Resolving the Uncertainty at the Crossroads: The 2018 Southern Baptist Convention

During the past few months, it has become apparent that while Southern Baptists say we want biblical truth to drive our efforts, we are somewhat conflicted amongst ourselves as to how that looks. Southern Baptists have arrived at a crossroads, and the future for our common work as a Christian people is uncertain.

Some of us pine primarily for a revival in that aspect of our piety characterized by evangelism; others among us argue for a renewal in that aspect of our piety characterized by justice. These two tendencies coalesce for a third and ultimately decisive middle group in a desire for expressing well the Lord’s commands to engage in both gospel witness and gospel practice. (I personally believe our choices are, providentially, not as much in conflict as the political conversation suggests, but more anon.)

Nevertheless, as with civil voting patterns in the United States, the middle group may feel forced to choose between one way or the other, for we have created a unitary power structure that funnels authority through the office of a single leader. The wisdom, or lack thereof, of the American proclivity, through both its civil and religious political democracies, to grant overarching power to one officer demonstrates itself once again in a polarized people. As a result, we sense intense heat even as we hope to see great light moving into our annual gathering.

For several weeks now, I have been encouraged by a number of good people to declare my views publicly on critical matters facing Southern Baptists as we head to Dallas. Yet the Lord has not released me to address matters that reach their cruces in judgments regarding particular persons. Friends would have me address persons, but God has laid on me the necessity of addressing principles.

I have chosen, therefore, not to focus upon persons for the sake of principles, but upon principles for the sake of persons. Perhaps God will allow us to see that these principles can, true in themselves and truly utilized, help us discern and deliver God’s will regarding the persons around us. Today’s relevant theological principles themselves preeminently concern us as human persons.

There are two principles which currently require our attention, at least as far as I can see. The first principle concerns our divine authority; the second, our divine imagery. Perhaps both will garner our people’s hearty affirmation.

Our Divine Authority

Evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, know that God has chosen to reveal himself in his Word. But while we emphasized the Word of God as Scripture in the late twentieth century, we appear to have drifted from that concern in recent decades. At one time, the dependability and trustworthiness of the Bible compelled both our dialectics and our rhetoric. Alas, however, biblical inerrancy may have become less a principle and more a talisman.

Like passersby glibly burnishing the shiny toe of David Hume’s bronze statue on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, have we begun to treat Scripture’s dependability as something of an obligatory if largely meaningless charm? The language of inspiration and infallibility is no longer used as much in our speech, and sadly its deep meaning seems increasingly lost to our cognition. We say we believe in God’s Word, and most of us even refer to it in our sermons. But are we really allowing Scripture its proper formative role in our thought, speech, and practice?

Recognizing the importance of the doctrine that compelled and legitimized the Conservative Resurgence in the first place, Dr. Owen Strachan of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary worked with me to craft a resolution for consideration by the Committee on Resolutions. Dr. Strachan, Associate Professor of Christian Theology and Director of the Center for Public Theology at our Southern Baptist seminary in Kansas City, Missouri, is a rising young theologian with an impressive record of addressing critical issues in speech and in text. It was a privilege to work with him for a second year in a row. (Last year, we worked together to affirm Penal Substitutionary Atonement.)

My personal hope in submitting our Resolution Affirming the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture is that by returning to our first principle regarding the authority of divine revelation, we might again know the leadership of the Lord in our common effort as a denomination. Psalm 111 reminds us, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and "All who follow his instructions have good insight."

I believe we will see the way forward to real unity and proper action only through serious Bible study and passionate Bible proclamation. Without constant referral to the divine basis of our authority, we will perish. We absolutely must restate the importance of biblical inerrancy.

Our Divine Imagery

The second resolution summarizes a doctrine with profound implications for a multitude of practical issues. It undergirds today's most popular news headlines and dominates our social media discussions. What dogma lies at the center of our concerns with the problems of abortion, euthanasia, racism and ethnocentrism, sexual abuse, political demonization, and religious persecution?

The biblical doctrine of humanity orients the nexus of these critical ethical issues. The real sickness we have concerns a misunderstanding of who we are as human beings; our ethical crises are symptoms of a more fundamental problem. Humanity is under sustained demonic assault, and the social traumas originating from that warfare demand a faithful witness from God's people concerning God's highest-placed creature. The created dignity of human beings is a doctrine which Southern Baptists have long affirmed, but we have too often overlooked it during other discussions.

Recognizing the church's responsibility to address the anthropological deficiency of this day and age drove recent discussions between Dr. Keith S. Whitfield and me. Dr. Whitfield, who is Associate Professor of Theology, Dean of Graduate Studies, and Vice President for Academic Administration at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, has a gentle heart and a keen mind. I believe we would do well to wear his winsome words. Dr. Whitfield and I previously collaborated in a book on theological method, but we now try our hand at collaborating in a resolution on anthropology.

My personal hope in submitting our Resolution Reaffirming the Full Dignity of Every Human Being is that by reminding ourselves of God's creative and redemptive gifts of identity to humanity, we might help reverse the horrible denigrations of humanity occurring in so many areas of contemporary life. Especially vulnerable in our culture are those persons who lack sufficient political or economic power to require recognition of themselves as worthy of life and liberty. There are two major theological parts to our resolution:

First, as Christians, we believe it imperative to affirm the sacredness, the full dignity, and the worthiness of love which belong to every human creature as a special gift from the Creator. Our dignity as human beings derives not from other human beings. Too many human institutions arrogate to themselves an authority to pronounce decisions about things regarding which they were never given authority to define. Because our dignity as human beings derives from the Creator of all human life, every human life belongs to God alone. Human powers must submit to this universal anthropological truth or find themselves damned for their despicable actions at the final judgment.

Second, as Christians, we also recognize that being created in the divine image is not the end of the story. After we were created in the divine image, humanity abused his image through sin and suffered debilitating damage. To solve this problem is why the Perfect Image of God became a human being, and through the Spirit's gift of faith, the human being's image can be renewed unto conformity with Christ. Thus, we call people not only to respect the full dignity of all human persons, but also to have their own dignity renewed unto perfection by the perfect Word of God.

True humanity comes as a result of creation and of redemption. Both stages of the human condition must be reaffirmed by those who believe in the truth of God's Word as the basis for our teaching today. On the one hand, without recognition of humanity's universal created dignity, we face the specter of continually repeating the horrors of our world's past denigrations of precious children, women, and men. On the other hand, without recognition of humanity's universal need for a renewal of that dignity, we face the specter of God's righteous final judgment upon us for our sins. The biblical doctrine of the image of God puts evangelism and justice in correlation rather than in conflict.

In Conclusion

My purpose in submitting these two resolutions is to call us back to God's Word as the basis for our approach to reality and to call us to see every human person's proper place of dignity within this reality. May God use my brothers' excellent labors upon these resolutions for his glory.

(We trust the collegial wisdom of the Resolutions Committee to bring forward in the proper form the common messages the Lord would have Southern Baptists speak regarding the critical issues of our day. Thus we will not repeat our proposed resolutions verbatim online. Nor do we presume the committee will see exactly what we see in speaking about these great truths. So we pray.)

God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits (Book Excerpt)

Evangelicalism in America has amalgamated for scholars in the organization known as the Evangelical Theological Society. The two parts of its “doctrinal basis” concern the Bible’s truthfulness and God the Trinity. While some evangelicals have addressed the Trinity in terms of systematic theology and others have employed the Trinity in debates over gender relations, few monographs are dedicated to evaluating the biblical source material for the Trinity. This is an odd oversight for a people whose confession centers on only the Bible and the Trinity.

Anecdotal evidence, moreover, suggests such work should begin in earnest, for if a recent survey is correct, most evangelical Christians in the United States are not necessarily Trinitarian. One-fifth of American evangelicals claimed Jesus is the first creature created by God, and more than half claimed the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being. That survey gives some credence to Curtis Freeman’s controversial claim that “most Baptists are Unitarians that simply have not yet gotten around to denying the Trinity.” If evangelical scholars are Trinitarian, the people in the churches may not be.

In addition, there is some diversity among Christian scholars regarding whether the Trinity is a necessary doctrine. One well-known evangelical theologian, Roger E. Olson of Baylor University, says the doctrine of the Trinity is a true conclusion, but belief in the Trinity is neither necessary nor part of gospel proclamation. Another, R. Albert Mohler Jr. of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, to the contrary classifies the doctrine of the Trinity as “fundamental and essential to the Christian faith.” Leaving to the side the issue of “theological triage,” which both theologians affirm, an evangelical equivocation regarding the Trinity remains.

In writing this book, we set out to answer these two questions: Is the doctrine that God is Trinity a biblical doctrine? Is it, moreover, a doctrine that is necessary to believe? The eight chapters in this book contribute toward the answers.

In the midst of engaging in the close theological exegesis of eight important biblical texts, it became evident that a Trinitarian reading of Scripture also required an evaluation of Protestant hermeneutics. The method of Bible study many evangelicals are taught to use must be substantially revised if the Trinity and the Bible are to coalesce. As a result, there arose the need to wrestle with interpretive method as much as Trinitarian exegesis. Indeed, we almost adopted the subtitle, “The Trinitarian Revision of Biblical Hermeneutics.”

Karl Barth observed this difficulty and opted to diminish hermeneutics out of concern that any interpretive criterion beyond the text necessarily distorts exegesis. While there is much to learn from Barth, and his call to enter “the strange new world of the Bible” warms the heart of this free churchman in his own friendly remonstration toward Protestant evangelicalism, we have opted to revise rather than repress evangelical hermeneutical method.

In the following study, comparison is made with the art of painting as a helping metaphor. This was deemed helpful on several accounts. First, it allows for a focused consideration of the various texts, treating each according to its own authorship, genre, and context. From a modern critical perspective, this properly takes the history and grammar of any text as a distinct phenomenon with utmost solemnity. Second, the appeal to art helps construct a bridge from the rationalism endemic among the practitioners of my own discipline in theology to the more holistic approach of the biblical writers. The critique of any work of literature requires both reason and imagination, but the theological interpretation of Scripture especially requires the graces of both logos and pneuma.

Third, the art metaphor allows this author to function as an appreciative if critical commentator upon each text as a great work of theological literature. Avoiding the extremes of the Enlightenment and Romanticism, we sought to weave a middle way through the judicious employment of both modern and premodern methods. Finally, the meticulous treatment of each text on its own later permits the epilogue to pursue a distinct canonical approach, as when art is gathered thematically for review in contemporary art galleries.

Order God the Trinity at LifeWay, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Christianbook.com.

(This post originally appeared in a slightly different format at my publisher's website, B&H Academic.)

A Word-Honoring Debate on Calvinism

The debates between the New Calvinists and Traditionalists within the Southern Baptist Convention have often generated more heat than light in recent years. (Traditionalists are also known as non-Calvinists or even Biblicists.) However, there are positive dialogues that have taken place, too. 

Recently, Dr. John Mark Caton, Senior Pastor of Cottonwood Creek Baptist Church and former Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, moderated a dialogue on Calvinism between Dr. Matthew McKellar and yours truly. Dr. McKellar, a longtime pastor and expository preacher and also a former trustee, is now Associate Professor of Preaching here at Southwestern Seminary. It is a privilege to have this avowed Calvinist on our faculty working alongside this avowed Biblicist/Traditionalist/non-Calvinist.

If you are interested in this hotly debated topic, please take a moment to hear the hearts of academic theologians and a pastor-theologian, who each seek to deal with the issue from a biblical-theological foundation even as they arrive at different responses to the Calvinist system of interpretation.

Theological Inferences: Be Careful When Reaching Beyond the Bible

     When Scripture makes a theological claim, it is incumbent upon Christians to affirm that claim. However, the theological task is never a matter of merely repeating Scripture (though we should be doing that more than we do!) The task of theology includes speaking to people today about the coherence of the truth claims made in Scripture. Part of the difficulty in the theological task is that different theologians choose to speak in different ways about the coherence of biblical theology. These competing ways of speaking theology arise due to the nature of one of the necessary, though problematic tools that we employ: theological inferences.
     Let us begin with a relevant example. For instance, when Scripture speaks about human responsibility and God holding people accountable for their attitudes and actions, most theologians automatically posit a doctrine of "free will." Scripture itself speaks of the human constituency in terms of "spirit," "soul," "conscience," etc., but "free will" does not appear to be an explicit biblical category for humanity. "Free will" is thus a theological inference that derives from the theological task. Such theological inferences may be useful as ways to clarify and categorize our thoughts about God and His creation, but they should be carefully used. A theological inference may be true, and may be in some way based on Scripture, but it still remains a human theological inference rather than a theological claim explicitly affirmed in Scripture.
     "Free will," which is, in my opinion, a legitimate theological inference, very often becomes part of the theological framework that theologians attempt to construct. Personally, I have tended to shy away from using it too much, though I freely affirm my fellow theologians in their use of the term. Why do I personally shy away from its heavy use? Well, because once you have one theological inference, you then must relate it to other theological claims and inferences. Why do I then affirm its use? Well, because we must engage in theology if we are to be faithful to the Word and the task of preaching, and there is little doubt that the term is helpful to many preachers.
     Let us dwell upon the first point--the personal reticence to use some theological inferences too heavily--a little more. Again, we appeal to the example of "free will," though there are many such inferences in theology. Once a theologian has posited "free will," he may feel compelled to step beyond that and use the concept in more substantial ways. This is especially true in Western theology. Standing at the headwaters of Latin theology, Augustine of Hippo posited this human constituency of "free will." He then felt compelled to propose how human "free will" should be related to divine sovereignty, which is an explicit theological claim in Scripture. He also felt compelled to relate human "free will" with the problem of the Fall of humanity into sin with Adam. Augustine then went on to make his answers foundational for his doctrines of infant baptism, the relation of nature and grace, etc.
     Inevitably, then, in order to maintain theological coherence, other questions are raised. For instance, how do you relate human "free will" with divine sovereignty and with the Fall of humanity? Well, some theologians see the human "free will" as determined by God from eternity, while others say it was corrupted in the Fall and therefore is no longer "free" per se, while yet others see it as created by God and as being involved in Adam's fall but that human beings retain their freedom even through the Fall. Of course, then these diverse theologians begin to argue and classify each other's ideas and each other with categories. Historically, in the Dark Ages names started being thrown about, such as "Augustinian," "Pelagian," "Semi-Augustinian," "Semi-Pelagian," and later, carrying on the medieval fascination with scholastic systems, "Calvinist," "Arminian," "Modified Calvinist," "Moderate Arminian," etc. Of course, there were also the terms "error" and "heresy" too often loosely scattered.
     Mind you, and here we are being overly charitable, these Christians at their best are each attempting to be responsible theologians and arrive at some conclusion to the matter in order to maintain the coherence of their theology. But also mind this, most departed from direct biblical claims and began to build theological inferences upon both the theological inferences of men and the theological claims of the Bible. This way of doing theology is also tied up heavily with Roman claims for the infallibility of councils and popes. This stacking of inference upon inference and claim upon yet more inferences and claims results in what we call systematic theology. (Yes, I do this type of thing for a living. And, yes, it is something that all Christians should necessarily do, for it is part of submitting our minds to God.)
     However, in spite of the necessity of systematic theology with its structure of inferences and claims, it would be beneficial if we remembered that the human theological inference and the biblical theological claim are not of the same status. When God's Word speaks, it is incumbent upon every Christian theologian to say, "Amen!" When a preacher speaks about God's Word, and the listener's heart is prompted by the Spirit to affirm that that too is God's Word, then say, "Amen!" However, not everything that a preacher says about God's Word may itself be God's Word. (Jesus warned us about this, and those noble Bereans in Acts 17 understood this well, for they judged Paul's preaching by the Word.)
     Part of what this theologian or that preacher says may be an inference, an inference to which my own heart has not been prompted by the Spirit to say, "Amen!" Why would I not say, "Amen!"? The possibilities are (1) that the Holy Spirit has not illuminated that biblical truth to me; (2) that I am in rebellion against God's Word and Spirit; or (3) that the theological inference is itself a human inference that God's Word really doesn't teach. How then do we arrive at the truth of the matter?
     In such cases, humility and community must, among others, step in and have their say. Humility with a theological inference means that I must recognize that my theological inference, such as "free will" or "effectual calling" or "prevenient grace," may have a tenuous biblical basis. Indeed, the latter two inferences strike me as being more difficult to establish than the inference of "free will." This means that there is actually a hierarchy of inferences: on one end are such doctrines as the Trinity and inerrancy, which are soundly based in the scriptural witness, and on the other end are such doctrines as effectual calling and prevenient grace, which are based upon a system of inferences and claims. As one of my fellow faculty said this morning, some theological inferences are legitimate as walls, but not as "load-bearing" walls. This is a very good point!
     Humility demands that I be careful with my theological inferences so as not to assert that they themselves are direct theological claims from Scripture. Humility demands that I be careful not to place undue weight on human inferences. Humility demands that I always hold my system, especially those sections heavily dependent upon inferences, in some degree of suspicion. I may believe in this way of reading Scripture, because I am convinced that it is constructed from the theological claims of Scripture and from legitimate theological inferences from Scripture. However, my theological system is still my response to Scripture, my human construction.
     Community also has a role as we discern the truths of Scripture. This is what Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians 14 and what in the Radical Reformation is called the "law of sitting" (German Sitzerrecht, Latin lex sedentium.)  Let the preachers speak in an orderly way and let the others sit and judge. The Anabaptists were so willing to go into formal disputations with Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman theologians, because they believed truth was arrived at together, that the text would lead Christians together into the truth. Sadly, they were often wrongly accused as heretics and then horribly tortured. Thousands of them were burnt at the stake, drowned for being baptistic, and driven mercilessly from their homes by Catholics and Reformers alike. Christian history presents some horrible lessons for us, today, in these matters.
     In spite of the difficulties of theological construction and discussion, I still believe that we can arrive at theological truth through theological inferences as we listen to Scripture together, but only if we will orderly and patiently hear one another. This entails a willingness to return to Scripture in order to establish each and every claim and inference, alongside the freedom to reject inferences not firmly based in Scripture. This is where we are as Southern Baptists right now. I have longed to see us converse about theology and do this well. I pray we will. I am committing myself to listening patiently to others, even as I remember that theological inferences must be handled carefully, for with them we are reaching beyond the Bible. And reaching too far beyond the Bible is always a dangerous move.

Top Ten Theological Truths Every Young Christian Should Know

(The following summary of doctrine was created at the request of the leadership for the Youth Ministry Lab at its 2011 meeting. YML recently drew a great number of young people and their ministers together for worship and instruction in Fort Worth, Texas, where numerous decisions were made to follow Christ into salvation and service. It is offered for general readership here.)

The Trinity: The one true God who created all things, who redeems believers, and whom believers worship is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; God the Trinity is eternally one God in three persons.

The Bible: God reveals all the truth we need in order to know of Him, to be reconciled to Him, and to live for Him in the 66 canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, which comprise Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is the perfect Word of God with full authority over mankind, because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who kept the original autographs free from error, who preserves the text through history, and who testifies its full trustworthiness while illumining its meaning to us.

Creation and Providence: On the basis of His love, the triune God created all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing, sustains all things providentially, and will bring all things to their proper end for His glory.

Humanity and Sin: The triune God created humanity, male and female, in His image. He gave mankind dominion over the earth and commanded him to be fruitful and multiply. God intended the man and his wife for a faithful lifelong marriage exclusively with one another, the man at the head of his family. However, Adam with all of his descendents rebelled against the Creator. Thus, human beings come under a sentence of condemnation to eternal death through their own sin. Humanity was driven from the holy presence of God because of sin.

Jesus Christ: In order to restore mankind and bring him to eternal life, God the Father sent His only begotten Son, the eternal Word of God and second person of the Trinity, to unite Himself forever with humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus Christ was conceived of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, lived a sinless life, taught us the words of God, died a propitiatory death on the cross as a once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, arose from the dead on the third day for our justification, ascended to reign enthroned at the right hand of the Father, and will one day return to render judgment on all creation.

The Holy Spirit: God sends the eternal Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, into the world to accompany the proclamation of the Word of God and convict men of the sin of unbelief, of the coming judgment on the ruler of this world and those in the world, and of the righteousness that is available freely to all sinners through faith in the Son of God. The Holy Spirit comes to reside in new believers, providing them with the seal of promise that God will complete His work of salvation, with spiritual fruit to characterize their lives, and with spiritual gifts for the edification of the church, especially the gift of proclamation.

The Beginning of Salvation: In salvation, when a person hears the Word of God proclaimed and truly believes by grace, the external righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer as justification, thus saving him from condemnation; at the same moment, the Holy Spirit sovereignly regenerates or transforms the believer with faith and repentance so that this person now begins to follow Jesus Christ in salvation.

The Christian Life and the End: As salvation continues, a believer is assured of perserverance unto eternal life, but must consistently seek to grow in holiness through hearing, reading, and knowing God's Word and the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification. Salvation will one day be completed in God's work of glorification, when believers shall receive transformed bodies in the first resurrection as Jesus returns to reign. At the end of the millennium, Christ shall judge all with the eternal consequence of heaven or hell. By grace, believers are united with God and one another, entering the eternal presence of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

The Church: All believers must regularly and faithfully worship God with the church, the gathered congregation of true believers, hearing the Word of God proclaimed and observing the Lord's ordinances, beginning with believers-only baptism by immersion as a sign of faith and continuing with regular celebration of the meaningful memorial of the Lord's Supper, submitting to redemptive congregational discipline.

The Great Commission: The church, inclusive of all believers as a royal priesthood in Christ, was commissioned by the Lord, beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, to go to the entire world until the end, to proclaim the Word of God so that whosoever will believe should become disciples of Jesus Christ, to baptize new disciples in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and to teach them all things contained in the Word of the Lord, of which this is a mere summary.

HCSB Study Bible: God's Word for Life

The HCSB Study Bibleis now available and comes with this reviewer's studied recommendation. The importance of this recommendation should be evident since, after considering other popular study Bibles, I chose to give a leather-bound version of the HCSB Study Bibleto my middle son in order to encourage him further in his Bible reading. Before proceeding to a discussion of the Study Bible apparatus, we will consider this new translation.

The HCSB Translation

HCSB, Holman Christian Standard Bible, seeks to fill a recognizable hole among modern English translations in seven notable ways. First, the translators utilize the most recent critical editions of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Second, the translators did not insist upon revising previous translations, as has been all too common, but they sought to provide "a new translation for today's generation" of English-speaking peoples.

Third, the translation philosophy of the HCSB is neither that of "formal equivalence" nor that of "dynamic or functional equivalence." Formal equivalence seeks to retain the exact equivalence of word and sentence structure from the original languages, but this sometimes results in awkward English translations. On the other hand, dynamic equivalence seeks to bring across the thought of the original into modern English forms, but this sometimes results in the loss of formal meanings affiliated with the original text. Recognizing the difficulties with both of these older translation philosophies, the translators chose to follow the practice of "optimal equivalence," retaining the original forms as much as possible without also sacrificing English comprehension.

The fourth notable fact about the HCSB is that the translators retained the original gender distinctions of the biblical text, a matter of no small consequence in today's egalitarian culture. Fifth, the HCSB has chosen to translate the names of God as closely as possible to the original, which means, for instance, that the personal name of "Yahweh" actually appears in the translation, a practice long overdue. Sixth, some special formatting features, such as marking quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament in bold, are very helpful. Seventh and finally, textual footnotes regarding alternate readings or more literal readings are provided.

These seven aspects of the HCSB translation make it a worthy addition to any Christian's library and a worthy gift for any unbeliever interested in hearing about the Christian Bible. One of the few complaints I have with regard to the translation itself is its continuation of transliterating the Greek words for immersion rather than translating them. This is a peculiar decision for a translation coming from a Baptist organization and one that runs against the grain of the HCSB's own stated translation principle of "fresh translation." Nonetheless, the translation is one that should continue to be tested and grow in usage.

The HCSB Study Bible

Now, we proceed to the commentary apparatus known as the Study Bible. There are seven notable features to the HCSB Study Bible that make it a worthy addition to the Christian reader's library. First, other than the introductions and essays, the publisher has chosen to make sure that the biblical text itself is highlighted on the typical page of the book. This is intentional, as it gently reminds the reader through text placement and font size that the Word of God is authoritative while the commentator's study notes are of entirely secondary status. Second, each biblical book is preceded by a short but informative introduction regarding the book's circumstances of writing, message and purpose, and a helpful structural outline. There is also a chronological timeline with each introduction.

The third notable feature of the Study Bible are the study notes that accompany the text. These study notes provide historical, linguistic and theological comments upon the biblical text prepared by highly-qualified Christian scholars. For instance, Andreas Kostenberger contributed the introduction and notes for the Gospel of John and Paul's letter to the Colossians, while Terry Wilder wrote the introduction and notes for 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude. The fourth notable feature are the essays scattered throughout the text, also written by highly-qualified Christian scholars. For instance, George Guthrie contributed a compelling essay on "How to Read and Study the Bible," which I recommend every Christian read, not only for its hermeneutical instructions but for its spiritual maturity and practical encouragement. The reader will appreciate the other essays, including such small jewels as "Christ in the Old Testament" by Craig Blaising, or "The Bible and Civil Rights" by Kevin L. Smith.

Fifth among the notable features of the Study Bible are the word studies and bullet points. The individual word studies bring the reader summary information regarding the historical and theological significance of important Hebrew and Greek words. The bullet points refer the reader to an appendix for definitions of important common scriptural words. The sixth feature concerns the helpful maps, charts, photos and illustrations that are scattered throughout the text.

The final notable feature of the HCSB Study Bibleregards the intention of the publisher and the contributors (and, yes, I am one of them, having written the introduction and notes for the epistle to the Hebrews). As Jeremy Howard notes in his introduction, the contributors seek to be "servants to the text" so that people might be encouraged to engage God's Word "on a deeper level." We believe that all human beings "are sinners in need of reconciliation with God, and that this reconciliation comes only through faith in God's Son who paid our sin debt on the cross." This is why the reader will repeatedly be encouraged to encounter God in the Word by the power of His Spirit.

Yes, I would have written some of the notes and essays differently from my colleagues. (The most disconcerting example being the general editor's choice to impose a Calvinist meaning in his comments upon the text through the theologically loaded language of "effectual," including the authoritative use of unexplained quotation marks, to describe the calling of Romans 8:30.) However, that said, this Study Bible is worthy of purchase and use by the average Christian, as long as it is remembered that our commentary upon Scripture is fallible while the Biblical text itself remains absolutely trustworthy.

The HCSB Study Bibleis available in hardcover, imitation leather, bonded leather and leather. The HCSB Study Bible also may be accessed through the internet at mystudybible.com, and a very nice application is available for use on iPhones and iPads.

GCRTF VIEWPOINT: What does Scripture say?

By Malcolm Yarnell
Mar 26, 2010

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--The Southern Baptist Convention's decision last June to create a Great Commission Resurgence Task Force was motivated by our growing realization that the baptisms within our churches are slowing. The highly anticipated interim report from this blue-ribbon committee chaired by pastor Ronnie Floyd recently fostered much debate. However the upcoming national and state convention meetings receive the final recommendations, one must agree that we are all becoming more aware of our God-given responsibility to fulfill His Great Commission. It cannot be stressed enough how important this is. The study committee and its respondents are providing a great spiritual service in highlighting the Great Commission. Let us thank God that He is fostering a renewed concern for His will.

Historically, we began our existence through a similar renewed concern to fulfill those Bible passages identified with the Great Commission (especially Matthew 28:18-20, but also Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:45-49, John 20:21-23 and Acts 1:8). The Anabaptists and early General Baptists referred to such passages as the "rule of Christ." A 16th-century Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, popularized the term "Great Commission" through his many writings. Later, William Carey used the Great Commission to rebuke hard-line Calvinist views among 18th-century Baptists, thereby launching the modern missionary movement. The first Baptist convention in America began with a sermon on the Great Commission by a leading southern Baptist, Richard Furman, and missionary Southern Baptists often have returned to the Great Commission in their zeal to please God. Thus, historically, the Great Commission is part and parcel of what it means to be Baptist. But tradition, as inspiring as it is, is not what motivates Baptists; Scripture does.

The Biblical Basis for a Resurgence

This brings us to ask: Where in Scripture might a Great Commission Resurgence be discussed? If we peer over the desk of the late Herschel H. Hobbs, we discover that the New Testament letter to the Hebrews was written in order to challenge its readers "to go on in the fulfillment of their divinely given mission -- to be a people of evangelism and missions" (Hebrews: Challenges to Bold Discipleship). In other words, the Hebrews had reached a crisis point: Either they would fulfill the Great Commission of their Lord Jesus Christ or they would fall away into obscurity. Hobbs again remarks, "A given group of God's people, a church, or an individual Christian may so rebel against God's world-mission as to lose the opportunity of being used in it." These are sober and frightening and relevant words, indeed.

Has our generation of Southern Baptists reached a similar crisis point? Is God reminding us of His commission, warning us to fulfill His will or be bypassed? This is not the same question as apostasy; rather, it is a question about our churches' obedience to the Lord. Are we willing to recognize that Jesus is the Lord of His church and He alone determines her membership, her structure, her gifts, her leadership, her ordinances, her mission, her methods and her message? Are we willing to hear His Great Commission and obey it, precisely as He put it forward in the Bible?

These are questions that we in the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention must ask ourselves. Before continuing, we must admit these are not really questions for the denomination, as good as it has been and still is, for Christ did not establish denominations. The only redemptive institution established by Jesus Christ in Scripture is the church (Matthew 16:18), and she is seen now only in local covenanted gatherings of believers (Matthew 18:18-20). Denominational entities exist only for the cooperative purposes of the churches and carry no dominical claim whatsoever to be church. A denomination is dependent upon and subservient to its churches. It may surprise us, but in the end the Lord will not ask whether our denominational entities were obedient to His Great Commission, for He did not give this responsibility to them. Our churches are directly responsible to Jesus Christ to fulfill the Great Commission, and we may not empower and release that responsibility to even the most efficient entity.

Where Do We Begin and How Do We Proceed?

The Great Commission Resurgence must be fulfilled first and foremost in the local churches. The primary question is, therefore, not about the denomination's structure, but the local church's structure. If we in the local churches do not look like what Christ established and the apostles practiced in the New Testament, we must reconsider our structures. The denominational structure, a human innovation, only comes into consideration as a secondary or tertiary matter. Our first concern must be with Christ's institution: Is my church New Testament in its structure, methods, etc.? Denominational structures are relevant only insofar as the God-given priorities of the local churches are honored, maintained and promoted. From this perspective, the more ties an extrabiblical entity has with the local churches, the better; the fewer contacts, the worse. So, the resurgence must begin locally.

If there is to be a Great Commission Resurgence, it must start within the churches. But where do the churches start? Hebrews 5:8-14 compels us to look to Christ Himself as the perfect example of obedience and to proceed into theological and ethical maturity. Growth into Christian maturity begins with making sure that the foundation of our faith is right. After the foundation is set, theological maturity is found in obeying the Word of God, not piecemeal, but completely. According to Hebrews 6:1-2, our foundation doctrines include repentance and faith unto salvation, the proper practices of baptism and laying on of hands, and the eschatological teachings on resurrection and eternal judgment. It is only when these essential doctrines -- noticeably inclusive of baptism -- are maintained that we may press on to maturity. Let us make sure we always maintain the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, but we cannot remain there.

Hobbs points out that Hebrews 6:4-6 is a commentary on the events of Numbers 13-14, where the people of Israel "were failing to fill their place in God's world-mission." The church must learn from Israel's mistakes and not forget its mission. What is the church's mission? Our Great Commission is found in Matthew 28:18-20. The primary command is to "make disciples," but also included are the imperatival participles of "going" on mission, "baptizing" the new converts as a public witness to their faith, and "teaching them all" that Christ has commanded. There will be no Great Commission Resurgence as long as any of these commands, or their sequence, is dismissed as non-essential. We absolutely must cross all ethnic and geographic boundaries to make disciples. We absolutely must baptize new disciples. We absolutely must teach everything that Christ commanded, committing ourselves to lifelong Bible education.

Matthew 28:18-20 commands that we "make disciples," and the other passages help complete the picture as to how that lifelong process must begin. Common among the renditions of the Great Commission is the need for Christians to proclaim the words of the gospel of Jesus Christ -- words available only from the Bible. Christians must be verbal witnesses, and their words must: focus on the God-man Jesus Christ (John 20:21; Acts 1:8); include the good news of His death for our sin and resurrection for our life (Mark 16:15; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8); call for personal repentance and promise forgiveness (Luke 24:47; cf. Romans 10:9-10); and be directed individually to every human being on the planet (Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:19-20). This great responsibility is incumbent upon all Christians and is impossible for any one congregation to fulfill on its own.

The Greatness of the Great Commission

In other words, Christ's Commission is "Great" because it cannot be completed unless every Christian in every church receives it as a personal and congregational responsibility to share the New Testament gospel verbally with every lost person. Why a verbal witness? Because God ordained that faith would be engendered in the human heart through the proclaimed Word of God. God has chosen our tongues to be the instruments that carry His Word. And the churches are to train and send out their members to proclaim it (Romans 10:14-17). The particularity of this task (giving a personal verbal witness) alongside its universality (providing that witness to everyone everywhere every day) demands our entire attention and drives us into each other's arms.

We cooperate together because the commission is too great for any one church to fulfill alone. The Great Commission, as noted, is also found in Acts 1:8, where the Jerusalem church is given responsibility not only for Jerusalem, and for Judea and Samaria, but also for the "remotest part of the earth." When a local church hears Christ's command, she receives responsibility for proclaiming the gospel to her local community, in her state and to all the nations of the world. Yes, every local church is responsible for preaching Scripture within every geographic category of our earthly existence. My church in Fort Worth is responsible to make disciples in Fort Worth, in Texas and the United States, and in Afghanistan and everywhere else.

Note two truths here: First, the local community and the state have no more priority than the rest of the world. Second, the local community and the state have no less priority than the rest of the world. The entire world is our emphasis, and no place, near or far, may be excluded or diminished in importance. This comprehensive calling is why Southern Baptist churches have historically cooperated in amicable relationships through local associations, state conventions and the national convention. The churches understood that friendly cooperation is necessary at all levels in order to penetrate the world's darkness. All of our denominational levels and their entities -- mission boards, seminaries, colleges, children's homes, soup kitchens, etc. -- are intended to help us be better Great Commission churches. Jerusalem is just as important as Judea and Samaria, and both are just as important as the uttermost ends of the earth. The Great Commission demands universal geographic application beginning with one's community.

The all-encompassing nature of Christ's Great Commission should drive us into one another's arms for mutual help, but not because we see what others might contribute to our various personal or institutional priorities. We should be driven into cooperation because we see Jesus Christ in each other, and that vision of Him reminds us of Who the Great Commission concerns. The Great Commission compels us because it comes from our Lord, Who gave Himself totally for us. We respond by giving ourselves totally to Jesus and for His glory alone. The Great Commission is great because it is from Jesus and because it is for Jesus. Jesus wants His churches to make sure the foundation is correct and to mature by fulfilling His mission to a lost world. We all need each other to accomplish Jesus' Great Commission.

Will We Really Have a Great Commission Resurgence?

Knowing the Hebrew church needed a Great Commission Resurgence, the author expressed grave concern. Like Israel, that church was given so much, but they were tempted to suppress their witness in difficult times. The apostle warned them that when God works in mighty ways in a community, He expects it to bear fruit. "But if it yields thorn and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned" (Hebrews 6:8).

Hobbs lamented that when Christians refuse to proclaim the gospel, they "negate God's redemptive purpose. Thus they join with the crucifiers." God will then choose another people or a different generation to accomplish His world-mission. This is a dire warning to my generation of Southern Baptists today. However, on the bright side, the apostle also said, "Beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation" (Hebrews 6:9).

So, does Scripture have anything to say about a Great Commission Resurgence? Yes, indeed, it does. The question now is whether we will obey our Lord's commission. Will we follow Him? Will we let Him rule His churches as He commands in Scripture? Will we make sure that we have all the fundamentals established? Will we then grow into the full maturity of His Great Commission -- by going, making disciples, baptizing and teaching all His commands? Will we proclaim His Word faithfully?

Will we see everyone everywhere every day as our personal responsibility? Will we call them to repent from sin and believe in the resurrected God-man Jesus Christ, and then call new disciples to obey Him starting with baptism? Will we be faithful to implement Jesus' will completely in His churches? Will we cooperate together in our local associations, our state conventions and as a Southern Baptist Convention for His purposes? Will we obey His Great Commission? I pray we will, and I am convinced that God will bless our churches as we fulfill Christ's Great Commission completely for His glory alone as authoritatively relayed in the Bible alone.

--30--

Malcolm Yarnell is associate professor of systematic theology and director of the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

© Copyright 2010 Baptist Press

Original copy of this story can be found at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=32581

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

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 me back into the car. He drove away without a word, but with an inexplicable look upon his face. How do you tell a three young boys 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 segregation, and a deeply divided black-white population. My father was a life-long military man. Since he was transferred quite often, we were exposed to numerous cultures on the North American continent. We 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 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, trying to suppress misconstrued, cultural judgment. 

How? I 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 denounce each other with racist slurs. The walls shook with invective. 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, perhaps they just did not know any better. 

However, my confusion increased a hundredfold 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 were presented with the Church Growth Movement as the ultimate expression of a vital church. 

Yet I 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. In such circumstances, people 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 segregation remained. I led Lakeview Baptist Church to begin reaching the neighborhood for Jesus Christ. Some of our 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 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 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 giants did what they could to rectify the situation in their own ways. Surely, by the 1990s, 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 other people--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 in my first years I had not asked any other convert such specific questions. Her answer still shakes me to the depth 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 I thought we were not prepared to handle. But God is sovereign.

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 mutely. 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 church plant. 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 had been taught to implement, 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 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 used the curse of Ham in Genesis 9 as one of many proof texts for racial hatred. 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. 

Jesus went out of his way to point to the faith of a Roman centurion whose trust was greater than any Israelite's. 

God allowed a black man the privilege of carrying Christ's cross to Calvary. 

It was a Samaritan, a despised half-breed, who became the 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 Peter of the universal scope of God's grace (Galatians 1-2). 

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, 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 was an unfilled void in my heart after 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 was our excellent hostess, and when his sister began to sing, heaven came down and glory filled our souls. 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 kept. 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 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 pastor and white pastor came together, we learned better 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, I heard from my brothers that black pastors are also tempted to 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 my black neighbors as I do for that of my white neighbors. 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 the dominant culture puts 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 led their respective churches into fellowship and cooperating covenants with one another. Milton and Mel continued their dynamic ministries. The "M" group continued to meet and grow after my departure. As for me, I will never trade my experience of pastoring an interracial church, and I will never forget my true friends, these pastors, my brothers in Christ. 

Soli Deo Gloria.

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

"Rediscovering Jesus is Lord"

John Mann, pastor of LaJunta Baptist Church, Spring, Texas, asked permission to post the audio file of the sermon I preached there on Sunday, 5 April 2009. It was a pleasure to fellowship in the Word with this leading young pastor and his wonderful church. Following is the outline of the sermon:

Introduction - Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus Rediscovered
Text - Romans 10:1-4

Verse 1 - The Apostle's Desire
Verse 2 - Israel's Zealous Ignorance
Verse 3 - Locating False Righteousness
Verse 4 - Christ is the Goal

Conclusion - Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, on hupotasso, "submit":

Appropriation by faith of God's righteousness involves not only the discarding of all dependence upon self and self-effort for salvation, but also the heart's submission or capitulation to Jesus as Saviour and Lord.

Supernatural Word vs. Natural Words

Supernatural good is not a kind of supplement to natural good, as some Aristotelians would like to convince us for our greater comfort. It would be pleasant if it were so, but it is not. In every poignant problem of human existence, there is a choice only between evil and supernatural good. If words pertaining to the lower level of values--democracy, rights, person--are placed on the tongue of those who live in affliction, it would be a gift likely to lead them to no good and would inevitably cause them a great deal of harm. These ideas have no place in heaven. They are suspended in mid-air, and for that very reason they can have no influence on earth. Only the sunlight falling constantly from the sky can furnish a tree with the energy necessary to thrust its powerful roots deeply into the ground. Only the things that come from heaven are capable of making a real imprint on earth. If we wish efficaciously to fortify the afflicted, we must put on their lips only the words whose proper dwelling place is heaven...

Simone Weil, "Beyond Personalism" (London, 1942)

The voice said, "Cry out!"
And he said, "What shall I cry?"
"All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever."

Isaiah 40:6-8 (NKJV)