Charles Bridges’ The Christian Ministry

Posted on August 30, 2007 by Wyman

It is difficult to remember, when reading Charles Bridges’ The Christian Ministry, that this work was first published over one hundred and seventy years ago. Bridges’ book is something of a compendium on a variety of topics related to the ministry. It is marked by careful theological reflection as well as evidence that Bridges learned the lessons he teaches through much practical experience.

It would be an understatement to suggest that Bridges has a “high view” of pastoral ministry. He lists the Christian ministry as one of “three grand repositories” of God’s truth, the other two being the Bible, and “the hearts of Christians” (2). Furthermore, he argues that the office of pastor carries with it a dignity of essence that should be reflected in the lives of its members (6).

The importance of Bridges’ foundational comments concerning the pastoral ministry rests in the fact that there are more than a few subtle as well as explicit influences seeking to attack the office of the ministry both outside and inside today’s Church. Perhaps the most scandalous of these attacks comes from preachers themselves. In a modern Church context in which relevancy is seen as the apex of pastoral ministry, ministers face an almost constant temptation to remove any so-called distances between themselves and their parishioners in an effort not to be considered too haughty and to be “one of the people.” While it is incumbent upon ministers to avoid haughtiness at all costs and to constantly guard their hearts from indolence and arrogance (as Bridges himself notes on page 81), it must be recognized that a desire to be among the people can at times express itself in ways that are damaging to the office of pastor, such as in excessive transparency concerning personal struggles or a deliberate downplaying of one’s convictions and knowledge on a subject.

Within the modern free church tradition, the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer has also been distorted in such a way as to undermine the importance of the pastoral office. Many modern Protestants see this doctrine not as a tremendous blessing and, in a sense, burden which places a tremendous responsibility on all believers to be holy in their lives and knowledgeable in the Word, but rather as a foundation for undermining and, when they desire, simply ignoring the minister’s words on the basis of their own position as “priests.” This is especially true in a largely democratic church context in which the members of the church know they can simply “vote the preacher out” if they do not care for him. To this end, Bridges’ Anglican affiliation probably afforded him some degree of insulation from overt attacks upon the importance of the office, though certainly this was not entirely the case.

These realities, along with the tragic scandal heaped upon the ministry by public godlessness on the parts of ministers, have attacked the very foundation of the ministry. Its importance and dignity are no longer assumed. It can be argued that the restoration of the dignity of the pastorate is of essential importance to revival in the church. It would seem, too, that the first step in this process is not a bemoaning of societal or congregational attacks upon the office, but rather a tending to wounds which have been self-inflicted due to a lack of integrity and spiritual earnestness on the parts of many ministers. Regardless, Bridges’ words are just as pertinent today, if not more so, than when he penned them so many years ago.

Bridges’ discussion of suffering and the ministry must also be heeded by today’s minister. He outlines a variety of ways in which ministers can be certain they will suffer: from the church, the world, Satan, and ourselves (14-17). Interestingly, he immediately follows this with a discussion of the sources of encouragement that the minister can draw upon in difficult times. It is interesting to note more generally that much of Bridges’ entire book is devoted in some fashion to identifying, understanding, and overcoming difficulties. Not only is much of Part I of the book dedicated to this topic, but the whole of Part II and Part III are as well.

The relevancy and importance of his discussion of suffering and encouragement can be clearly seen in the large number of seminary graduates who do not remain in the ministry, the horrendous percentage of divorces among couples involved in the ministry, and the influx of a materialistic mentality within the Church that suggests to young ministers that their lives should be ones of ease. It would perhaps have been good for Bridges to not have waited so long to include his fascinating discussion of minister’s wives (169-173). Ministers must consider the dangers and trials of the ministry not only in the choosing of a wife, but ministers’ wives must consider this as well. In all, it is not an oversimplification to suggest that ministers and/or their wives are often entering the ministry largely unaware of the sometimes extreme emotional, psychological, spiritual, personal, and domestic tolls that are inflicted upon ministers and their families. To this, Bridges’ quite moving discussion of trials, as well as of encouragement, offers a word that must be heeded.

It is also striking how contemporary Bridges’ discussion of the qualification of the ministry is to today’s Church (24-31). More than a few men and women are entering the ministry because it is “in the family” or because they are fleeing some other responsibility. Hand in hand with this fact is the problem of an ordination system in many Protestant churches which is completely devoid of true spiritual discernment concerning questions of whether or not a candidate should be ordained. This was obviously a problem in Bridges’ age as well (93). In other words, it seems as if entering the ministry has become too easy. A return to Bridges’ emphasis on the marked qualifications of ministers would do young people contemplating the ministry, as well as churches and ordination councils contemplating their official endorsement of these young people, much good.

One of the more refreshing aspects of Bridges’ work is his high regard for formal education. He highly commends “University study” and moves on to a discussion of the importance of knowing different fields of knowledge (35). The very near future may prove that anti-intellectualism has migrated from excessively fundamentalist churches to the mainstream. This already appears to be happening in the American Protestant church context. The reason is probably none other than the influx of relativism, existentialistic spirituality, and subjectivist expressions of faith which have little use for such inconveniences as detailed study. In this regard, Bridges’ high recommendation of formal education, words concerning avenues of study which will be beneficial to ministers, and warning concerning the danger of much knowledge, offer a much needed corrective and stand in stark contrast to the often commented upon “scandal of the Evangelical mind.”

One hundred and seventy years ago, Bridges lamented the lack of a high view of scripture among ministers and churches (58). There is perhaps no word more sorely needed today than this. Interestingly, the modern Church may be contributing somewhat to this dilemma by its often unguarded use of packaged study curricula. These may, of course, be used to great benefit. But it is difficult to reside and move in Evangelical circles without noticing that twelve week workbooks are almost eclipsing the scriptures. In this sense, Bridges’ discussion of the right use of commentaries and study helps is also of great value (55-56). Are today’s Christians being challenged to know the scriptures first? The sometimes complete reliance of Sunday School and discipleship training programs upon secondary sources may be moving us to an answer of “No.” This is tragic. Bridges is more than correct in his arguments concerning the need for scripture to be the most important source of teaching in the Church.
The most moving section of Bridges’ book for a small church pastor is his discussion of success in ministry. In particular, Bridges’ comments upon the occasional lack of “visible success” stand in stark contrast to the often-repeated idea that if a particular church is not growing, and growing fast, it is not doing anything right. More than a few pastors of small and medium churches live under an almost incessant cloud of guilt and despair when confronted with this notion.

This is not to suggest that Bridges believed that the true work of the ministry will not result in “the work of success” (72). In fact, he argues that God always blesses where His word is sown. Rather, Bridges argues that visible success varies, that “symptoms of success are also frequently mistaken,” and that, occasionally, we must wait to see success (74-75). Again, such ideas are too often left out of the latest church growth books. In them, it is assumed that the right things done in the right ways will produce instant visible growth. Fortunately, Bridges did not belong to the sound-byte, fast-food, pragmatic society of twenty-first century America, so he was perhaps better able to see the truth concerning the concept of success.

Yet, Bridges does suggest that the minister may be to blame for the lack of success in his ministry. He does this in one of the more convicting sections of the book, “Causes of Ministerial Inefficiency Connected With Our Personal Character.” In this section, Bridges considers a lack of devotion, worldliness, fear, a lack of “Christian self-denial,” greed, overworking, pride, a lack of personal spiritual conviction, the neglect of family, and a lack of faith as being predators of the ministry. It was difficult to read this section without being drawn into a serious reflection on my own life.

One of the more powerful instances of Bridges’ understanding of that which renders ministries ineffective is his discussion of the occasional “want of entire devotedness of the heart to the Christian ministry” (106). Here, he makes perhaps the most powerful statement of the entire book: “We are to be labourers, not loiterers, in the Lord’s vineyard” (107). This is important not only in the sense that ministry without accountability can become little more than a leeching off the resources of the Church with no real effort being exerted on the part of the minister, but more so because today’s minister faces the very real possibility of doing lots of work in the church, but very little ministry. Ministers are daily besieged with administrative, staff, and office duties that carry with them the very real potential of distraction, and more than a few ministers labor every moment while neglecting their true call. Misguided busyness is as much an example of loitering as abject slothfulness. To this, Bridges’ impassioned appeal for ministers to be about the business of seeing souls come to Christ is most moving (111).

Also moving was Bridges’ discussion of the offense of the cross and the necessity for ministers not to sacrifice the word of the cross in favor of social acceptance (116-118). This represents not only a personal indictment against individual accommodation to a dark age, but also a corporate rebuke of all Churches which have, in essence, removed the cross in an attempt to reach people where they are. Ministers and churches alike face the temptation of removing the scandal of the cross from their discourse and lives. It is no lapse into hyperbole to suggest that such is the work of Satan. Bridges’ further exhortation concerning the fact that congregations will imitate their pastors, for good and ill, also should be heard today (121).

Bridges’ final two sections involve preaching and pastoring, which he sees as the two main duties of the minister. His treatment of preaching is most helpful. He does not delve into too many speculative areas, but rather offers something of the practical “meat and potatoes” of preaching. A predominant theme throughout Bridges’ entire discussion of preaching is the necessity for preachers to speak with clarity and on a level that the people can understand. Furthermore, he takes great pains to argue for a style of preaching that is sincere and convicting. It can only be assumed that Bridges must have been reacting to the cold formalism in many pulpits of his day.

Bridges expressed concern over preachers who enter the pulpit unprepared, speak above their people, and do not stay on task (193, 199-201). These issues all relate in some measure to preparedness. The modern pastor who finds it difficult to make time for sermon preparation amidst the clamor of responsibilities calling for his attention would do well to consider Bridges’ words. In many ways, he roots the importance of preaching in the importance of ministry in general. We must speak in such a way and with such effectiveness that we can be heard. It also seems important for churches to understand this as well. Many churches are designed in such a way, and put such excessive expectations upon their pastors, that there would be absolutely no time for sermon preparation if they were to do half of what is expected. Pastors must strive to tactfully communicate to their parishioners that the preparation of sermons is essential to their task and calling.

Bridges’ comments concerning prayer are especially helpful today. There seems to be something of a revival in interest concerning prayer in Evangelical circles. It is important to realize that this has always been a need for Christians in general and Christian communicators in particular. Bridges saw prayer as the most important component of the sermon preparation. Without prayer, all will be ineffectual (213).

One of the more interesting aspects of Bridges’ discussion of sermon preparation is his consideration of the preaching of the law. This is important not only because it relates directly to the discussion of biblical theology, but also because Bridges’ discussion of it shows that the Church has been grappling with understanding the place of the law and, more generally, of the Old Testament, for some time. It is also of interest that Bridges felt the topic important enough to deal with at some length.

Bridges argues that the preaching of the law is important insofar as it stands as part of the word of God. He lists a number of benefits that the law offers to us today and rejects the notion that preaching on the law must necessarily be “legal preaching” (223-224). For Bridges, the law still makes man aware of his sinfulness and thereby drives him to Christ. In this sense, the presentation of law is essential to a proper presentation of the gospel. It also offers good rules for righteous living. Significantly, Bridges labels a wholesale neglect of the law as “antinomian” (225). He also attributes the lack of holiness in the lives of many believers with the Church’s neglect and misunderstanding of the use of the law (228).
One cannot help but feel that Bridges was reacting in many ways to what we might call “easy believism” or “cheap grace.” The modern Church, too, has removed the sting of the law from its presentation of the gospel. What it is left with is a form of grace that has been reduced to little more than a cure-all for the consciences of its members. Without understanding the law, we cannot understand the glory of the cross and the holiness of God. Bridges should be heard on this point, as he should be heard on most other points he raises in this book.

Bridges also laments for the Anglican church in the loss of many of its people to the dissenting groups because the gospel was not being preached sufficiently (245). He warns against the gospel getting lost in doctrinal preaching that does not point to Christ, doctrine for its own sake, we might say (254). Furthermore, in a most moving section of the book, Bridges argues that effective gospel preaching is always preaching that arises from a heart personally convicted concerning the truths of the gospel (262). Gospel preaching is also to be practical and applicable to the lives of men. Moralistic preaching that does not speak of Christ is to be rejected, as is purely abstract preaching that does not touch life (265-268).

Today’s churches, especially today’s Protestant churches, need to return to the high view of the gospel which Bridges obviously held. Preaching in too many cases has been reduced to platitudes and mere lessons on morality. The clamor for practical teaching has led to the false dichotomy of “practical” versus “doctrinal,” as if the two could be separated. Bridges has done a masterful job of showing that the two are, in fact, wedded to one another when done correctly. This means that his words confront the preacher who revels in abstract doctrines alone just as it confronts the preacher who has become little more than a therapist behind a pulpit. The temptation to be “practical” must not be pursued to the exclusion of the true doctrines which lead to holiness.

In terms of how best to approach preaching, Bridges states that both topical and expository preaching are valid expressions of the proclaimed word, though he does seem to favor expository preaching a little more (284-286). This tacit approval of topical preaching is actually somewhat surprising as it might be assumed that he would hold slavishly to expository preaching. However, it must be noted that he does not define topical preaching in such a way as to justify preaching which is not closely wedded to the text. In actuality, he felt that the two schemes should be joined in a “judicious mixture” (284). In truth, it is clear that he felt true preaching to be, in all cases, biblical preaching. Nonetheless, his acknowledgment of the potential uses of topical preaching shows some degree of variety and would perhaps offer something for those who hold slavishly and narrowly to expository preaching alone to consider.

As an aside, there is a wonderful example of doctrinal humility in Bridges’ writing as well. In his discussion of preaching wisely, Bridges notes that Calvinists and Arminians might perhaps have something to learn from one another. Calvinists might learn some sense of “holy fear” from Arminians and Arminians might learn some sense of God’s sovereignty from Calvinists (304). Bridges is clearly a Calvinist and seems to hold deep convictions in this area. It is therefore all the more interesting that he would even suggest that Calvinists and Arminians might learn something from each other. In a debate as fierce as that which exists between these two camps, it is quite telling to see a very earnest believer in one side look at the matter with humble objectivity. One can only wish that modern Calvinists and Arminians, while not sacrificing their convictions for a superficial harmony, might be willing on occasion to understand what drives the convictions of the other camp.

Bridges is also admirably able to see the responsibility that the Anglican church held for seeing so many people move to the dissenting groups, Methodists and “Anabaptists” (317f). He lays some measure of the blame on the abstract and ineffective preaching occurring in Anglican pulpits. This, again, shows a great measure of humility and introspection on his part. Perhaps Baptists could learn a lesson here in how it responds to the movement of Baptists into, for instance, Mormonism. Traditionally, we responded by speaking of the heresy of Mormonism, as well we should. But perhaps we should first of all look to our own pulpits, as Bridges did, and see our own responsibility in the loss of our people. Bridges seemed to understand, as we should, that if our people are being fed, they will not so quickly look elsewhere for nourishment.

Finally, Bridges’ instruction for ministers to know their people and love their people is a sorely needed word as well. He notes that ministers should know the young people of their church and that they should feel a particular burden for all of their parishioners (346-347). In fact, the effectiveness of our preaching depends upon our care for the people throughout the week (350). This means that favoritism should be avoided at all costs and that the minister should look upon his flock as a parent looking at his children (358, 360).

Personally, this word was very convicting. How easy is it to become closed up in our offices begrudging the “interruptions” by our people, when they are precisely what our real business is about? Bridges challenged all ministers to increase in their love for their flock. In so many words, he was reinforcing the old adage that the people “will not care what we know until they know that we care.” Furthermore, by equating ministers and their flock with parents and their children, Bridges was challenging ministers to increase in the fervency of their love as well as in their patience, for parents must be, above all, patient.

In all, Charles Bridges’ The Christian Ministry stands as a surprisingly relevant and powerful book. Every modern pastor should read it preferably before, and possibly to the exclusion of, more contemporary works on the ministry. Bridges work has endured because it has bypassed the faddishness of a particular moment and has instead delved deep into the heart of the core issues of ministry. Most importantly, it is written from a heart of experience and sincerity. There is deep Christian conviction throughout and one senses that the lessons learned were forged on the anvil of a life devoted to Christ.

Danny Akin’s (ed) A Theology of the Church

Posted on August 27, 2007 by Wyman

A Theology of the Church (B&H Academic, 2007) is a major new systematic theology that is edited by Southeastern Seminary President Danny Akin and penned by him and a host of other Southern Baptist theologians. There are 934 pages of text in the volume written by fifteen different authors.

I was very excited to hear about this project and was thrilled to see it unveiled at the LifeWay store at the 2007 SBC meeting in Houston. I was able to get a copy some weeks ago and have been able to begin working through it.

I have decided, given the immensity of the work, the number of authors, and the wide-range of subjects to blog through the book a chapter at a time as I’m able to read it.

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 is entitled, “Prolegomena: Introduction to the Task of Theology” and was written by Gregory Alan Thornbury, the Dean and Associate Professor of Christian Studies at Union University as well as the Director of the Carl F.H. Henry Center for Christian Leadership.

Thornbury seems well-qualified to handle the issue of theological prolegomena (i.e., “what needs to be said before one begins”, p.52) and he does so admirably. The chapter is an extensive 69 page work that left this reader feeling challenged, edified, and encouraged.

Thornbury tackles basic issues of epistemology and knowledge. He gives a bird’s-eye overview of mankind’s quest to know by beginning with early Greek philosophy and working through the Pythagoreans, Plato, Aristotle on up to modern philosophers like Nietzsche and Focault. Thornbury’s primary contention in this overview is that truth is unknowable insofar as the resources for truth are restricted to that which we find in our own heads. The very possibility of truth is therefore dependent on transcendence.

Thornbury moves on to consider early Christian interactions with secular philosophy, which he depicts as a “love-hate” relationship. In the final analysis, he believes that we must avoid the extremes of an undue skepticism concerning the usefulness of philosophy on the one hand and an uncritical acceptance of the assumptions of secular philosophy on the other.

He provides a very helpful and illuminating overview of the theological developments of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and William of Occam. He handles well the scholasticism of Aquinas and the competing nominalism of William of Occam and shows how critics of Reformation thought have pointed their fingers at a kind of nominalism-run-amuck as the chief culprit in what they see as the various maladies arising from the Reformation. Thornbury offers reasons why he thinks this is a bit of an overstatement and shows that the Reformers themselves were not uncritically enamored with Occam.

Thornbury nexts points his finger at Immanuel Kant and the rise of the Enlightenment worldview. “Once upon a time,” he writes, “people at least understood the great verities of Christian teaching, and either believed them or denied them. Theology mattered. Today secularism dominates the culture of the West. Why? A two-word reply suffices for an answer: the Enlightenment” (35-36).

He shows how Kant argued for the impossibility of human beings knowing theological propositions. He traces this line of skepticism through the theological liberalism of Friedrich Schleiermacher, through the historical Jesus research of David Strauss, and then into the liberal programme of Adolf Von Harnack. He then presents a fascinating overview of Barth’s neo-orthodox revolt against old-line liberalism, and shows the strengths and weaknesses therein. Footnote 105 on page 43 is almost worth the price of the book, as it reveals some fascinating insights into some exchanges that occured between Carl Henry and Karl Barth. I was intrigued to hear that Henry felt that, with all of Barth’s problems, he, Henry, was still “in the presence of a believer in the gospel” when he was with Barth (43).

Thornbury then gives a helpful overview of Southern Baptist theological works. He likes Henry, naturally enough. This is encouraging and one hopes that those who read Thornbury’s chapter might be encouraged to spend some time with the late-great theologian and churchman. He’s understandably impressed with Millard Erickson’s extensive handling of prolegomena and seems frustrated at the scant treatment that other theologians devote to this important work. Interestingly, Thornbury does not mention Wayne Grudem’s work at all, which is unusual given the popularity of Grudem’s systematic.

He concludes with a helpful overview of the ideas of “culture” and “worldview” and calls for self-awareness in terms of our own place in the cultural milieu we inhabit. Yet, he argues, theology can be done, even in the midst of our own inherited presuppositions. This theology must be biblical and aimed not at knowledge for knowledge’s sake, but rather at a genuine relationship with the Lord God.

Thornbury’s chapter is helpful and challenging. Those unfamiliar with certain philosophical and theological concepts might find it a bit much, but Thornbury makes numerous efforts to explain the train of thought that he is developing. He is obviously convinced that prolegomena is crucial to the task of doing theology. In this conviction, he is correct.

Chapter 2

Chapter 2, “Natural Revelation,” is written by Dr. Russell D. Moore, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Moore has written a concise and helpful overview of the fascinating topic of natural revelation. He approaches the topic through the following progression: Old Testament – New Testament – Church history (Patristic – Medieval & Reformation – Modern) – “How Does It All Fit Together?” – “How Does It Impact the Church Today?”.

He successfully shows that the idea of natural revelation (i.e., that revelation of God that has been instilled in the created order by God Himself) is clearly steeped in Scripture. In the Old Testament this is most clearly seen in Psalms and, in the New, in Romans 1.

Moore wants it understood that natural revelation is not some nebulous phenomenon that exists outside of God’s will, as if it is some kind of lingering residue left over from the act of creation. On the contrary, natural revelation is a positive assertion by God. His very handiworks proclaim His name because He wills it. Furthermore, this revelation, though it speaks clearly, does not speak exhaustively. Moore argues that natural revelation is not salvific. It is not that natural revelation does not proclaim truths about God. It is rather that lost humanity outside of Jesus Christ inevitably rejects these truths anyway. So the question of whether or not the secluded pagan who responds with faith to general revelation is saved is really, Moore contends, a fiction. The problem is not that there are no secluded pagans who only have natural revelation. The problem is that none of us turn to the things of God, no matter how much or little we know of Him. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray. So the gospel of Jesus Christ is needed and necessary. Natural revelation might prepare our hearts, but only the gospel can heal them.

Moore feels that the reality of natural revelation allows us to appreciate the artistic expressions and endeavours of those who have rejected Christ but who still might communicate truths that inspire and shape us. I am glad to hear him say this. The “Christian ghetto” can be a suffocating (and tacky?) place to dwell, especially when so-called Christian art and writing has become so blandly provential and so smarmily kitschy. (I am SO very glad that I can read Faulkner instead of the latest prairie romance from LifeWay!) That being said, the truth of the gospel provides that light in and through which all human endeavours, no matter how inspiring, must ultimately be judged.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 is entitled “Special Revelation” and is written by David S. Dockery, President of Union University, and David P. Nelson, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the Faculty at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The chapter is a 56-page examination of the occasionally thorny issues surrounding special revelation. It is handled well and constitutes a helpful and relatively thorough handling of the topic.

Dockery and Nelson argue that the ultimate “special revelation” is to be found in Jesus Christ. Indeed, the life and salvific work of Jesus Christ comprise “the fixed center of special revelation” (120). Outside of Christ, the scriptures constitute the authoritative expression of revelation in the life of the Church. “It is not entirely appropriate to make a direct correspondence between Scripture and Jesus Christ,” the authors write,” but nevertheless there is an observable analogy” (129).

Dockery and Nelson are concerned that our view of inspiration honor both the humanity of the biblical writers and the hand of God Himself in the process. “Scripture is the word of God written in the words of man” (134). To read scripture, they argue, is to read the very word of God given to men. They aptly handle the issue of the self-attestation of scripture and rightly point out that any view of inspiration that seeks to avoid using scripture’s own claims to such (i.e., in an attempt to avoid the charge of circular reasoning) is doomed to fail.

Their handling of the history of the Church’s view of scripture was helpful if not, at this point, somewhat predictable. There was a high view of scripture in the patristic and, later, medieval periods. Enlightenment skepticism discarded a high view of scripture through its liberal spokesmen (again, Schleiermacher and Strauss). Barth and the neo-orthodox school rightly turns the tables on this liberal skepticism but does not replace it with a suitably high view of scripture. “Therefore when we have to do with the Bible,” the writers quote Barth, “we have to do primarily with this means, with these words, with the witness which as such is not itself revelation, but only – and this is the limitation – the witness to it” (138-139). (This does bring to mind the argument from the 2000 SBC gathering in Orlando about whether or not the Bible is revelation or a record of revelation, thus giving some credence to Paige Patterson’s charges of neo-orthodoxy among moderates.) The authors then move on to an interesting overview of Baptist views of the Bible.

I thought the “Improper Deductions” section on 147-149 was well done. Here the authors address five concerns or mistakes that are often made when people think about the Bible. These five sections were concise, succint, and very helpful.

Concerning the theories of inspiration, the authors argue for the verbal/plenary view, noting that this “theory…is that which is put forward in this book as the most acceptable model of inspiration based on the Scripture’s own testimony and consensus within the history of the church” (153-154). I note with interest the appeal to the consensus of the church throughout history. Dockery is a fan of Tom Oden’s paleo-orthodoxy programme and one cannot help but see this in such a statement. It is, to be sure, an encouraging sign.

Dockery and Nelson next give an interesting statement of support for the term “inerrancy.” They believe that we can hold to the term if we mean by it the idea that “when all the facts are known, the Bible (in its original writings) properly interpreted in light of the culture and communication means that had developed by the time of its composition will be shown to be completely true (and therefore not false) in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the author, in all matters relating to God and his creation” (157).

Now, that’s an interesting definition. I am sympathetic to it and to the explanations of the many facets of it given by Dockery and Nelson from 157 to 159. There are those who might charge that such a definition allows the term to “die a death of a thousand qualifications,” but, unfortunately, such qualifications are necessary when trying to accurately define such a loaded term as “inerrancy.” I am chewing on this definition a bit, but I believe I can say that I’m by-and-large comfortable with what I believe the authors are saying by putting it this way.

The chapter goes on to give a helpful overview of the process of canonization. The authors believe we can “see God’s providential hand at work” in “the transmission, translation, preservation, and canonicity of the Bible” (170). Indeed we can, though readers might question whether or not Dockery and Nelson have sufficiently handled the question of the Church’s role in the process of canonization.

There is a fascinating caveat on page 73 about interpretation and authority: “Many people confuse a desire to obey Scripture’s authority with a personal insecurity that calls for a leader to tell them constantly what to do or think. More troubling is that some leaders encourage this confusion by commingling a commitment to biblical authority with a type of authority associated with certain positions of church leadership.”

Count this among the things that make you go “hmmmm…..” Is this a statement concerning the state of today’s Convention perhaps? One wonders…

This is a great chapter written by some first-rate scholars that will encourage, challenge, and help you in understanding what the Bible is and what role it plays in the Church.

Chapter 4

I have been looking forward to this chapter ever since I began reading A Theology for the Church. Chapter 4 is a 67 page chapter entitled “The Nature of God: Being, Attributes, and Acts” and is written by Dr. Timothy George, Founding Dean of The Beeson Divinity School of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. Dr. George is the most significant Southern Baptist theologian writing today and is well-equipped to handle the daunting task of writing a chapter on the nature of God.

One of George’s strengths is his accessibility. He writes with an interesting mixture of high theology and anecdotal illustration. He begins the chapter with a story about a sermon that James Petigru Boyce preached at Southern Seminary and he ends the chapter with a long and moving section from a sermon by Charles Spurgeon. He also makes interesting and helpful use of hymnody throughout the chapter.

George is also adept at turning a phrase. “‘Blessed Assurance,'” he writes, “is not cheap insurance, and genuine knowledge of God is not without struggle and doubt.” (178) And this: “Theology has lost its joy and become a dour enterprise of idea-shuffling and puzzle-scrabbling.” (178)

George’s approach is thoroughly Trinitarian. He begins, in fact, with a discussion of “God the Holy Trinity.” He believes this to be the starting point for our discussions of God and believes that Trinitarian thought provides the basic structure in which all theology should operate.

He provides a helpful overview of many of the biblical names for God and moves on to a discussion of God’s majesty and God’s trustworthiness. His overview of the New Testament concept of God is intriguing and he offers the interesting observation that New Testament theologians often actually neglect the doctrine of God in their discussions of Christ. This presented me with a personal challenge and made me consider long and hard whether I have not done this as well in my reading of the New Testament.

He moves on to a discussion of God’s holiness, love, eternity, and knowledge. His section on God’s love was particularly well done. He argues that God’s love ought not be thought of only as it applies to His love for us, but rather should be thought of as an essential aspect of His very nature whether He had ever created us or not.

He handles the “open theism” question briefly but admirably. He argues that, “Open theism grants God too much power to get him off the theodicy hook but not enough power to support a plausible doctrine of providence.” (232-233) I thought this was an astute observation and one that I had not considered.

Finally, George lists a number of ways that a recover of a biblical understanding of God will impact the life of the church today. This was very well done. George believes that this recovery is absolutely essential if we are to return to a heightened sense of worship, prayer, praise, and preaching. In this, he is absolutely correct.

This chapter alone was worth the price of the book.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 is entitled, “The Work of God: Creation and Providence,” and was written by Dr. David Nelson, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the Faculty of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. This 50-page chapter (242-292) takes a detailed look at creation, providence, and a whole host of related issues that arise from these topics.

I don’t know. Maybe it’s that Dr. Nelson had the misfortune of following Timothy George, or maybe I was just in a mood, but this chapter was laborious. 90% of this chapter consists of summary statements with relevant bible passages in parentheses. This, of course, is nothing to sneeze at. All statements about creation and providence must be couched in scripture. But Nelson’s chapter seemed at times like a John Macarthur sermon: point-passage-point-passage-point-passage, etc.

Dr. Nelson did offer some more detailed explanations of certain points. For instance, he obviously wanted to deal with the problem of evil in a helpful way. To an extent, he did so. His biblical observations about evil were most helpful.

Anyway, a solid chapter in an overall very good book. This chapter would be very helpful for Sunday School classes wanting to understand creation and providence.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 is entitled “The Agents of God: Angels” and was written by Dr. Peter R. Schemm, Jr., of Southeastern Seminary. I’ve had the honor of meeting and visiting a bit with Dr. Schemm and think a lot of him. He strikes me as a bright, up-and-coming theologian. If I recall, he has something like 23 kids (note: sarcasm), so I’m impressed that he had time to get a chapter written at all! He did a commendable job on this chapter and I would recommend it as a great overview of the subject of angels. It is thoroughly biblical, practical, and illuminating.

I appreciated the two excursi that Dr. Schemm put in the chapter. The second was very helpful to me as I was recently trying to get my head around Genesis 6 with some friends. I intend to bring this excursus to the attention of those with whom I was discussing this chapter. It really helped me get a grasp on what is likely happening in Genesis 6 (though I still feel that the argument connecting Jude to Genesis 6 might have more credence than he allows).

The chapter provides some very helpful overviews of the nature and characteristics of angels, both good and bad. I also appreciated the chart outlining various theologians’ views of the topic. Furthermore, I thought that Dr. Schemm’s handling of such popular but controversial questions as “territorial spirits” and prayer-walking was fair, judicious, even-handed, and convincing.

In all, a great chapter and a helpful read. If you’re wanting to get a grasp on the biblical concept of angels, this would be a great place to start.

Chuck Lawless’ Membership Matters

Posted on July 19, 2007 by Wyman

I’ve recently finished Chuck Lawless’ Membership Matters and I would like to take this moment to recommend it. I’ve been and I am working on a membership project and have been working through a number of works on church membership over the last number of weeks. I found Membership Matters to be extremely helpful, illuminating, and convicting.

Membership Matters is essentially an apologetic for the creation of membership classes in local churches as well as a clarion call for the raising of membership expectations in the local church. It is based (as so many of these kinds of books are nowadays) on survey data that reveals a growing trend of churches who are rejecting cheap membership and turning instead to membership of substance, expectations, and accountability.

Let me add a caveat here: it is nice to read a book on the modern church that actually gives one hope and encouragement instead of constant jeremiads of doom. There is a kind of niche market for ecclesiological apocalyptic literature, the kind of literature that forever paints with broad strokes a picture of the church in North America as utterly bankrupt and souless. There is, of course, much evidence to support this kind of negative picture, but it is nice to be reminded (as Lawless’ book reminds us) that there are a number of churches seeking to reverse the trend of that consumer-driven churchmanship that has come to so dominate the church landscape today.

The book reveals some interesting things. It shows that churches which take membership seriously are healthier, stronger, and more effective in reaching people, on the whole. It revealed, interestingly (and sadly), that the majority of churches with membership classes are good at stressing accountability but that very few of these same churches stress church discipline. In other words, it is easy to tell people, “This is what we expect.” It is harder to say, “And if these expectations are violated or ignored, this is what happens.” But the articulation of membership expectations is a healthy thing that should be celebrated.

The book also gives some helpful suggestions on membership classes: on the need for the pastor to be personally involved, on the need to have a wholistic approach in terms of subjects taught, on the need for the church to buy into this vision.

The book is also not naive about the difficulties facing churches that move in this direction. It does reveal, however, (through a very helpful round-table discussion with a number of pastors) that the risks are worth it.

As I am personally involved in the research stages of a membership project that, I pray, will bring a number of practical reforms to the system as it is practiced in our own church, I found this work encouraging and helpful. I highly recommend it.

Wayne Mack’s To Be or Not to be a Church Member?

Posted on July 14, 2007 by Wyman

I’ve just finished Wayne Mack’s fascinating little book, To Be or Not to be a Church Member? and would like to heartily recommend it. It was published by Calvary Press Publishing in 2004. Mack is apparently an elder at Grace Fellowship Church of the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania. He’s a graduate of Wheaton College, Philadelphia Seminary, and Westminster Seminary. This last school, coupled with the fact that he quotes Kuiper twice in a seventy-five page book, tripled with the fact that the church has plural elders, quadrupled with the fact that the church recommends the 1689 London Confession of Faith leads me to believe that Mack is reformed in his theology and baptistic in his convictions, as is his church (despite their non-denominational label).

He’s written an intriguing little book that calls for a return to substantive church membership. He frames the book around ten reasons why you should become a church member. (Sidenote: Where was reason #2!!) His quotations are very helpful, especially the fascinating Spurgeon quote where we see a young sixteen-year-old Spurgeon threatening his lazy pastor with calling a meeting of the church himself to present himself for membership if the pastor did not do so soon!

It is an imminently biblical book. Mack makes compelling use of the New Testament and I found myself thinking more than once, “Never thought of that before!” He firmly links membership with discipline and accountability. He also provides Grace Fellowship’s membership questions (for both the prospect and the church), which was very helpful indeed.

This would be a great little book to incorporate in some way or other into a new membership class. It is practical, helpful, straightforward, and convincing.

Ben Witherington’s Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism

Posted on June 1, 2007 by Wyman

When I saw an ad the other day for Ben Witherington’s new book on baptism, Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism, I knew I’d have to read it. Witherington is a tremendous New Testament scholar and I’ve benefited personally from his work, especially his commentary work. He’s a Methodist, I believe, and I knew, judging from his past work, that his treatment of baptism would be fair and, likely, provocative. It proved to be both…and a bit frustrating.

Published (ironically?) by Baylor University Press, Troubled Waters seeks to show that traditional credobaptist and traditional paedobaptist arguments have been stunted by allowing theological assumptions and presuppositions (as well as no shortage of hot air and idiosyncratic exegesis) to trump the witness of Scripture.

Over against credobaptist claims, Witherington seeks to show that the normal pattern throughout most of the New Testament is “water baptism” then “Spirit baptism”. Water baptism therefore precedes that which truly saves: Spirit baptism. This is evident, Witherington says, first and foremost in the baptism of Jesus. Baptists, of course, reverse this order and ask for saving faith before baptism. Witherington sees this as violating the biblical norm. (One caveat: some of Witherington’s views of what Baptists believe struck me as frankly very odd and did not sound like anything I’ve ever heard in a Baptist church…and I IS one! He almost seems to think that Baptists believe that baptism saves ex opera operato. I think in some ways he has confused us with the Church of Christ or other groups along those lines, but I may have misread him.)

Anyway, I get the general point about the order of the baptisms, but I do feel that for Witherington’s argument to stand he must show that there is a substantial significance in the order, and probably that significance will have to be shown in a period of time between the two to prove the point that I think he’s wanting to prove. This becomes problematic, though, when you look at Jesus’ own baptism and other biblical examples. Sure, it was water baptism then Spirit baptism, but Witherington’s attempt to highlight the fact that the Spirit came not as Christ was coming up from the water, but up out of the water, seems too strained and forced to me. Even granting the point, I don’t really get it. It does not seem to do justice to the language of “immediacy” that both Matthew and Mark use. The fact is, the coming of the Spirit in the case of Jesus came at the baptism, not some years later, and, frankly, it would have been difficult to do while Christ was under the water (Witherington grants that he was under the water). Furthermore, using Christ’s baptism as a norm is problematic on a number of fronts, but, to Witherington’s credit, he does not appeal only to this example.

A number of things about Witherington’s book I really did like: he says more than a couple of times that the New Testament mode was almost certainly immersion, but then he lets it die “the death of a thousand qualifications” by talking about the mode being determined by the amount of water available (with the customary appeals to the conditional language of The Didache). Allow me to put on my crusty Baptist hat and say that one does grow weary of these rather frequent paedobaptist admissions of immersion, only to see it die the death of qualifications. The fact is…now watch this…there is no water shortage in North America(though there’s getting to be one in South Georgia). Please understand that this point is coming from one who believes in immersion, but does not believe that immersion is salvific or primary. I’m almost tempted even to call it adiaphoric, but it was the biblical practice, and there is more than a bit of evidence that it was practiced in the early church, so I don’t see why we should have such a problem immersing. (Above all, it fits with the symbolism of the death of Christ perfectly, a point that Witherington himself makes.)

Witherington also shows through careful exegesis that the household baptisms not only don’t mention infants, they also almost certainly could not have involved infants. This is an honest admission, and says a great deal about the integrity of Witherington’s exegesis. Furthermore, sounding like a good Baptist, Witherington calls on paedobaptists to consider how much more meaningful for the baptismal candidate postponing baptism will be than if they are baptized as an infant.

Yet, Witherington ultimately sees in the aforementioned order (water then Spirit) as well as in the Pauline parallels between circumcision and baptism enough evidence to warrant the baptism of infants, so he does allow it, with cautions.

One point that I didn’t quite get is the argument that in Acts we are dealing with first generation missionary baptisms and therefore not so much with the question of what to do with children who are born into the church. I agree with that and I think I get the gist of it, but I keep coming back to this thought: what of those among the 3,000 that Peter addressed who were capable of “repenting” and “being baptized” (and, in fact, did so) who were holding babies on their hips when Peter answered their question about what they should do to be saved? If paedobaptism is warranted as a New Testament parallel to circumcision, would not Peter have simply asked them to baptize their whole families? What does the fact that they are first generation or missionary converts have to do with their children being baptized? I think Witherington would harken us back to Jewish proselyte baptism, which he shows to be the antecedent model of Christian baptism, but I never could quite get this straight in my head.

As an aside, I found one of Witherington’s most powerful points in his argument that the church has become primarily a nurturing body for families that are already Christian and not a missionary body as it clearly was in the New Testament. This was, in my opinion, profound and really raised the whole level of discourse above the technicalities of the baptism debate. The fact is, says Witherington, we ought to be bringing in non-believers and having to baptize non-believing adults, but, as a rule, we are not. So we’re left with a question that was never the main question for the early church: what to do with the infants of believers?

Witherington calls on Baptists not to treat the children of Christians as pagans, an idea I certainly agree with. He also calls on us to have dedication ceremonies to draw these children into the fellowship, which we do. I agree on both counts. He also wisely cautions about the impossibility of knowing who really has saving faith, pointing out that a confession of faith is not faith. I agree, but the conclusion that we should never proceed to an act on the basis of another’s faith simply because we cannot know with certainty that they do in fact have faith seems odd to me. Wouldn’t this train of thought keep any pastor from ever administering the Lord’s Supper to anybody at all because he could not know if he was giving it to a saved person?

Witherington also speaks of the possibility of causing the children of Christians to feel guilty because they have not had a dramatic conversion experience. This is right on and I think he’s wise to point this out, though I fail to see that credobaptism necessarily causes this. (I do not, however, deny that it happens.)

I really enjoyed this book. It challenged me and it really made me appreciate some paedobaptist arguments, while it failed to convince me on other points. I appreciate the point about the order of the baptisms, and I certainly concur about which is salvific. This is something I’ll definitely have to chew on.

This book was thought-provoking, challenging, and edifying. I recommend it wholeheartedly as a fascinating and balanced look at baptism from an author who takes the text seriously and is equipped to take those of us who are not New Testament scholars below a merely surface reading of the text.

Church Discipline with Dr. Mark Dever

Posted on January 1, 2002 by Wyman

Dr. Dever, we do appreciate you granting us this interview.

Thank you very much. I’m delighted to spend the time with you.

We will be referencing two things rather frequently throughout this interview, so I suspect we need to offer some definitions up front. Dr. Dever, if you don’t mind, could you give us a definition of (1) church membership and (2) church discipline?

“Church membership” would be the concept that there are a certain number of people who have committed themselves before the Lord and with each other to the service of God in a particular local assembly, in a particular local church. “Church discipline” is really the larger idea of us as Christians realizing that in that church part of the function is for us to help each other grow up in Christ.

Commonly, when people use “church discipline,” they don’t mean it in the formative sense, but only in the corrective sense. But really, technically, it would be all of the training we do: Sunday School, preaching, everything. That would be considered formative, the positive side. Negatively, when you correct somebody, it’s called “corrective church discipline,” and that’s usually taken from Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5, and elsewhere, but mainly from those two texts about how we should try to realize that our brother’s or sister’s sanctification is partly our responsibility also. Then, when we confront them, if they don’t change, as Jesus says in Matthew 18, after being confronted by us alone, and then by two or three others that come with us, then finally, our appeal is to the ecclesia. That’s the word that’s used there in Matthew 18. It’s to the church. And so we take it not to the Southern Baptist Convention or not to simply the pastor and staff or to the board of deacons, but we take it to the church. And so it’s called “church discipline.”

You have dealt with the topics of church membership and church discipline in your book Nine Marks of a Healthy Church and also in the book Polity, which is a collection of writings. But you contributed an essay to that and edited it.

That’s correct.

Why have you felt led to focus so much on these two topics?

Well, because when I look at the gospel in America today, I think one of the main roadblocks is not our lack of telling people, though I want us to tell people more, but it’s what our churches look like when they’re full of people who say they know it and believe it. And I think our churches are one of the main roadblocks to our evangelism. So I don’t think we need one hundred more churches doing Evangelism Explosion. I think we need one hundred more churches practicing church discipline. And once those churches begin to look distinct from the world, then all of a sudden the verbal witness that all of the Christians give starts to mean a lot more.

Would you mind sharing with us a little bit about the steps you have led Capitol Hill Baptist Church to take towards reinstituting meaningful membership and church discipline? And could you speak a little bit on how the church has received this move?

Yeah. The steps I’ve taken, there have been a lot, some very overt, some pretty subtle. I’ve been honest all the time. I was clear with people initially, when we first started talking about this, that I thought the Bible was very clear on this. Now, I didn’t know how we could get from where we were to where we needed to be, but I was clear about what the Bible taught about where we needed to be, and they could help me think through about how we get there.

After I had been here a couple of years, we ended up trying to find all of the members that we had, that we couldn’t find, who didn’t come along regularly. We had five hundred members, about one hundred and thirty attending. And so we talked to old members and tried to find people. So finally I sent out a letter. The deacons knew about it. I should have probably had the deacons do this, but I just did it. I sent out a letter I think on February 1 of 1996, sending out a copy of our statement of faith and our church covenant, saying, “Look. If you sign this and return these, we would appreciate it, knowing that you are still with us in faith and practice.” And we sent that out to people who were here every Sunday and to people [who] nobody even knew who they were. We sent it out to the whole membership list. And we said in the letter, “If you haven’t done this and returned them to us by May 1st, that you would be subject to a motion to remove you from membership in the church, in this local church. And we hope you are well and that you are involved in another local church and just had neglected to tell us.” Something like that.

So we did that and then in our main members’ meeting we actually voted out, out of our 500 members, 256. And that was a big step towards meaningful membership. And then, since then, it’s just slowly but surely gotten better and gotten more refined where now we have about 249 members I think and about 500 attending.

That seems to be rather different from the average Baptist church which has just the opposite, 1,000 people on roll and 200 attending.

Well, it’s rather different from the average Baptist church today. It isn’t different from the way Baptist churches were one hundred and one hundred and fifty years ago. Baptist churches used to be famous for looking after their membership. So what we’re now probably the worst about we were definitely the best about. This was a distinctive of Baptist churches.

What do you think has contributed to the decline of this?

Oh, a lot of things. I mean, spiritually, people’s affluence, people wanting to be served, consumers moving to urban areas where churches are close enough to where they compete for members, pastors not being taught this. I’m sure any real abuses that happen, and, of course, there were, anytime sinners like you and me are involved, any time abuses happen in church discipline, I’m sure those were repeated endlessly. And so I’m sure those stories would have been used against practicing it at all, because to practice it at all would have been in some way to have been involved in some kind of abuse of it. Now, I’m sure it’s just a combination of things like that. Also I think the theology changed and churches became more and more man-centered. I think people more and more misunderstood what it really meant to be converted. I think our evangelistic practices watered down the gospel. I think we started taking responses very quickly. We started baptizing people at a much younger age.

You know, I’ve been reading a lot of Baptist biographies in the last couple of years and noting baptismal ages. And if you look at all the Baptist leaders in the nineteenth century, they were all baptized at 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. It’s when they get out of the home, or they have their first job, that’s when they’re baptized. Baptists these days baptize children at 12, or at even 8, or younger. It’s very hard. I mean, I’ve got kids. It’s hard to look at the kids who are pretty obedient, love their parents, and want to have the approval of their parents, it’s hard to know whether or not they’re really born again. I mean, of course they’re being sincere when they tell you something, but people can be sincere and be wrong, and I think we’ve just lost a lot of that subtlety of judgment. It’s not been encouraged among the pastors in our churches.

Do you think a church can move towards instituting church discipline if that church does not seek to redefine membership itself? Why or why not?

No. No, no, no. That’s a great point Wyman. No, not at all. No, and even there, before you seek to redefine membership, you’ve just got to define what it means to be a Christian. You’ve got to be clear on the gospel. You know, “Repent and believe.” Those were the words that Jesus used again and again. They’re used in Acts again and again. You really are going to have to look at the gospel and your practice of evangelism. Yeah. Discipline comes a bit more down the line I think, part of a package I should say.

Can you share with us some practical steps churches can take towards making membership more meaningful?

Well, I think the place to begin is with the pulpit. I mean, the two key places are the pulpit, where the pastor is committed to expositional preaching. Teach people God’s Word. Tell people the truth. Tell people what He says in His Word. Commit yourself as a pastor. Just lash yourself to the Word, that you will go through it and that you’re not going to have another agenda, there are not other things that you are trying to do. You’re not just going to stick on, you know, prosperity or how God helps you improve your self-esteem, or a series on your favorite topic, theologically. No, just preach the Bible to people. And [secondly], as a pastor, just be careful about taking in members. Look at the way your church takes in members.

Yeah, it is interesting that in the average Baptist church anyone can just walk the aisle and they’re pretty much voted in and no one knows anything about them.

Yeah, and people need to realize how new that practice is. I mean, you’ve got people in your church probably who are old enough to remember when it wasn’t like that. I’ll bet you back in the early seventies and late sixties they would at least leave those members until the next members’ meeting, even if they would call one, a special one, the following Wednesday night. But see, those practices have changed, really more recently than we may realize.

Even at our church, we started using our church covenant. We have everybody sign the statement of faith and the church covenant when they join. The members only, the members of the congregation stand and read it before we come to the Lord’s table. Well, when I first proposed this to the congregation back in 96, we had an older lady in her 80’s, she’s since gone to be with the Lord. She’d been here since the 1930’s but she had come from a small town in Mississippi. And she put up her hand and said, “Oh, Dr. Dever, this is the way my church did it when I was a little girl back in Mississippi.”

I looked in my own church’s church minutes, here in Washington, D.C., which was founded in 1878. They used to have what they called “Covenant Meetings” the Thursday before communion. Anytime they would have communion, they would have a “Covenant Meeting” the Thursday night before, just for the members of the congregation, to come, reaffirm their covenant together, to prepare themselves for the Lord’s table.

I mean, these things are not that distant in the past in our churches. We’ve taken what went on in the 70’s and 80’s as traditional Southern Baptists. When I got here, I started doing membership interviews with somebody before I would bring them to a members’ meeting for a vote, where I would just meet with them, hear their understanding of the gospel, get their own testimony of faith, hear about how they came to know about the Lord. And sometimes I would find that the people weren’t Christians and then I’d do a Bible study with them. Some of them I saw come to know the Lord and they’re now members of the church. Others, on the other hand, most of them were Christians, but it was just giving me a chance, as a pastor, to get to know them, to make sure that they understood the gospel and could express it to others. Well, providentially, just as I was working on doing this, I started this membership form and I had had some questions about it. I found a “Membership Interview Form” from the Metropolitan Baptist Church, which is what ours was called then, in January of 1895, exactly a hundred years earlier to the mark, which was completely unrelated, I didn’t even know they had done it.

Hard to argue with that, I would think.

Well, it’s sad that Baptists find it harder to argue with tradition than the Bible, but yes, at least you can’t say it’s un-Baptist. Now there’s still the question of is this consonant with Scripture? But if you want to know what Baptists have done, well actually I tell people all the time, “I don’t have any new ideas. I’m just telling you what your great-grandparents were all doing and you’ve just all forgotten.” But they were a lot healthier churches than the churches we have had for the last couple of generations, which I think make it in many ways very difficult to evangelize this country. When you’ve got a small town with fifteen Baptist churches and between them you have more members than you have in the population of the town, and you have people singing in your choir who are known to be lousy bosses or extorting or adulterers, and nobody says anything about it, I mean, I’m going to go become a Muslim or a Mormon or somebody that means what they say. What I’m going to do is associate with those people.

What is the biblical justification for this? I mean, if you look at Acts 2, just a surface reading there seems to suggest that after Peter’s Pentecost sermon they believe and become members of the church.

Well, you’ve picked a difficult thing there to use as a paradigm, and I think we can use it in a lot of ways. I mean, it’s the very first time where the Holy Spirit is poured out. You’ve got to keep going with the New Testament to see these things develop.

Right. Well, what would you look to scripturally to find a biblical justification for having some requirements on the front end of membership, before people are accepted fully into the church?

Ok, good question. Well, even in Acts 2, they’re repenting and believing and being baptized. And yet that baptism I don’t think is essential for the forgiveness of sins. You know, our Church of Christ friends tell us that that “eis” there in Acts 2:38, “into”, means that that makes it effective. Well I don’t think that’s true at all. The baptism doesn’t save us in that sense. Peter says in 1 Peter 3 it saves us in the sense of it’s an appeal of a clear conscience toward God. It’s our conscience being cleared by the Holy Spirit, by His forgiving us, that saves us. When Paul talks about baptism, he doesn’t mention it as saving. He’s very clear it’s faith alone that saves. And yet, baptism is what happens when you become a Christian. So apparently there are lots of things that are really important that are not essential for our salvation. We tend to forget that. We tend to think as modern pragmatic Americans that if it is not essential for our salvation, then it’s unimportant. Well Baptists should be, of all people, the ones who know there are actually a lot of things that are very important that aren’t essential. So I think my Presbyterian brothers and sisters, many of them are Christians. I love them. But I don’t think they’ve been baptized, and they can’t join this church if they’ve only been baptized as an infant because I don’t think that’s baptism biblically. They have to be baptized as a believer.

So, anyway, that would be one example. Baptism would be a good example of that. That seems to be presumed in the New Testament, that that’s what you do. The clearest idea where you get this requirement is it’s just a fleshing out of what it means to repent and believe. So, in Matthew 18, with the brother who sins against the other brother, and he won’t repent of it, his lack of repentance is essentially falsifying his claim to be a Christian. And the Christian community as a whole then, is called on to treat him, or that local assembly is called on to treat him as a “pagan or a tax collector.” And then in 1 Corinthians 5, where this man has apparently slept with his dad’s second wife or something, Paul is calling on that church to exclude him. Well, that presumes that there was a certain definite community from which he’s excluded. Paul specifically says, “Look, I’m not saying don’t have anything to do with adulterers at all. Then you’d have to go out of the world!”, he says in 1 Corinthians 5. “But, if they call themselves a Christian…” And in Corinth, of course, there weren’t 17 churches, there was just the one, and Paul’s probably writing to it pretty soon after it was founded. Well then, for them to associate with that local church, that means that they get to own the name of Christian.

What Paul is saying is, “Look, that man may be confused in his own mind, but to try to clarify that confusion for him, to try to clear it up, and certainly to clear it up for outsiders, and certainly to clear it up for your own members so that they don’t get confused about what it means to be a Christian, you put that man out of the assembly. ‘Hand him over to Satan’ so that you hope his soul will be saved. So that you’ll see this.” And we hope that that is what actually happened, because in 2 Corinthians 2, if you go on and read that, in the next letter that Paul writes to the Corinthians, in the second chapter of it, he writes to them and, we don’t know if it’s the same situation, but he says in chapter 2 verse 6, “The punishment afflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now you ought to forgive and comfort him so that he won’t be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.”

So it sounds like this guy must have repented and yet the church was having some questions about readmitting him. But even there it’s interesting. It says, “by the majority” in verse 6. There’s the assumption that there’s a certain group of people, and these are the members of the local church. They’re a definite, known group. And we know the early church had lists for widows and other people. We know that from the pastoral epistles. So it looks like here also there is a certain, definite group of people that make up, if you will, the electoral roll of the church. They were members of the church. They vote, and the majority of these had voted him out. And now he’s appealing. He’s saying, “Come on guys. You need to vote him back in. He’s repented.”

I would like to play devil’s advocate here and present to you a number of objections to the practice of church discipline. I would like to ask you to respond to these objections as I present them.

Objection 1 – We are all sinners. Therefore, we can never bring church discipline against another without making ourselves hypocrites at the same time.

First of all, if that sentiment is ever offered from a genuine spiritual sensitivity then it’s a good thing. That’s a good concern to have. But I don’t think that that person who is making that objection would understand church discipline very well, because you never discipline somebody merely for sin. In that case we would be hypocrites because we should all be disciplined for sin. There’s no question about that. But that’s not why we discipline.

We discipline for unrepentant sin, for persistent sin. That’s what we discipline for. And there, no, it’s not hypocritical, because, you know, Wyman, if you’ve got some sin in your life that you’re deliberately holding on to, not that you continue to struggle with that, that’s different, but that you are, as Christians in the past used to say, “high handedly” sinning, deliberately sinning, holding on to it and continuing on, then that’s something that you do need to turn loose of, especially if you want to keep calling yourself a follower of Jesus. And if you won’t do that, well, that’s why you commit to other Christians. That’s why I’ve committed to these other Christians in Washington, saying, “Look, if I start committing adultery on my wife and I won’t stop, I want you guys to come after me.” I want for me to realize, for my wife to realize, for my kids, for the church, for the watching world around me to realize that what I am doing is not what it means for someone to live as a Christian. And, of course, the church cannot speak ultimately to the fate of my own eternal soul. We don’t do that when we discipline somebody. What we’re saying is, “You are living like a non-Christian. You are living like somebody who doesn’t know the Lord.”

Objection 2 – Church discipline is a violation of Christ’s admonition against judging others and, specifically, of his treatment of the adulterous woman in John.

Again, these are just misconceived…first of all, in Matthew 7:1, “Judge not lest you be judged,” Jesus clearly doesn’t mean there that you should never make critical statements about anybody. What He’s trying to say there is particularly that you’re not in the place of God, that you should not put yourself in the place of One who is going to make the final, eternal judgment about somebody. So, I think that’s what He means with the Matthew 7:1 passage. People misuse that all the time, and I think as Christians we’ve got to be particularly careful not to encourage any kind of idea that judging is always wrong. That really bounces back on us.

In Romans 13, the state is called to judge. We certainly know that God judges and we don’t think that He’s wrong to do that. I mean, He should judge. You know, He’s judged us for our sins. And we know from Romans 1:3 that everybody is under judgment. The prophets are all about God judging His people and the nations. And we know that God is going to judge our own work, so it’s going to be declared “wood, hay, and stubble.” We know that He disciplines His own children in Hebrews 12, and we’re supposed to want that if we’re a Christian. He is righteous in His judging. We have the really strict stories of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 where God judges them for their sins and in the Old Testament, in Joshua, with Achan’s sin, where he and his family were judged. And Jesus Himself, who said that, is going to be the judge of the self-righteous.

You look at Matthew 23 where He’s talking to the Pharisees. It’s clear that Jesus, where He said, “Judge not lest you be judged,” well, He clearly does not mean that in a way that a lot of people mean that today, because the Prince of Peace is pretty big on saying, “There must be righteousness.” You know, He came not to bring peace, but a sword. And finally, of course, that culminates in the Bible with Revelation where you see there is going to be this final judgment. And we even know from Luke’s gospel that there are “greater” and “lesser” judgments, depending on how much knowledge somebody has about a sin. So there’s no question that Jesus Himself acts as a judge even though He said, “Judge not.” The woman at the well, He kind of challenges and encourages, but yet the rich young ruler, who people think was probably a little more moral and we would let teach a Sunday School class, Jesus sees self-righteousness in him.

Some people will say, “Ok, God can judge. Jesus can judge. But what about ourselves? I mean, we can’t do that.” Well, we’re called to judge ourselves. You know, before we come to the Lord’s table, in 1 Corinthians 11, “Examine yourselves.” In Proverbs, the very way we’re called to have wisdom all the time. And then, we are called to judge each other. In 1 Corinthians 4 and 5, those very passages we’ve been thinking about, or even in chapter 6 of 1 Corinthians, where he tells them, “Look, you’ve got disputes between you? Appoint judges from among you,” he even says.

Now, we’ve got to be careful about doing it. One of the problems in Job is that his counselors judged him wrongly. So it can certainly be done wrongly. Or when the guy is born blind in John 9 and the disciples say, “Who sinned? Him or his parents that he should be blind like this?” Well, they were wrong in that. So, we’re certainly not like God. We’re certainly not unerring in our judgment, but we are called to judge. Jesus is the one who gives that teaching in Matthew 18, the brother who sins against you, what you’re supposed to do. So that’s the same Jesus who said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” We don’t go for vengeance or revenge. That’s the Lord. And we can certainly be wrong. But we are certainly called to be discerning in teaching.

Paul praised the Bereans in Acts 17 because they searched the scriptures to see if it was true. Peter in 2 Peter 3 exhorts the Christians he’s writing to to “be on your guard against the false teachers.” Most of the New Testament letters are written about that. So these Christians were expected to judge the teaching of people who were presenting themselves as Christian teachers. So that would mean that people in your congregation, Wyman, are supposed to be judging your teaching. They are exhorted to do that in the New Testament. And you are to encourage them to do that.

But not just the teaching, but even the living, and this is where people maybe feel more uncomfortable. But, that “expel the immoral man” in 1 Corinthians 5 that we just talked about, that’s so clear. And in 1 Timothy 3, certainly church leaders like you and me, we’re supposed to have a good reputation. We know in James 3:1 that we’re going to face a stricter judgment. We have a stricter accounting that we’re going to have to give. We’re teachers of God’s word, publicly.

The other story you mentioned is the woman caught in adultery. Certainly we’re to show mercy. Mercy is a wonderful, Godly attribute. But you don’t use mercy to run off the road something like church discipline. Mercy is what you do in the context of all these other things. It’s certainly not what you use to short circuit them, all this other clear teaching of Scripture.

Objection 3 – Church discipline is an interesting idea, but it will not work in modern American society.

Well, again, if their spirit’s good, I would say, “Brother or Sister, I understand! I’m not sure if I could get it to work in a lot of places too!” But, if I’m going to act like that, I’m probably not even going to be a Christian. The Christian life, how are we supposed to do this? I mean, the Christian life is a supernatural life. And what is supposed to go on in the local church is it is supposed to be a supernatural community, a community that you cannot explain without the Holy Spirit of God and His activity.

Objection 4 – When you remove somebody from membership in a church, you also remove the possibility of seeing that person overcome their sin.

Ok, that’s the worst objection yet. That person needs to think a bit more about what causes repentance. They need to realize that they are just straight up disagreeing with the apostle Paul and Jesus, because Jesus said, “Treat them like a pagan or a tax collector.” Paul is the one who seemed to think, in 1 Corinthians and in writing the Pastorals, that handing them over to Satan could actually lead to their repentance. So, the idea that they need to be in church…now, I think that when you take that name away from them, if you say to them corporately, “Look, you, individual who is in unrepentant sin, will not change, will not turn loose of it, you may not keep calling yourself a Christian with our consent.” Now, we’re not trying to take away your civil rights in this country. You can go around calling yourself a Christian all you want, but we’re just giving a public witness and a witness to you that you are not giving evidence of that in your life. So we want to stand in contradiction to that and we want to be praying for you. So you’re welcome to come. We hope you do come. We’re not trying to keep you out of the meeting of the church. We’d rather you be here than any place in the world, but you certainly will not come to the Lord’s Table, will not be a member of this church, will not be regarded as someone who is. You know, you certainly will not be a member, you certainly will not be voting, and we will be public and clear about the fact that you are separating yourself from what it means to be a follower of Jesus by your attachment to this sin and your refusal to repent.

Let’s talk a little bit about elders.

Ok, whole different topic. You can have elders and no discipline and you can have discipline and no elders. I think the one helps the other, but they’re not essential to each other.

Ok, that’s what I was going to ask. What role do your elders play in the process?

Well, they’re very helpful. We have 350 members. I’m just one guy. There are six elders, six of us who are elders, including myself. We have one difficult situation I can think of that another brother is following up right now, looking into. It takes time. These are difficult issues. You don’t need to move quickly on these kinds of things. You know, bring them in, you pray with them, you talk with them, and you work with them for months on things like this usually.

Well, I’ve heard it argued that church discipline can be and maybe ought to be handled among the elders privately.

Well, that’s a good Bible church or Presbyterian position. And certainly if there is repentance, well then that’s fine, then you’re at Matthew 18, as long as you’re not talking about a leader of the church. If you’re talking about a leader of the church, 1 Timothy 5 would demand it be public I think. But, if you’re talking about just anybody else, who’s not an elder in the church, then I think, yeah, if they’re repenting, that’s great. But, if they don’t repent, well then Jesus in Matthew 18 doesn’t have that final court being the elders. He has it being the assembly, the congregation.

Well, it would be a lot easier if it were just the elders, I would think.

But it might not be as effective.

It would be easier from the standpoint of just dealing with a situation privately, but the ultimate rule would…

But, you also, you look at the teaching opportunity you’re missing.

Right.

I mean, my congregation has gotten to see me standing in front of them weeping because of my love for a brother who went into adultery and would not repent. So, just think of all those things those hundreds of people will learn about the Christian life, about the importance of their marriage, about the importance of their vows, about the depth of love they’re to have for one another. I mean, just so many things. So, I understand, believe me, my flesh understands the convenience, the desire to avoid the possibility of any kind of lawsuit, the desire to avoid bad blood. I understand all of those kinds of things. But as a Christian, and particularly as an elder, as somebody who reads Hebrews 13:17, and realizes that I’m going to be accountable before the Lord for these people. I desperately want them to be taught well. And I can understand why, just like in a family you go through difficult things, but we learn through them. Well, I can understand why God wants the family to see this when it happens.

Has your church been involved in legal situations that have arisen from church discipline situations? I don’t know if you can address that.

Sure I can. No, not yet, not that I’m aware of.

Have you taken measures to…

Well, you know, there’s actually some pretty good precedent in churches on the books legally in various places around the country, for churches having the right to discipline. That’s also been challenged. In some ways, that’s the mean reason we have religious freedom in this country. You know, the Baptists pushed for separation of church and state in large part because they didn’t want the state interfering with their own practice of church discipline. That’s what’s behind it. It’s not Barry Lynn, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, or just trying to say, “We need to make sure we have a kind of secular, neutral state.” No, their concern was for the church. And I don’t know what Barry Lynn thinks. I should say that. But, certainly in that kind of position, the more left wing position that’s often talked about…no, the concern at the founding of the country, as far as I can tell in reading it, was from religious folks like John Leland, the Baptist leader of Virginia and Isaac Backus in New England, who very much desired Baptists to be free to associate together and to practice their own discipline without harassment from the state. So, Ken Sande, with Peacemakers Ministries, has information on this.

And generally I think if you get someone, particularly if you teach in your membership introduction material and if you get someone to sign a document in which this is taught, then you should be fine as long as you’re not doing anything abusive with it. And if we come to the point in this country where we’re not, and that could certainly happen within our lifetimes, the country seems to be moving in a very bad way legally, if it does come to that then I still don’t think we have any choice. We’re not here to have a tax exempt status. We’re not here to follow Jesus just as long as we don’t get thrown into jail. If we’re Christians, we follow Jesus and the circumstances that happen to us in this life, well those are up to the Lord.

Is there not a potential danger that church discipline will denigrate into cold legalism?

I can certainly understand that with a prideful human heart legalism is always a problem. “Cold”? I don’t know what I’d do with that adjective, “cold.” All of this needs to be coming out of the fount of expositional preaching where you’re teaching God’s Word. I certainly wouldn’t want to go into a very legalistic church and just start saying, “Hey, you need to start practicing church discipline on top of that.” I would first want them to understand that they are sinners, that they deserve hell, that God’s being really nice to them not to send them to hell the day they were born. He continues to be nice to them every day that they have lived as they have sinned against Him. And once you get them understanding their own debt to God, that they’re in no position to go casting stones at anybody, once they understand that they’re entirely dependent upon God’s grace and they are at His beck and call for what He calls us to do in His Word, that’s the context out of which you practice church discipline together, not out of any kind of self-satisfaction. So that would be part of addressing a larger question, “Well, how is the church being fed?” So, yeah, I would probably try to improve the health of the church just with good feeding before I would ever touch a topic like church discipline.

How are churches to guard against members attempting to use the formal structures of communal discipline as avenues for settling personal grudges against other members?

Well, in the past, in Georgia in the early 1800s, if you’ve read Greg Wills’ book, Democratic Religion, in which he talks about Georgia Southern Baptist Churches in the 1800s, that was a problem sometimes because you had these small rural towns where everybody lived and always lived and everybody knew each other. And you didn’t move and everybody agreed to practice church discipline and everybody was practicing it. So I could understand how it could happen in those kind of contexts. Even there, church discipline was practiced and was practiced well.

But certainly in our context today, our difficulty is just all on the other side. Our’s would be, “How on earth would you ever get anybody on earth to agree to this?”, not “How is this going to work so well that people could actually target people with it?” Again, I think that’s less likely, and you’re certainly going to need to do this if you’re going to do it well in a church that understands grace. So that rebounds back to the pastors, your own teaching. Your teaching has to be good and healthy and wholesome on what it means to be a Christian, to follow Christ.

I think Wills says in his book, if I recall, that in cases where that happened and was proven to be happening, church discipline would be brought against the people who were trying to misuse church discipline.

Sure. Oh, yeah. Of course.

Which is an interesting idea.

But again, that’s like a bunch of Arminians sitting around worrying about hyper-Calvinism. Well you can do that but that’s probably not your main problem right now. Let’s worry about that when we get a little closer to it, and we are nine miles from that problem.

Could you please speak to the issue of restoration? Specifically, how are churches to restore members who have been removed and later repent of their wrongdoing? Is there some sort of probation period? Are they restored completely?

Well, you know, Scripture is not clear on this. 2 Corinthians 2 seems to make it clear that Paul was saying about whoever that was, whether or not it was the same guy, that this person should be restored. So we know it can happen. So I think we’re just called to look at principles in Scripture and move forward. Certainly we want to see repentance for sin and depending on what kind of sin it is that can be very hard to get evidence of. But that’s why you’ve got to have godly leaders, maybe like elders, who can take the time to look at something very carefully.

Well, we certainly thank you for your time. You’ve been very helpful and very insightful.

Well thank you. You might want to go the [9 Marks] website, www.9Marks.org. There will be a lot more information there.

Walking Together Ministries

A Resource for the Pilgrim Church

Tag Archives: church