrying the black boys? How do we keep "them" from taking over "our" church? These questions loomed larger as blacks continued to join the church.

Church Growth Movement


I had violated one of the cardinal rules of the very church growth I was pushing so hard to my congregation, the homogeneous unit principle. One church growth guru listed the violation of this principle as the third of eight "growth-inhibiting diseases,"
People-blindness occurs when churches do not recognize the important cultural differences which glue large social groups together and which can become barriers to the communication of the Good News. The notion that "our church can win anybody" is good rhetoric, but poor church growth thinking. God has given your church the ability to reach only a limited number and kind of people, and this you should be doing well. That is why I mentioned that, in writing a philosophy of ministry, you need to be explicit about the sociocultural profile of your congregation. While biblical ethics do not permit a church to develop a racist or segregationist philosophy of ministry, they do not prohibit narrowcasting the gospel and giving priority to certain market segments. At the same time, efforts need to be made to see that other churches are established which qualify for reaching each one of the segments of society. In that way the total body reaches the total population.

Was Peter Wagner right? Had I violated a cardinal rule of the Church Growth Movement? I soon came to realize that such a gospel as this is not the gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles. Jesus did not come to divide people into "market segments" based on "sociocultural profiles." Rather, he came to break down the dividing wall of hostility.

Paul, a Jew who brought uncircumcised Gentiles into the synagogue, seemed to have a parallel situation to my own. In his liberating letter to the Galatians he seemed to speak directly to the Church Growth Movement's homogeneous unit principle. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3.28). Furthermore, anyone that "narrowcasts" the gospel necessarily changes the very nature of that gospel. He aptly wrote, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (1.9). Finally, Paul said that bearing another's burdens is not a "growth-inhibiting disease," but a divine commandment (6.2).

Other thoughts invaded my mind. Had I done a great disservice to my church? Was it going to be destroyed because of my childlike faith in a God who is no respecter of persons? I was thrown back on my Bible and the loving God revealed there. It seemed that every other support was failing. Most of my friends thought (and still think) I was too cavalier with tradition--"He's a little too prophetic, too confrontational." However, my Southern Baptist background had bequeathed me another more important principle than the Church Growth Movement or my genteel, southern culture: an inerrant, authoritative Word.

The Inerrant, Authoritative Word of God


If God's Word cannot err and if that Word provides the norm for the Christian life, what does it say about such a crass approach to reality as my childlike faith in a loving, reconciling God who ignores the differences between black and white? Should I really try to pastor a multi-racial flock? A rapid survey of Scripture revealed the thoughts of God on the subject:
I discovered that racists have used the curse of Ham in Genesis 9 as one of many proof texts for negrophobia. But my theological mentor, James Leo Garrett Jr., demonstrated that such interpretations are clearly errant denials of the unity of mankind.

In Numbers 12, Miriam objected to Moses' marriage to a black woman. A narrative reading of the text suggests that God responded, "If you want to be white, Miriam, I will give you white!" He then struck her with leprosy.

In the book of Jonah, God dealt harshly with a prophet who had forgotten the Abrahamic covenant--YHWH wants to bless all the families of the earth through his chosen people (Genesis 12.3).

The prophet Jeremiah was pulled out of the sewer, and a certain death, at the behest of a black man (38.7-13, 39.15-18).

Jesus broke down the walls of Jewish particularism. The Jew prayed, "Thank God I was not born a Gentile, a woman, or a dog." Jesus let the crumbs of grace fall to the very "dog" which the Jews despised. He went out of his way to point to the faith of a Roman centurion whose trust was greater than any Israelite's. He allowed a black man the privilege of carrying his cross to Calvary. It was a Samaritan, a despised half-breed, who became his prototypical neighbor.

Philip, the liberal prophet--liberal, that is, in spreading the Word of God--took the Word to an Ethiopian and baptized him. He even took the Word to the despised Samaritans (Acts 8ff).

Paul was taken to task several times for his willingness to offer the gospel freely to those of other races and cultures.

Peter received the revelation of the sheet to open his heart to the Gentiles. Yet later, Paul was compelled to remind him of the universal scope of God's grace.

Finally, in the Revelation, we see around the throne, people from every tribe, nation, and tongue. There are no "market segments" in glory! And on earth? Well, Jesus tells us to pray, "on earth as it is in heaven."

It seems that the inerrant Word tears down racism, particularism, or the homogeneous unit principle, whatever one may call such wall-building. Any individual or church which takes the Word of God seriously cannot harbor racism of any kind in their attitude and ethics.

When I realized the Biblical message, I immediately preached a sermon to my congregation and confessed my sin of racism. I begged God for forgiveness because I had treated this precious child of His harshly because of her skin color and because of my fear of an irate congregation. He gave me the strength to do what was right and love my neighbor. Many in the congregation fled to other churches. Many repented with me. Miraculously, providentially, the congregation actually grew in numbers and in faith.

A Theology of Image and Koinonia

Ultimately, the question must be asked, do people who are different than me have souls? Most certainly, they do. They, too, are created in the image of God. We learn in Genesis that God created humans in his image (1.26-27, 5.1). If murder is the destruction of that divine image (9.6), can exclusion by reason of race be anything but exclusion of the divine image? Furthermore, since destruction of the divine image is deserving of death, should not one practicing exclusion be punished by exclusion, too? Since God made humans in his image, all humans are greatly valued, no matter the color of their skin.

The only way to bypass such a Biblical argument for universal dignity and love is to deny that someone is human. This is what the Nazis did to the Jews in World War II. They were designated as "sub-humans." It seems that the easiest way for any "Christian" to deny love and respect to another human is to deny their humanity, a path all too familiar for Southern Baptists, who, themselves, were born in reaction to anti-slavery sentiments in the north. The steps from sub-human to animal to inanimate object are easy once the step from human to sub-human is taken.

In addition to the theology of image, there is the theology of koinonia. In his first epistle, John gave his readers a method by which they could judge their assurance of salvation. There are three primary measures: obedience, confession of Christ, and koinonia. John spoke in stark times of light and darkness, love and hate. He equated koinonia, fellowship, with God and fellowship with God's people. "He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light. . ." (I John 2.9ff). The implications were clear. If I love and fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ, black or white, I have love and fellowship with God (cf., Jesus' new commandment, John 13.34-35). If I do not koinonia with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I do not koinonia with God.

The "M" Group

Milton and I met with Mark Eakin, a white pastor, on a Thursday morning in the first part of October 1993. Mark was invited by Milton with my permission. We met at the Freestate Diner in the northern industrial section of Shreveport. Soon, Milton Boyd, the quintessential organizer, had invited Milton Huston, a black pastor in transition between churches, and Mel Brown, black pastor of a mission sponsored by Highland Baptist Church in Shreveport. There never really seemed to be any question but that we would continue to meet for prayer, fellowship, accountability, and encouragement. We eventually called ourselves the "M" group because all of our names started with that letter. Others came and went, but these five remained the core of the group, meeting weekly.

We discovered much about ourselves, the sinfulness of our cultures, and the graciousness of God in those meetings. I have never felt such intense fellowship in my life. There has been an unfilled void in my heart ever since I was called away to pastor in North Carolina and further my education at Duke University.

What made the "M" group special? I think it opened several doors and kept some rather weak men strong. (It also became a dynamic witness to other patrons of the restaurant.)

First, it provided a deep, Christian fellowship. We brought our problems openly and humbly to the table and received encouragement and exhortation. Milton Boyd made sure that nothing was ever glossed over. He became our undesignated leader. His spiritual gift is definitely administration. Mark, a compassionate man, encouraged us with the gift of mercy. Milton Huston came to have a special place in my heart--he is a hero of the faith. He once invited us over to his home for breakfast. He cooked, his wife played an excellent hostess, and when his sister began to sing, heaven came down and glory filled my soul. Mel and I were the prophetic ones. He and I could butt heads with the best. We each shared Biblical insights, sermon materials, and illustrations--some sessions were downright sermonic. My preaching and devotional life improved tremendously.

Second, the "M" group was special because it allowed us to see life through a different set of lenses. I had no idea of the respect which a black pastor commands in his community. It makes most white pastors, who find little reason to challenge the status quo out of fear for the loss of face and income, look like kept harlots. I also had no idea of the pain of being treated as a second-class citizen at best and sub-human at worst. Rarely, in these days, is such treatment overt, but it exists nonetheless. Mark and I were taken out of our privileged, white, middle-class, Republican-voting backgrounds and introduced to the vagaries of a segregated existence.

Third, the "M" group was special because it kept our theology straight. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the few Christian martyrs of Nazi Germany, once attended Union Theological Seminary. He could not stand the irrelevant preaching in the mainline churches in the area,
One may hear sermons in New York upon almost any subject; one only is never handled, . . . namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ, of the cross, of sin and forgiveness. . . .

Bonhoeffer found a black church in Harlem--the Abyssinian Baptist Church--that taught the gospel faithfully. There, Bonhoeffer says he became a Christian. He subsequently returned to Germany under a divine burden and became a lone voice crying out for the German church to deny Hitler and his antichrist laws. Like Bonhoeffer in Harlem, we discovered that the "M" group exposed the cultural accretions to the gospel we were preaching. Like barnacles attacking a ship, churches of all types have been left increasingly dead in the water because of their sanctification of cultural ideals. As black and white pastor came together, we learned what was culture and what was Christ. As different aspects of our theology and ethics revealed themselves to be profane or sacred, we adjusted our preaching and activities accordingly. The "M" group helped me to see the gospel for what it really is--the grace of the eternal, incarnated, crucified, triumphant God. I also learned that I wanted to be instrumental in the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ, and not just be another hired hand in a God-forsaken social club. I discovered that white pastors will preach against the sins characteristic of the black community while glossing over their own. Similarly, black pastors will preach against the sins characteristic of the white community while glossing over their own. Those pastors who address the true problems of, and true grace available to, their people are few and far between.

Finally, the "M" group was special because it let me see the black community as part of the flock which God has given to me to minister the Word. I sense as much compassion for the black community's struggle with the appeal of the sword of Islam (in its many forms) as I do for the white community's struggle with the machine gun of Aryanism (in its many forms). I sense as much responsibility for the salvation of Latesha and Calvin as I do for that of Mary and John. When God calls a man to preach, He does not limit his audience by race.

A Final Word

Now that I am an adult, I will never again stand by and watch a man desecrated because of his parentage and the low price that the dominant culture has put on his skin. Never again will I stand idly by while the name of Christ is proclaimed in the interest of racial superiority. Never again do I wish to preach a sermon to a congregation to confess my own sin of racism. Racism may continue to grip this nation, north and south, in its politics and in its individual and communal ethics, but this pastor will be a voice crying out against such sin.

Mark and Milton have led their respective churches into fellowship and cooperating covenants with one another. Milton and Mel continue their dynamic ministries. The "M" group continues to meet and has grown in numbers. Me, well, I will never trade my experience of pastoring an interracial church, and I will never forget my true friends, my brothers in Christ. Soli Deo Gloria.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Foreword to Michael Nelson, "The Seven Signs"

I thought my friends might enjoy this foreword for a theological commentary on the Gospel of John that a former student has written.

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

It is somewhat startling to hear an orthodox Christian preacher, who affirms that the entire Word of God is thoroughly inspired by the Holy Spirit, proclaim that the Gospel according to John is “the most important book in the Bible” or that the third chapter of John is “the most important chapter in the Bible.” However, from the perspective of an evangelistic pastor concerned for the eternal state of every human soul, Michael Nelson’s emphatic claims carry a certain relevant validity. In a day when so many Christians frantically seek ways to justify the avoidance of sharing their faith, whether through some wine-and-cheese theology or through a non-proclaiming social ministry, Nelson bucks the prevailing trends and prophetically demands Christian fidelity to the message and means specifically given by our Lord. Believers must not only recognize but also embrace and live out this truth: that a personal encounter with Jesus Christ is “the most important meeting in the history of mankind.” In other words, Nelson argues from Scripture and with compelling illustrations and application that it is our responsibility as Christ’s followers to present Jesus, from the Bible, to every lost man, woman, and child on the planet.

I first met Mike when he was an entering graduate student in theology at the seminary, and I knew from that point on that he would never accept anything I taught as truth unless it could be demonstrated according to the Word of God. Mike, in this book, has sought to hold himself to that same standard, and has fundamentally succeeded in doing so. Another thing I learned about Nelson during those exciting years of pleasantly boisterous give and take with an unpretentious yet precocious theologue, and have since rediscovered in these pages, is that Nelson possesses a genuine love for people. There is a pastoral sensitivity here, coupled with a rare ministerial gravitas, that accompanies God’s Word as it reaches down through the webs of personal deception that too many of us have erected in our own lives and that touches the soul where that defiled image of God is at its most crucial point in its precarious existence. Mike allows the biblical text to speak and then proceeds to explain the meaning of the text with logical clarity. With dependence upon the Holy Spirit, Nelson then illuminates the text with illustrations from Scripture, from the critical events and commonplaces of his own interesting life, and from many other places.

As you will soon see, there is much here that the reader should appreciate, but we must speak a word to the unduly squeamish: Nelson recognizes that his idiosyncracies may not be your “cup of tea,” to employ a common British idiom. However, for the most part this is not germaine, for Nelson’s overarching goal is to make sure that you meet and appreciate the Lord who created you and who will judge you instead. His immediate desire is to see the body of Jesus Christ incarnated before the world, so that, as a result, lost people everywhere may have opportunity to hear that Jesus Christ should be their cup of tea and, more profoundly, their Lord and Savior. And everything written here is filtered through the sieve of that principal concern. We rejoice in the fact that Nelson cares more about presenting the compelling attractiveness and inviting openness of his Savior than he cares about making a short-lived and dubious name for himself. That loving and selfless boldness—some wimpish worldly-wise ministers would dismiss it as heedless recklessness, but the wise in the ways of the God of Scripture would laud it as a holy temperament—is one of the virtues that sets Nelson apart as a minister of the Gospel and as an upcoming popular theological writer. May his tribe increase!

From a more academic methodological perspective, Michael Nelson serves as the preaching bridge between scholarly biblical exegesis and engaging Christian application. With regard to biblical exegesis, Nelson utilizes currently well-respected and quite often long-established evangelical scholars to aid him in the process of interpreting the Gospel of John. With regard to ministerial application, he provides a superb example of how theological interpretation is best done by the pastor who lives among his people, prompting them orally and demonstrating to them visually how they may and must reach out to the world with the life-giving Word of God. Though I personally might have phrased some things alternatively or presented a distinctive theological nuance or come to a slightly different conclusion, there is no doubt whatsoever that this book comes from a like heart desiring entire submission to Jesus and a keen mind dedicated to the utter reliability of Scripture. You will be blessed, as I have been, when you read what this minister of the good news has to say and you will be challenged to believe, in the full sense of the word, the truths of God’s Word without any reservation whatsoever.

In Christ,
Malcolm B. Yarnell III
Director, Center for Theological Research
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, Texas
Christmas 2009

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Rejoicing in the Ministry of a Church-Planting Church

A few months ago, I was introduced to a pastor in London, England, Barry King, through the kind words of another pastor in Farmersville, Texas, Bart Barber. Dr. Barber knew of my long experience with the British churches and of my own desire to see a revival occur in Great Britain. Christianity has fallen on hard times all over Western Europe; for instance, in England, church attendance is limited to less than 5% of the population, and the fastest growing religion is not even Christianity but Islam. I have been sharing the faith with unbelievers in Great Britain for some 15 years during my frequent visits there including a three-year residency at Oxford University. It has always been difficult for me to recommend that a new Christian attend a church there, knowing that many of the most vibrant evangelical churches are unfortunately disorderly in their doctrine of the church. And, as for those churches who possess a more New Testament polity, they are typically consumed with unbiblical oddities such as theological liberalism, the modern charismatic movement, or hyper-Calvinism.

However, now I am elated to report that there is a church—indeed, a growing family of churches—that possesses three important characteristics of a proper church: a missionary mindset, a healthy view of scriptural proclamation, and a Christ-exalting New Testament ecclesiology. It is in these three areas, among many others, that Grace Baptist Church, whose home congregation is located in north London, excels. Six years ago, Brother King resigned another church in London because he could not affirm certain aspects of their philosophy of ministry. Having sought to maintain peace with that church even as he departed her service, he was subsequently approached by two men whom he had recently begun to disciple. They encouraged him to consider establishing a new work, one that would emphasize biblical teaching and missionary outreach.

Barry prayed about the matter with them and his family and they began meeting together weekly for worship and fellowship. A year and a half later Barry was approached by the remnants of a small evangelical Baptist church who possessed a building but were soon to be without a pastor. After further prayer, the group meeting with Barry and this small group of believers entered into a new covenant as a new congregation with an old building. The result was Grace Baptist Church, Wood Green, Haringey. Because of their missionary mindset, they chose to start new congregations in other parts of London whenever possible. Indeed, every time the church has grown to a certain size, they have sent several families off to start a new congregation elsewhere in London. To date, they have begun five new congregations with work set to begin in two additional areas early in the New Year, who remain in affiliation with Grace Baptist Church and whose ministers Brother King is mentoring in the Word of God. (They currently have opportunity to begin some 20 other congregations and desire to see a church-planting church in each of the 41 boroughs of London with work in each of the 635 neighborhoods in London.)

Recently, sitting in a coffee shop early one Sunday morning in Wood Green, I had the pleasure of questioning Barry as to how he began and was continuing the work. We noted that his congregations were primarily composed of new believers. Then, I queried him, “And how were these new believers won to Christ?” At first, Barry looked at me quizzically, but recognizing that I was being intentional in my questions, he responded, “Well, I meet somebody, say, in a coffee shop, and then I talk to them about what the Bible says about their need for reconciliation with God and how Jesus Christ is the only answer.” He then explained that he believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection as the means of the salvation of all sinners, who must be born again with faith and repentance. He also explained that he believes biblical proclamation is the divinely ordained method of delivering that good news to lost people. I learned that he relied neither upon some humanly contrived church planting principle nor upon some emerging social ministry as his method for reaching the lost. Rather, he relied upon the Bible’s own method, which is to speak the Word directly in the hearing of as many lost people as will listen, encouraging them to believe (cf. Romans 10).

After this refreshing conversation about missional truth, we then proceeded to his church building, which like many in the British dissenting tradition was located off the main thoroughfare in a residential area. There, I was privileged to preach on the doctrine of believers-only baptism by immersion out of Romans 6 to his congregation. And during the service, I witnessed a wonderful man leading an expectant people to worship God with all their hearts and to hear God’s Word as the sole authority for their lives. We also heard reports from the ministers who are leading the church plants. These reports were, to say the least, personally inspiring and highly informative. Door-to-door evangelism, personal evangelism, street witnessing—Grace Baptist Church and its associated congregations were reaching the people of secularized multi-ethnic London, a society too many have deemed impenetrable, through a means that has been written off as old and unworkable, direct biblical proclamation.

Moreover, to my great delight, I was informed beyond a shadow of doubt that these churches followed the New Testament model in structuring and conducting their own lives as congregations. They begin with a covenant; they teach the entire counsel of God from the Bible regularly; they engage regenerate church membership by accepting only believers who have witnessed to their conversion through biblical baptism; they maintain authentic church membership through the regular meaningful observance of the Lord’s Supper; and, when necessary, practice redemptive church discipline. I was shocked. Here, in modern London, is a group of churches who recognize and honor the same truth as the first Baptist churches of seventeenth century England, who in turn emulated the New Testament church as established by Jesus Christ.

Well, there is so much more to report—the unremarked yet wonderful composition of the churches across ethnic, racial, and national boundaries; the intentional outreach to those who evangelical ecumenists may unwittingly and hastily mistake for true Christians (because, unlike Grace Baptist Church, they neglect to exercise spiritual discernment); the placement of the need for new congregations as primary and their own church building as important yet secondary; the centrality of the Bible in worship and the prominence of the gospel in every verbal action. Let me summarize what God is doing in north London through the ministry of Barry King and Grace Baptist Church by saying that I find great joy in this man’s ministry. He is leading people to follow Jesus exactly as the Lord has revealed His will in Scripture, not from legalistic motives but with thanksgiving in response to God’s saving grace. Moreover, as a non-Calvinist, I am overjoyed to report that Barry and his congregation were more concerned about what Scripture had to say than about whether or not I was personally holding to their own quite orthodox and evangelistic Calvinist convictions. May God glorify Himself far into the future through the joyful ministry of this church-planting church extraordinaire.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Karl Barth Demonstrates the Insufficiency of Reformed Theological Prolegomena

In The Formation of Christian Doctrine, I discussed four major options for Christian foundations in theological method. These were the (1) Roman Catholic, (2) Liberal Evangelical, (3) Reformed Evangelical, and (4) Free Church models. At one point, I criticized Gerhard Ebeling for ignoring the Free Church model in his understanding of Christian history, wherein he offered only a threefold paradigm, subsuming the Free Church understanding under the "Enthusiastic" as opposed to the Roman Catholic and Reformed models. Here, I would like to extend the critique of insufficient paradigms toward that premier Reformed theologian Karl Barth.

In his Church Dogmatics, I/1, under his discussion of "The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics," Barth, similarly to Ebeling, presents only three possible models for Prolegomena: (1) Roman Catholicism, (2) Protestant Modernism, and (3) Protestant Evangelical. These three models correlate to the first three models that I set out in chapter 2 of my book. The fourth model, that of the Free Church, is, however, woefully underestimated by Barth.

Barth, incredibly, subsumes the Free Church understanding within Protestant Modernism. Indeed, without any historical justification for such a dependence, he states that the assumption of Friedrich Schleiermacher, that faith is prior to dogmatic formation, has its "origin in English congregationalism" (p. 38). He then cites articles 20, 23, and 24 of the Platform of the Savoy Declaration as proof, adding further, "They and they alone could authorise Schleiermacher to commence his basic work of introduction with statements borrowed from ethics. And of themselves they are sufficient to characterise these borrowed statements as dogmatics, i.e., dogmatically heretical statements" (ibid.)

So, there you have it, according to Barth, the Free Church theological method is really the basis for Evangelical Liberalism, and the result is "dogmatically heretical statements." Unfortunately, Barth does not justify these statements beyond his cryptic reference to the Savoy Declaration. Later, in the Church Dogmatics and in numerous other writings, Barth will pursue, repeatedly and without satisfactory finality, the problem of relating ethics with dogmatics, a subject treated exhaustively in many of the works of my old professor, John Webster, now at Aberdeen University. Barth never could make the transition from dogmatics to ethics, try as he might, because he was constantly worried that human agency just might impinge upon divine grace.

As I argued during a lecture delivered at Aberdeen a few years ago, Barth would have benefited by a close reading of the work of Pilgram Marpeck. Marpeck, in my opinion, was able to weave his way clearly through the problem of grace and discipleship by allowing the latter an integral function within his theological foundation. In doing so, Marpeck demonstrated a way past the knotty problem that has held Reformed dogmatics in an irresolvable philosophical grip, a grip demonstrated in Barth's own philosophical ruminations regarding the doctrine of election. (Yes, even Barth, in spite of his Christological reading of Romans 9, could not escape the Stoical bases of Reformed thought.)

What I find of especial interest in Barth's flippant dismissal of the Free Church tradition is that he utilized the Savoy Declaration, in its discussions of the Gospel and Grace (art. 20), Oaths and Vows (art. 23), and the Civil Magistrate (art. 24). The Congregationalists/Independents who adopted the Savoy Declaration were, in many ways, just as enamored as Barth with Reformed speculations regarding divine election. However, in article 20, an article that they added to the Westminster Confession, they did leave some room for human response and personal transformation: "for the producing in them a new spiritual life."

And in articles 23 and 24, this opening is explored again. In discussing the taking of an oath, the human person is protected from external coercion with this statement: "neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing, but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform." Again, though in an apparently post-conversion context, the idea of a fully involved personal response by a human being is advocated.

Barth's reference to Article 24, on the Civil Magistrate, is highly disturbing, for in the Westminster Confession, the government is called upon in no uncertain terms to enforce the godly faith. The Savoy Declaration, however, respectful of human responsibility, qualifies the role of the government, bringing the liberty of individual consciences into direct conversation with government authority, protecting the former, in a limited sense, from impingement by the latter.

Let me wrap up this little exercise by noting the problems here with Reformed theological methodology, as exemplified in Karl Barth. By divorcing discipleship from doctrine, Reformed theology has created an irresolvable dilemma that prefers speculation about election to dependence upon scriptural affirmations. By citing his difficulty with the Savoy Declaration, Barth has demonstrated that Reformed theology is uncomfortable with personal responsibility and personal transformation, which are integral to any biblical doctrine of faith. Finally, again, by citing the Savoy Declaration, Barth has demonstrated that Reformed theology is, in its genesis, grossly dependent upon the coercion of consciences through, though here he is later equivocal, infant baptism.

Monday, October 05, 2009

Is Communion for Sinners?

Recently, a friend passed me the link to a video promotion for a DVD entitled "Communion." It is an interesting video (and painfully slow, so be warned!) It is interesting in that the author(s) seems to present the Lord's Supper as indiscriminately intended for all sinners. But this is too simple of a solution, and does violence to the biblical witness.

It is an indisputable truth that all human beings, other than Jesus Christ, are tainted by sin. This is what makes us worthy of the eternal punishment of death. Death, of course, is separation from God. And the Son of God took on our humanity in order to suffer the penalty of death for us on the cross and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life. Christ came to save sinners from sin and its consequence of death, which ends in eternal punishment away from the comforting presence of God. One is saved through being born again, which accompanies faith in Him and repentance toward God (John 3).

Unfortunately, the video's author, in this short promotion, presents the Lord's Supper as being intended for all sinners indiscriminately. But is this the case? Is communion intended for all sinners? Absolutely not!

When the Corinthian church demonstrated a penchant for gross immersion in the sins of the wider culture of their day, Paul rebuked them in no uncertain terms. The point he repeatedly made in the Corinthian correspondence was that the Lord's Supper was to be reserved only for the regenerate church. Those who were still infatuated with the sinful culture of Corinthian paganism were reminded that communion with God and communion with the devil are incompatible (1 Cor 10:20-21). The Corinthians were warned that they must be separate from the world: "'Come out from their midst and be separate,' says the Lord, 'and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you'" (2 Cor 6:17).

In other words, I believe that, according to Scripture, the ordinance of communion, practiced by the churches at the direct command of Jesus Christ, is to be reserved for sinners who have been born again and are pursuing a life of repentance. Are the unholy invited into communion with the Holy One? Yes, indeed. But, first, there must be a transformation prior to communion. Sinners must repent and believe; otherwise, they are still sinners subject to the judgment of God. Moreover, such repentance from sin and faith in Christ must continue to characterize the Christian's life.

Paul warned that those who continued in sin are subject to divine judgment precisely because they were unrepentant sinners. "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly" (1 Cor 11:29). The body must be judged. "The body," of course, is a common Pauline metaphor for the church. Individual Christians, in other words, must examine their own consciences (1 Cor 11:28), and Christians in the local church must hold one another accountable for one another's doctrine and conduct (1 Cor 11:29).

A concrete example in Corinth occurred with a young man involved in gross sexual sin. The speech of the Corinthian church had become so saturated with vice that she overlooked a situation by which even the pagans would be shocked (1 Cor 5:1). But rather than pass over the matter in silence, or make excuses for it, Paul called the church to take immediate action. As an Apostle, Paul recognized the need for the congregation itself to exercise governance through the application of discipline. The church must repent of its habit of condoning gross sin and excommunicate the sinner. When the church gathered, it must remove the sinful person "in the power of the Lord Jesus" and return him to the realm of Satan, i.e., the world (1 Cor 5:2-5).

The action of the Corinthian church in disciplining the unrepentant sinner was necessary, in spite of the difficulty it might bring to all involved. Yet, the difficulties were worth what seems to have been the result. Rather than continue condoning sexual sin, the majority of the Corinthian church seems to have obeyed and applied church discipline. This resulted in getting the sinner's attention, bringing to him great sorrow, and as a result, he repented. Paul then called the church to restore the repentant sinner to fellowship (2 Cor 2:1-9). Through discipline, an unrepentant sinner who thought he was already a Christian but did not act like it, was brought to repentance and faithfulness towards Christ.

My friends, our churches must seek to maintain their public purity. On the one hand, the church will never be perfect until all Christians gather (for the first time as one) at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8). On the other hand, the members of the church are commanded by Christ to help one another towards repentance and a faithful lifestyle even now. If an individual Christian will not repent of publicly-known sin, then he or she must be excluded by the church (and only by the church--there is no room for elders arrogating to themselves the power of church discipline) for the purpose of loving redemption (Matt 18:15-17).

Let it be clearly noted that the intended outcome is, ultimately, the redemption of the sinner. Punishment is entirely in the purview of God alone, but loving discipline is given by the Lord to the church to practice when necessary. The church is to separate from unrepentant sinners in order that they might prompt one another through the covenantal life of the community to follow Christ completely.

So, we come back to the question prompted by the subject video: Is communion for sinners? Yes, but not without discrimination. Communion is only for sinners who have been born again. We know we are truly born again only because we are repenting of sin and are seeking to live lives faithful to the high call of Jesus Christ in discipleship.

Perhaps the video that prompted this short essay goes further into these matters. Unfortunately, the website does not clarify. I hope the full content is better than the presentation available publicly, for what they have posted online presents a highly distorted picture of the scriptural witness. For more on the biblical understanding of the regenerate church practicing close communion, see the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 articles on the church (art. 6) and on baptism and the Lord's Supper (art. 7).

Jesus is the Lord of His churches, which means that He is to be followed in what He commands them.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Unauthorized Consent: An Old Essay Addresses New Problems

Yesterday, somebody affiliated with the Baylor community re-posted a paper on their discussion forum, which I originally wrote in 2002 . If you have not heard, the Baylor University Administration is seeking to shut down all dissent by swallowing the independent Baylor Alumni Association whole. Read about their attempt here.

For Moderate Baptists

It is somewhat curious to me that a school community affiliated with the more moderate side of the Baptist equation now includes an appeal to the work of a conservative Baptist scholar. Why? Because moderate Texas Baptists, who have prided themselves on being Baptist, find that they are losing their Baptist way of being community. If that popular-style essay, written some 7 years ago, is of any help to these fellow Baptists, I will rejoice, even across the moderate/conservative divide.

A Warning For All Baptists

But moderate Baptists are not the only ones who need to be reminded of our principles. In light of the fact that we are always in danger of losing our Baptist identity when some Baptists seek to remove other Baptists from their rightful place at the table, I am re-posting that essay. "Unauthorized Consent" applies to more situations than the gross practice of liberal-leaning self-perpetuating boards.

The only way we will remain Baptists (i.e. New Testament churches) by conviction is when we remember the theological principles upon which we are built. The priesthood of all believers and congregationalism are non-negotiable essentials in our Baptist identity. If we neglect those truths, we will become Baptists by convenience rather than Baptists by conviction, and, eventually, we will lose the name as well as the substance.

You may access the essay, "Unauthorized Consent," originally published in the Missouri Baptist Pathway, in Adobe format here.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Top Twelve Reading List Recommended for All Christians Everywhere

Recently, I was asked (yet again) for a recommended reading list for young people preparing for ministry. Next to the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, I recommend that every Christian read the following works, which span the history of the Christian witness. They will increase your personal faith and deepen your theological convictions as you also bear witness to a fallen world of the saving grace available only in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do hope they compel you to a closer walk with the Lord, as they did and still do with me.

Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word

Augustine, Confessions

Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther

Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian

Balthasar Hubmaier, The Christian Baptism of Believers

John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress (both books)

Philip Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria

William Carey, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (or simply, Discipleship)

John Stott, The Cross of Christ


Note: Some of these books are longer than others; some will be more difficult than others (so don't get bogged down, just keep going!); some may be available in multiple translations; some are available freely on the web; others will require purchase or library loan. If you can read these books in the original Greek, Latin, German or English forms, so much the better; however, modern translations will be more than adequate. Although it would be best for you to learn both Greek and Hebrew, so that you may more adequately approach the original biblical texts, you may want to begin your biblical language studies with an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, or an interlinear text that correlates the Greek New Testament with your own primary language.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

A Tribute to My Father

My father is known as Mel Yarnell to his friends and family. He is the son of a Pennsylvania farmer who left the farm to join the United States Air Force, where he served for 27 years as a security officer and recruiter, before retiring in Louisiana. A strong believer in Jesus Christ who is a consistent witness to lost souls, he has always looked for ways to bless others who are in need. The dynamic nature of his love for others is seen in how he continues to do what he can for them in spite of having suffered a debilitating stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body a few years ago. My father's life story was recently summarized in "The Posse Press," a publication offered by the Bossier Sheriff's office. This provides some details about my father, a Christmas blessing to the people of Korea, and how he met my mother. I am proud of both of them.