Mark Dever: Baptist reluctance for Universal Church

I am reading a book co-authored by Mark Dever, Richard D. Phillips and Philip G Ryken entitled The Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Dever wrote the chapter entitled “A Catholic Church” which deals with the concept of the universal church. On page 75, Dever addresses the reluctance of Baptists to believe in a Universal Church. Here’s what he says (emphasis mine):

Let me speak to Baptists particularly for a moment. Some Baptists have had a great reluctance to speak of any universal church at all, other than that final assembly of all the redeemed in heaven. Where does this hesitancy come from? This reluctance has been there not because we have thought that we are the only Christians. We do not think that now, nor have we ever believed it. But there are a few other reasons, each related to the others.

In part, this reluctance has come because of the understanding—common among Protestants—that the nearly universal definition of the church in the New Testament is “congregation.” This was so much taken to be the case that William Tyndale (in his great work which stands behind all of our English translations of the Bible) simply translated ekklesia as “congregation.” This strand of “congregation-only” ecclesiology has survived in various corners of Protestantism, including the nineteenth century Landmark movement among Baptists, a movement that still has strength in many congregations.

Another part of Baptist reluctance to understand the visible church as having a catholic aspect on earth is the underlying assumption of many Christians that a visible church must have a visible organization. In a strange way, the Baptist insistence on the primacy of the congregational understanding of the church has led to our own kind of ecumenism. We share with most other Christians the idea that Christ’s church should be one, and we are confident that it is, and that this unity will one day be manifested perfectly. But before the Lord’s return, we feel that no officers, no organization, no polity has been given to all of that portion of the universal church which happens to be militant (alive) and visible at any one time, except for the officers, organization, and polity of the local congregation. We may cooperate together with other Christians, but no organization of human invention (e.g., popes, general assemblies, or conventions) should be allowed to usurp the biblically mandated authority of the local congregation gathered.

Still a third source of reluctance among Baptists to speak easily of the universal church as encompassing all visible Christian churches has been our difficulty in understanding the existence of true (or at least regular) churches without the practice of baptism (which we understand to be only of believers). We would no sooner admit unbaptized persons to membership than would those of you who are our paedobaptist brothers and sisters; and we have reached different conclusions than you have about what baptism is. These three considerations—or some combination of them—have led some Baptists and other evangelicals to sometimes deny the reality of the universal church anywhere other than in heaven.

But, the hesitations of some evangelicals aside, the New Testament in Matthew 16:18, in Ephesians (1:22—23; 3:10,21; 4:4; 5:23—32) and elsewhere (1 Cor. 10:32; 11:22; 12:28; Col. 1:18, 24; Heb. 12:23), clearly speaks of a church that is not merely local, but universal and catholic. and yet exists not only in the future, but now in this world. It needs no earthly head to create its unity; Christ alone is its head. It is marked by the Word rightly preached, and by baptism and the Lord’s Supper rightly administered to believers (and, some would say, to their children). It is this church—the universal church—and no one local church that has inherited the church’s universal mission that Christ set out in Matthew 28.

The Caner’s Contention from Ascol’s Blog

Dr. Ergun Caner showed up at the Founder’s Blog and commented on a post about Johnny Hunt for SBC President.

Joe Thorn and Michael Spencer have made some strong comments in regard to the issues of Calvinism in the SBC. Great reads.

Jerry Rankin speaks openly about private prayer language

This comes from Baptist Press issued on Sat. Feb 18, a special edition.

Here is part of what he shared:

RANKIN — Well, I would really prefer to be very guarded in what I share. You know in our discussion with our board, just sharing — I do have a private prayer language, have for more than 30 years. I don’t consider myself to have a gift of tongues. I’ve never been led to practice glossolalia, you know, publicly, and I think the spiritual gifts clearly in the didactic passage of the Scriptures are talking about the public uses, edification and gifts in the church. I’m certainly not a cessationist and because I believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture, that the Scripture’s eternally relevant, that, you know as long as the Holy Spirit is operable in our lives and in the church and in the world, you know, what the Bible tells about the work and functioning of the Holy Spirit is applicable. Now that may change historically, but I certainly don’t think we have the latitude to just disregard it, you know.

Of course, others take issue with that. I made comment that I just don’t see how you can be an inerrantist and be a cessationist. I was talking with a person — ‘well, I don’t see how you can be an inerrantist and not be a cessationist.’ So you know, those have different interpretations — you don’t even need to try to go there, but I’ve never.

You know, really, there may be similarities and a gifting of Spirit, but I’ve never viewed personally my intimacy with the Lord and the way His Spirit guides me in my prayer time as being the same as glossolalia and subjected to that criteria. And yet there are those who do see it as one and the same and because of how they position themselves doctrinally and what they believe the Scripture teaches, you know, then they have difficulty in reconciling it and dealing with it, but like you said, I mean, I’ve been very open with the board. I don’t talk about it. I don’t advocate it. I don’t see it as normal or that I should propose that anyone ought to pray in tongues. It’s just what God had chosen to do in my life and maybe it’s, mine is just psychological make-up or my needs, but goodness, my morning devotional time — [it's] not frequent, but I just want God to have freedom to do everything that He wants to do in my life and I’m going to be obedient to that. I don’t see it as a public issue or something I should talk about. You know, it was all out there when I was elected. I mean, just go back and read your files, and some of you have. I mean it was headlines in all your papers — Baptists selecting a charismatic [some laughter]. Well, how do you define a charismatic? I don’t consider myself a charismatic. I know what neopentecostalism charismatics believe and I preach against that. But anyway — people where they’re coming from.

But even in [the] recent thing, whatever motivated the board to move in this direction, you know, I can’t control that. I’m under their authority. They have the prerogative of doing what they feel is in the best interest of our board and our missionary work. They’re very conscientious about their sense of accountability to the Southern Baptist Convention and it’s not the first time, in fact, quite frequently; I mean, I clearly recognize if God has put me in this position to lead the international mission efforts of Southern Baptists, I do serve under the authority and submission to our board and to Southern Baptists and I have to recognize that that’s going to have an expression and parameters that I have to accept. I would never compromise or violate personal integrity and convictions. But every leader sometimes has to do things that they wouldn’t necessarily prefer to do or even be in agreement with. But there’s an accountability to implementing the policies of our board and carrying them out and I’m going to do that to enable us to fulfill our mission task.

Yeah, we’ve shared my personal perspective openly, and as one trustee said, Trennis, said, ‘well, you’ve just told us you have a private prayer language so it’s not private any more.’ Well, I think it is because no one’s ever heard me pray in anything other than English so I think it is still very private and it will remain so, but it’s nothing to deny. You may have been asking more than that.

One more snippet…

Greg Warner (Associated Baptist Press) — A couple of your trustees and some other observers have speculated part of motivation was directed at you. That the policy was intended to scare you or force you out or in some way directed to embarrass you. Are you aware of any of that being true and if so or if not, what do you think about that? Is that —

RANKIN — I would just refer to the comment earlier, that I think one of the reasons that that allegation or at least suspicion was there is that it was so difficult to identify any compelling reason why we needed to do this. Certainly biblically it goes beyond the doctrinal parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message. It was restrictive in appointing missionaries; so whether or not that was a motivation, you know, I think it did create suspicion, you know, with that regard because of an awareness of my personal practice. But no one on the board has admitted to that. And uh, folks you always got to be guarded about judging anyone’s motives. I mean, you can see they do something, that’s clear. But why they do it, you just can’t go there. And so, it’s certainly not in my interest to go there. [some laughter] And, uh, in fact they’re now being confronted with that and saying, no, this isn’t an effort to get at Jerry. I kind of consider it as having assured my tenure for as long as I want to serve. [more laughter] I mean who’s going to stick their neck out and say it really was now you know and we want to use this against you. So, I think, I don’t think it’s a dead issue. I think there’s a lot of reaction momentum, uh, to the publicity and the reaction that’s been generated across the convention to revisit it and look at it. Is it really advisable? Do we need it? I don’t know, you know, they may choose to live with it, but I kinda sense that we’re going to continue to be dealing with this.

This is a great article and answers some very real questions such as who and why the private prayer language was brought forward to the entire board.

Ben Matlock and the IMB: The impact of eliminating principled dissent

I used to love the show Matlock with Andy Griffith. One of the things Matlock was so good at in court was his ability to get away with supposition. He would tell a story and wrap up the case by either getting the guilty to admit to wrong, take the Fifth Amendment or ask for their lawyer.

I would like to take a few moments and engage in a little Matlock-like supposition. I began thinking about this when Wade Burleson mentioned that there may be a policy passed not allowing IMB trustees to blog. However, in a recent post he stated that he would continue to blog. Yet the BOT have brought the flow of information into such tight control that only certain information is getting out, apart from blogging. So my suspicions and mind have gone into overdrive. Here’s where the supposition begins.

Let’s say that you worked for a company, we’ll call it Acme Chairs, Inc, which make two chairs. One is pink and one is blue, and they are sold to families expecting children. Acme has decided to discontinue the production of pink chairs, because they don’t like it that more girls are being born these days than boys (I don’t know this as fact, it’s just part of the story). You are an employee of the company and disagree with the decision, especially because you have a friend who is having a girl and that friend desperately wants to have one of those pink chairs to match the pink pj’s she has for her daughter.

You protest within the company but they choose not to listen. So you place your concerns on a website and then get into trouble with the company for airing your disagreement of their decision. They now have a decision to make as to how to control you.

If they make a policy that no employee can post on a website (ie blog), you might comment on other people’s blog, still expressing your disagreement. What’s the difference? You could also send an email to someone else and let them blog for you, using their name. Instead of blogging, commenting or emailing you could just write letters to the editor. Again, you’re still able to express dissent and they can’t control you. You could also call all your friends and family and have them call and complain to the company.

So they could make individual policies that say:

A person can’t blog
A person can’t comment on a blog
A person can’t email to others info to blog
A person can’t write letters to the editor to complain
A person can’t call their friends and family and have them call and complain.

WHEW! That’s a lot of policies to make just to keep employees from being critical of company decisions.

OR…

They could solve the problem by making a policy that states that employees can talk to whomever they want. They can blog, email, comment, etc. BUT, they cannot criticize company decisions in public. That stops it all. It keeps the employee from blogging negatively, emailing negatively, commenting negatively and writing negatively. So inside the company you can complain about the decisions, but not outside: not to your family, your friends, and your co-workers at the bar during happy hour.

Friends, in the words of Matlock, “Let me tell you what I think…”

I think that what may very well happen is that the IMB BOT will not pass a policy against blogging, but a policy against being critical of the Board’s decisions in public. In others words, if you do not think that a decision that was passed was correct, you cannot speak against it. The ability for public debate which is healthy and principled dissent is squelched.

Here is the impact of what that scenario creates:

The mythical appearance of a unified board
Despite the fact a trustee doesn’t agree with the decision, he must appear in public as if he does. The appearance that all is well and there is unity on the board would give the public a level of trust. Unfortunately this is simply a myth and creates a potential for explosive internal tensions which could destroy the effectiveness of the board and thus the effectiveness of the entity that it monitors.

Controlled information and misinformation
This has already happened. Tom Hatley has apparently asked trustees not to speak to the issues and instead send all communication through him. He has taken control of the press releases, including changing the reasons why Burleson was recommended to be removed from “gossip and slander” to broken trust. Gossip and slander require proof. Broken trust is a feeling. Not having proof and thus unable to justify the action to the convention as a whole, the wording was changed to something ethereal. When a trustee board chairman misrepresents the truth, they owe the convention an apology and should resign from the board.

By not allowing principled dissent, the control gets even tighter. There is only one mouthpiece for information. This again is an attempt to create the appearance that everyone on the board agrees and as such it is an attempt to elevate public trust in the board. However the impact of this has the opposite effect. No one can truly believe the mouthpiece, because the freedom to express public dissent does not allow the freedom for trustees to discuss the issue with integrity. Ironically, had this policy been in place, we may have never known about illegal caucus group and the concern over the recently passed policies. Now, however, the distrust that will exist if such a policy is passed will only grow.

Lack of convention accountability
I believe this is the most devastating impact that such a policy would bring. Trustees would no longer be accountable to the convention, but to the board itself. As it stands now, the IMB trustee, yea all entity trustees are accountable individually to the convention. The trustees are voted on individually and as such report to the convention. This is why the ability to express dissent in the public forum is necessary. The convention has a right to know the positions of each trustee on every policy or position that is made. Otherwise, how can they make decisions about whether or not to allow them to be voted back into the position? There may be a trustee member who is horrible in his role and does not need to return to that position. How do the convention messengers know that?

Promotes integrity concerns within each trustee
The availability of public dissent allows the trustee the ability to support the policy enacted and still allow him to maintain his integrity. Can you support and disagree at the same time? Yes. The policy is in place and the trustee abides by and enforces the policy or position. Yet he has the freedom to express displeasure in it, hoping that as the board changes – and possibly showing the need for some board members NOT to be voted back into their trustee position – the policy can be reversed.

By not allowing principled dissent and stating that the trustee must not speak negatively against policies or positions, the trustee who disagrees must now lie or be non-communicative to those he is accountable to. If someone in the trustee’s church asks the trustee if he agrees with the policy, he is unable to honestly answer the church member. He cannot explain why he doesn’t agree with the policy. He cannot be honest with those that have given him the authority to lead. And the convention is worse off for the action.

Again, I do not know if this is the direction the board will take. I can only speculate. But the actions the board has taken in the last couple of months seem to indicate this is the path they are on. They are doing everything they can to keep healthy public debate about the decisions they make out of the public eye, reducing trustees to “Yes men” and reducing the ability of the convention they serve to understand and decide for themselves the direction convention entities should take. And that is a very dangerous trip that this SBC pastor does not want to take.

Why Work for Reformation within the Southern Baptist Convention?

This headline was the title of an editorial Tom Ascol wrote for the Founders Journal · Spring 2002 edition. It is an excellent read.

He begins with:

Pastors and church members who are committed to historic Southern Baptist principles regularly find themselves confronted with the question, “Why stay in the SBC?” After all, when many denominational leaders have made it very clear that you and your theological convictions are suspect at best and unwanted at worst, why put up with the headaches and animosity that often accompany SBC affiliation? Wouldn’t it be easier and even better to disassociate oneself from a convention of churches that has deviated so far from its doctrinal roots? Isn’t staying in the SBC compromise–making truth secondary to denominational loyalty?

Then Ascol lays out several reasons for remaining within the denomination.

Some other comments worth noting include:

• The SBC has its problems. We have lots of blemishes and shortcomings, lots of needs. But that is true of my life individually and every congregation I know. Real problems are not an immediate excuse to disassociate from a church or fellowship of churches–especially when there is real opportunity to address the problems and see them corrected.

• The denominational structure can be either helpful or hurtful to a church’s pursuit of this goal. But never should it be allowed to dictate a church’s life. When this happens (and I know that it often does both in subtle and overt ways), the church has abdicated its authority and responsibility before God, and should repent.

  What this means, in part, is that a pastor must be willing to die to denominational favor if he is determined to work for reformation in a church. After all, the work of a pastor in building Christ’s church is more important than any denominational approval or position. And a church must be willing to pursue its calling with a similar indifference about whether or not it ever receives denominational approval or recognition. It is accountable to Christ Himself as its Head and must live to please Him.

Next Page »