Baptist Identity and Ad Hominem Variants
Malcolm Yarnell, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Southwestern Theological Seminary and the Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology is one of the proponents of the new Baptist Identity initiative within the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Yarnell was asked to write a guest article on a Baptist Identity blog where he gave seven doctrines of baptism which "speak much to Baptist Identity." David Rogers, missionary for the International Mission Board and son of the late Adrian Rogers, wrote the first comment in response to Dr. Yarnell's article, articulating his personal disagreements with doctrines 4, 5 and 7. David then asked Malcolm Yarnell several questions including the following:
If I am unable to unequivocably embrace your 4th, 5th and 7th major points . . . does that mean that I am not truly a Baptist?
I chuckled when I read David's question. When a blue-blood Southern Baptist like David feels compelled to ask such a question, then the Baptist Identity initiative is definitely a fringe movement. Before Malcolm could respond to David Rogers' questions, I followed up with on of my own regarding the 4th doctrine of Baptist Identity which Dr. Yarnell defined as follows:
Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.
Dr. Yarnell called this doctrine, and the other six Baptist Identity doctrines he posits, 'bedrock convictions,' and he wrote that "cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised." Dr. Yarnell and Mr. Lumpkin (the owner of the blog), both believe that cooperation should end with anybody who disagrees with them on these so called 'bedrock convictions.' Though shocked at such extremism, I politely wrote the following in response to such thinking:
Believing David Rogers' questions to be very pertinent, I do not wish to distract from the time required to answer them. However, if I might add a couple of simple questions to his.
You wrote: "Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership."
My questions: Into which local church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized? Into which local church were the 3,000 at Pentecost baptized - having come to Jerusalem from all over the known world?
And, if you are unable to identify the local churches, is it possible that our early Baptist fathers were correct that baptism does not admit anyone into the local church? One such early Baptist wrote:
Baptism does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it. John Gill
In light of your statements here, that the principles you put forth, including 'baptism involves local church membership,' are 'bedrock fundamentals' of Baptist Identity, will you at least admit that one of the principles you call bedrock is a departure from historic Baptist belief, and that if this is the case, then the new Baptist Identity movement, which is making tertiary issues 'bedrock fundamentals' is a movement that will ultimately separate, isolate, and disintegrate all cooperation - even among Baptists?
Just wondering.
Malcolm Yarnell responded to my question with the following words:
Thank you so kindly for your enquiry, but because of recent history with regard to Southwestern Seminary and the International Mission Board, you probably understand if I choose not to interact with your queries regarding the membership of the first church of Jerusalem, or the use of a peculiar High Calvinist to construct Baptist ecclesiology or missiology . . .
Huh?
I called Malcolm and left a message for him to call me on my cell regarding his response. He did not call me back. Malcolm's use of ad hominem variants, is precisely what happened at Southwestern Seminary and the International Mission Board. In other words, he illustrates the attitude of past trustee leadership at the IMB and current administration of SWBTS.
Let me illustrate:
When Dr. Klouda was removed from her position I made a trip to Fort Worth to privately speak to the administrators involved, including Dr. Patterson himself. I waited for three hours but was told he was unavailable to speak with me because of previous engagements. I left my cell phone number and forwarded a list of questions that I had regarding her removal. I emailed again, requesting a response to my questions. Nobody from SWBTS ever called me. Nobody from SWBTS answered my questions regarding Dr. Klouda's removal. Days later I published my post on Dr. Klouda. Rather than answer questions, those in charge at SWBTS have resorted to the ad hominem (attack the person) approach.
The same thing happened on the International Mission Board. When the new policies were proposed, I asked several questions, behind closed doors, and requested answers. Why are these policies needed? What precipitated the process to change the policies? Is there anecdotal field evidence that these policies are needed? How does our IMB administration feel about the policies? Nobody in trustee leadership would, or could, answer my questions. But several brought all kinds of personal attacks against me. It was only after six months of repeated refusals to answer my questions as a trustee that I posted Crusading Conservatives versus Cooperating Conservatives.
Dr. Yarnell seems to imply that the fault for problems at SWBTS and the IMB is me. I respectfully disagree. The fault for problems at both institutions lies at the feet of those in leadership who are either unwilling or incapable of answering legitimate, honest questions by fellow Southern Baptists and resort to ad hominem attacks to discredit or marginalize those who question them.
If proponents in the new Baptist Identity initiative of the Southern Baptist Convention wish to convince others that their beliefs are 'bedrock convictions' that should define cooperation among Baptists, then it would serve their purposes better to answer questions rather than attack the questioner.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
posted by Wade Burleson | Tuesday, April 29, 2008
155 Comments:
Reminds me of the scene on the news this morning of the thousands of people walking in lockstep in North Korea, watching the olympic torch go by. The government made sure no one got out of line, asked any questions about the government of China, or protested in any way.
Then a low, quiet voice came from the Ball of Fire: "I am Oz, the Great and Terrible. Who are you, and why do you seek me?"
I am Wade. And I seek answers.
"Please leave a message after the tone."
wade,
i think that you illustrate an important point: it is hard for some people to have real conversations. not to sound like a skeptic but it seems as though it should be more important that the Truth be discovered than that one's particular interpretation of Baptist's beliefs seize the day.
at the same time, i don't think that you should take offense at Dr. Yarnell's comments or lack thereof because you think that this is simply his attitude towards you or even a tactic of his. from the limited intereactions that i have had with him and his reputation among several i know on campus, you are simply seeing the man. i do not claim to know him like praisegod barebones but i think the attitude that you encountered is just the way that he interacts with everyone.
that being said, i find the attitude of the current administration @ SWBTS deplorable on certain issues and pretty good on others (like the stress they place on personal evangelism).
keep up the blogging,
a simple student @ swbts (at least for a short while longer ... i guess i will just be a simple guy not @ swbts at that point :))
I do not know much if anything about the academic life Dr. Yarnell must lead. Let's grant that he is as likely as anyone in Texas to have irons in more fires than the putter teams at Ping or Callaway.
However, having been in educational establishments long enough to have worked directly with about sixty administrators, I will say that if anyone daring to be considered an educator or professor responded to Wade's conscientious queries as Dr. Yarnell did, he would have found his career at an utter standstill until he explained such a cavalier attitude.
Professional? No
Honest? Not a chance
Religiously respectful of a fellow minister? Not EVEN close
A determined partisan protected by a closed culture of political activists careless of what their management is doing to a once-proud institution?
NOW we're getting somewhere.
The image of a gifted person of authority who has the chance to be a blessing to others but chooses NOT to for what appear to be the worst reasons has always fired my soul like nothing else. It is fortunate that life has not led me to Beijing (that's still Pekin in W. Ky.) or the Nixon or Clinton White Houses, or Pecan Manor, lest tragic or comic confrontations might ensue.
I have read classic efforts by acolytes of this non-Baptistic theology (Not even close, again!) called Baptist Identity and actually felt sorry for the True Believer attempting to make the sale. It is so much like the proven failure of an insurance agent I watched trying to make that last, desparate presentation simply because that was all he had.
Jesus saved me, not in the context of any building or denomination except soul-saving Christianity itself. Saying anything else is saying much, much less.
This new cultish belief makes me think of a beautiful young face marred by the hand of a capricious, dangerous surgeon who simply had to make his mark on something so he could call it his own. I praise God that I will never have to answer for such as this, on top of the scandalous mound I have already piled at the feet, at the cross of Christ.
This post has been removed by the author.
May God awaken our hearts to the truth of His gospel and grace!
Dear Wade,
My comments on Peter Lumpkins's blog said nothing about you personally and were certainly not intended by me to taken in that manner. You will notice that I did not place any personal blame on you. I do hope you understand that the water under the bridge at both institutions, and my own responsibility before SBC institutions, especially Southwestern, which has been the subject of various media criticisms, requires that I have limited contacts with vocal critics of those institutions.
As for leaving a message for me by telephone, please do forgive my tardiness in responding to you. My assistant became ill during the morning, and he will probably receive your message and pass it to me, today. In the past, you may remember, I have taken or returned your telephone call. Why did I and will I do so? Because I respect the authority of the local churches in our convention, and you, sir, are a local church member and leader. Therefore, I have some responsibility towards you, too.
As you can see, these two facts place me between a rock (a sense of loyalty toward an institution under criticism) and a hard place (a sense of loyalty toward the churches that authorize and support that institution.) Thus, rather than ignore you totally on the blog, I chose to provide a limited answer in which the germ of a more complete answer was contained. Please, again, look at my response to you for what that basic answer is: the church membership of Jerusalem, and the peculiarity of Gill as a Baptist theologian.
However, because we have been brought to this impasse, please let it be stated clearly right here that I do respect you as a Southern Baptist and as a Pastor. You have my sincere apologies for any offense that was given by me to you. Please know that in my heart, I did not intend any such offense. I deeply regret any personal harm this situation has caused and ask for your forbearance with me.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Dr. Yarnell,
With respect, I am having a hard time fully understanding
Please, again, look at my response to you for what that basic answer is: the church membership of Jerusalem, and the peculiarity of Gill as a Baptist theologian.
Perhaps it is just me. If I am reading you correctly, it appears that you are asserting that the Ethiopian eunuch and the Pentecost 3000 were baptized into the Jerusalem church. I can, I suppose, "get" the 3000, but as far as I can tell, the eunuch was not in Jerusalem at the time, nor have I found anything, to my recollection, indicating that he ever went back. Insofar as I can tell, the only option this leaves me is understanding that regardless of where in the world a person is baptized, he is baptized into the local church from which the baptizer has come. Am I misunderstanding this? Whilst recognizing the demands on your time, perhaps you can take the time to clarify.
I confess that I am utterly at a loss to understand your comments on Dr. Gill. Whilst quite recognizing that I am untrained and undereducated and perhaps just missing a subtle reference, on the surface your comment appears to be an attempt to dismiss Dr. Gill's opinion solely on the ground of his Calvinism. Personally, I would welcome further explanation of this point if the time can be spared.
Wade,
Let me try and answer a few of your questions.
1. "Into which local church were the 3,000 at Pentecost baptized?" Answer: The church at Jerusalem. Acts 2:41 is very clear on this matter.
2. "Into which local church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized?" Answer: It is interesting to speculate on what would have happen to the eunuch if the Lord had not caught Philip away. Do you think Philip would have sent him on his merry way, or would he have tried to disciple him and get him involved in a local church? Also remember Philip was an evangelist and was an ordained officer of the church at Jerusalem. Through Philip, the eunuch's baptism was connected to a local church.
3. "will you at least admit that one of the principles you call bedrock is a departure from historic Baptist belief?" No I will not admit this. Everyone agrees the American Baptists have long held to these principles. However some like yourself point to the English Baptists who were earlier and say they denied these things. While I disagree with Gill's statement, he did not believe any Christian could baptize, but only those who were connected through ordination to a local church. If you want to know what the English Baptists (besides Gill and Bunyan) believed about baptism and ecclesiology go to R.E. Pound's website http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/Pound.html and read his paper on "THE ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM, studies in the Particular Baptist Ecclesiology of the 1600s" or other of his excellent works.
Ben Stratton
I was at first inclined to agree with you for once Wade, but then I began to think (one day history might recount this as my fatal flaw): Do we really believe that the God's Word advocates baptism without accountability? We are accountably to our brothers and sisters in Christ. The local church was established for this very reason.
I am not sure that we can take examples from a still forming church of the apostolic age and seek to mimic every detail.
While I do not hold to all tradition as being inerrant and inspired, I do believe that some traditions were given to men by God through his Spirit and His Word. I cannot imagine a case where I would feel compelled to baptize a convert apart from the authority of the local NT church.
I am not an expert on apostolic authority, nor apostolic succession; and not to sound too Landmarkish here, but I believe when we remove ourselves from the authority of the local church, we remove ourselves from a successive authority which was given by Christ to the apostles. Does that mean I believe the church began b4 Pentecost? No. But the foundation of the church WAS the Apostles and the authority of Christ came through them. Our authority rest of course absolutely in the Cornerstone, but also very much THROUGH the foundation.
Anything else leads to rogue Christianity.
K
If we still had Baptist Tel-Net (anyone besides me remember that?), I'd suggest that someone create a game show called "To Tell the (Baptist) Truth." Each game would end with the host intoning, "Will the real Baptist please stand up?"
Sheesh.
K,
I believe that people need to be part of a local church for accountability.
But does it follow that the lack of a church means a Christian will be rogue?
I think the fundamental flaw of some of the more rigid Baptist Identity folks (and many pastors today) is a flawed view of the power of the Holy Spirit.
If I believe in the power of the Spirit to move in a Christian's heart, all I have to do is proclaim Christ, I don't have to control Christians.
" I do hope you understand that the water under the bridge at both institutions, and my own responsibility before SBC institutions, especially Southwestern, which has been the subject of various media criticisms, requires that I have limited contacts with vocal critics of those institutions."
In other words, my loyalty is to my paycheck, first and foremost.
What you wrote above is called circling the wagons. And it also says you have no 'academic freedom' unless, of course, you agree with the powers.
That still does not excuse your first response to Wade which everyone can read for themselves and know it means: I don't have to answer you because you are NOT one of us. Or maybe you are scared of your boss.
The arrogance gets old.
Lucy
WOW! I really admire an actual comment on Wade’s blog from someone that’s been taken to the ‘cleaners’ by Wade. That takes courage.
Yarnell has broken the ‘golden rule’ of Patterson of letting silence do the replying.
Yarnell mentioned Peter Lumpkin’s blog. I noticed Lumpkin is still ending his comments with “I am”. His ‘ending’ has always iterated me because there is only one “I Am” and that’s God.
With that off my chest, I believe Yarnell is 100% correct as far as he went with his comment. It would have been so nice, if he had answered Wade’s question also.
Since Yarnell avoided the opportunity to answer, I predict he will continue to do so and will use Patterson’s golden rule.
KMC said:
"I am not sure that we can take examples from a still forming church of the apostolic age and seek to mimic every detail."
-Such as an ironclad "commandment from God" that women cannot teach or disciple men perhaps?
IF....
The political power plays which have been common in the CR and its aftermath DO represent a political solution to a Spiritual problem, unworthy of Christian organizations, and ...
The firing of Dr. Klouda (people who want to say she wasn't fired, please read 2 Timothy 2:14) was as egregious as it seems, and..
If the manner of the IMB BoT was a outrageous as we know it was, and...
If inflating membership numbers is tantamount to lying, and we KNOW what God thinks about that, and...
The denominational egotism which is apparent to me is also apparent to God....
THEN I don't imagine the denominational hierarchy will even recognize the word "ICHABOD" when it gets written over the door. And exactly the sort of thing you've experienced, Wade, would be going on.
I think we're there. It's apparent most everywhere.
I find it very ironic that Wade would put up a post called "Conversational Terrorism" and complain about not getting his questions answered. Is this the same Wade Burleson who routinely ignores and makes light of questions and comments on his blog? And... when this fact is pointed out, namely that Wade does this very thing, others on here rally around him claiming he need not reply to every question!?
Personally, I have had several questions go unanswered or brushed aside with an Ad Hominem response. Wade is particularly fond of using the "Reverse the Question" ad hominum and the... "You will get it when you can acknowledge this..." response.
Not saying it was right... just ironic...
"Is this the same Wade Burleson who routinely ignores and makes light of questions and comments on his blog? And... when this fact is pointed out, namely that Wade does this very thing, others on here rally around him claiming he need not reply to every question!?"
You have lost me, Joe. Can you give an example of this?
I am glad to see Malcolm's response on this blog. Though I could have deduced his position, it's clearly stated.
I think that we need to recognize a fundamental truth about human communication.
Not everyone who thinks they are entitled to a dialogue and a response is.
I can call the Obama campaign this morning and ask that Senator Obama take my call so that I can discuss with him why he would sit under Jeremiah Wright for 20 years (Hey, isn't it great that all of the nuts in the world are not in the SBC?)
If Senator Obama refused, I could fly to Chicago and sit at the campaign headquarters and wait for him to meet with me.
I could send Senator Obama notes and ask that he write back.
I could camp outside his home a la Cindy Sheehan until I get a response.
But at the end of the day, human beings have the right to decide with whom they will communicate and how.
Decisions on that score are often affected by (1) the importance of the issue, (2) having the time, (3) circumstances surrounding the situation (as was the case here), and (4) the identity of the person seeking to communicate.
When a person decides not to communicate, it can be the result of any of these factors. The ultimate decision can reflect on the class and breeding of the person who refuses to respond, or it can reflect on the status and lack of judgment of the person insisting to be talked to.
Louis
Dan Paden said...
Dr. Yarnell,
I confess that I am utterly at a loss to understand your comments on Dr. Gill. Whilst quite recognizing that I am untrained and undereducated and perhaps just missing a subtle reference, on the surface your comment appears to be an attempt to dismiss Dr. Gill's opinion solely on the ground of his Calvinism. Personally, I would welcome further explanation of this point if the time can be spared.
--I'm with you, Dan. That seemed to me like a rhetorical drive-by on Gill, which is laughable since Yarnell couldn't carry Gill's water bottle.
Wade, I wish the "Baptist Identity" Movement would be more precisely labeled the "SOUTHERN Baptist Identity" Movement, b/c otherwise it confuses them with people like Bunyan, Gill and Spurgeon, under the label "Baptist." Sadly, most of these guys probably wouldn't even seat Bunyan, Gill or Spurgeon on a committee.
Thank God for our heritage.
A great many current Southern Baptists, with their insistence on obedience to the "official" interpretation of tertiary matters, the authority of the "ordained" priesthood to administer "sacraments", their belittling of female believers in practice (while reverencing them in theory) and their shrill assertions that questioning those currently in authority is anathema, would make excellent Roman Catholics.
TG
I've been a SB my whole life. But the arrogance on display at Peter Lumpkin's blog is astonishing. Somewhere I missed it when Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my Baptist Church."
"But at the end of the day, human beings have the right to decide with whom they will communicate and how."
Really? Try that with your boss or your customers sometime and see how far your 'rights' get you.
Try showing that you are too busy or 'important' to bother with them. That ought to go over well. :o)
But, in the end, Louis, your response is just not how "Christians" deal with others seeking clarity or understanding. Even to the lowliest that you may think you are too good to interact with.
Of course, big important men just cannot think like that.
Lucy
A great many current Southern Baptists, with their insistence on obedience to the "official" interpretation of tertiary matters, the authority of the "ordained" priesthood to administer "sacraments", their belittling of female believers in practice (while reverencing them in theory) and their shrill assertions that questioning those currently in authority is anathema, would make excellent Roman Catholics.
Ditto
Wade, Malcolm is indeed placed in a hard spot because others from his institution who have spoken, dialogued, engaged, chatted with the "enemy" [read those who are critical of current administration] have lost their jobs--no questions asked. I am not an advocate of academic freedom; however, I also believe so strongly in the Truth that it does not need to be afraid of honest inquiry. But this can be run from skepticism or hope. Malcolm is simply articulating the frustration, whether he agrees or not, that Wade has been highlighting over the past couple of years. No matter whom you agree with, group think is not conducive to a thriving enterprise. And silencing dialogue is not a baptistic identity. Ironic isnt it?
For security reasons of the missionaries, I will write this anonymously.
In some countries where there is a high degree of murder, the “church” has a teaching we should notice. In this denomination, it is taught that all are going to Heaven. The one sin, which might keep you from heaven, is murder. They have figured a way around this. The assassins have a special church/chapel to go to before the killing and they offer a prayer and burn a candle and confess the upcoming sin to the priest (without using the word kill or murder, of course). THEY ARE FORGIVEN
Then, they go out and do the killing.
THIS IS APPROVED BY THE CHURCH LEADERS
IDENTITY?
Wade, terroism is the right word.
Lucy:
I would respectfully suggest that you not get riled up too quickly, especially this early in the morning.
Employee/boss relations are a great example of what I am saying. Not every interaction in that realm is the same. The employee had better respond to his boss, or there's going to be a problem. Whether a boss responds to an employee, just depends. I am sure that a door greeter at Wal-Mart in Hohenwald, Tennessee, cannot just fly to Bentonville, AR and demand to see Rob Walton.
The same is true of customer relations. Some customers get a hearing and some do not. It depends on a range of factors. The next time you have a bad expereince at say, Target. Just fly to their corporate headquarters and demand to see the President. I can assure you, if you do not get an audience, the fact that you may be poor will not be the reason. Mother Teresa was poor and was quite effective at getting a hearing with just about anyone she wanted to see.
The same is true in your life. You don't respond to everyone who wants to communicate to you (hence, mail and telephone calls get treated differently, depending on the factors that I mentioned).
You are right in that as a general rule it is rude to ignore people. It is equally true that gadflies should be ignored.
Surely you see this point?
The application in life is what calls for good judgment, no?
Louis
Wade et al,
referring to the article; In receiving baptism by the hands of a minister authorized by a local church, the believer enters a local church (Acts 2:41), .
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Acts 2:41 states; Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Taking the verses as they are; If I preach Christ, and someone accepts Christ, I am bound to baptize them as commanded by Christ. That is the command Christ gave all believers!. Not just paid pastors, but ALL believers MUST go ye therefore as Christ commanded, preach and baptize. It is not attached to a church nor a denomination, it is everyone's command.
Pastors wonder why the congregation has so many pew warmers.... You keep telling us we are not qualified to perform the work of Christ.... and we are dumb enough not to read the Bible for ourselves to realize the truth...
Dr. Yarnell,
I carry Wade's concern about the separation and isolation that Larkmarkist SBC leaders bring to other SBC brothers.
At the same time I appreciate your words to Wade and hope you do contact him so you both can talk.
Mark Richardson
P.S. Wade, "conversational terrorism" is a bit much, brother. But with what you've endured at the hands of the IMB Landmarkists, I totally understand your response!
What church was Jesus baptized into if baptism is to identify a person with a local church. I don’t care to express what my views on baptism are, but I can clearly see that there are differing views of baptism that will leave the gospel in tact (while there are other views of baptism that will in essence destroy the gospel). It seems that both views of baptism being reflected by Dr. Yarnell and Wade leave the gospel in tact. They neither take away, nor add to it.
The issue isn’t where you stand on the issue…the issue is what am I going to do with the flock I am a part of, when I discover that we do not fall in line with EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE “STINKIN” Baptist identity requisites for cooperation. I love the work the SBC does, and want to remain a part of her, but I feel like it will simply be a matter of time, before my own conscience will dictate to me that I no longer “BELONG” here. I don’t want that!
Robert
Joe W:
We are waiting.
Tom Parker
"I would respectfully suggest that you not get riled up too quickly, especially this early in the morning."
Nice try, Louis. You are the master at subtle insults. Like your original post was aimed at insulting Wade because he expected a big importatnt seminary president to actaully talk to little old him.
The problem with your 'logic' is twofold. First, apply it to the Body of Christ where the Beatitudes are our guide and all the 'one anothers' in scripture. Point out to me the great men in the NT who could not be bothered with what you perceive to be the lowly.
You are so busy bringing worldly principles into the Body, that YOU can't see the point.
Now, another problem with your scenerio, using YOUR worldly example, is that Patterson receives CP dollars from local churches. Our TITHE MONEY. The churches pay his high salary and for his luxurious lifestyle. Is it wise to ignore pastors from local churches who give lots to the CP? Using your worldly example, of course.
I hope you do see the point. Please quit bringing your worldly system into the Holy Priesthood.
Lucy
"When a blue-blood Southern Baptist like David feels compelled to ask such a question, then the Baptist Identity initiative is definitely a fringe movement."
Well said, Wade.
The most glaring disconnect of the present leadership of the SBC and its agencies is their belief that they are mainline SBCers. They think that the majority thinks like themselves and understands Scripture as they do.
Their conviction that this is true is probably due to the way annual Conventions have voted for twenty-five years. In reality, few people go to the annual meeting who disagree. That's why there are so few who attend.
Yarnell is voicing a minority SBC understanding. It has been held by SBC pastors of years, but has never been the majority opinion.
CR leaders are attempting to force the majority to accept their understandings. As long as the Bible is read, the Spirit moves, and the churches are free, this will not happen. But, they cannot understand this to be a fact.
Perhaps this is why words like "authority" and "accountability" are so important to them. Those words are simply ways of saying that leaders cannot be questioned nor disagreed with.
The day will come when fringe groups will no longer be in control. "How long O Lord, how long?"
JFritz
Lin and Tom,
I thought about ignoring your questions to illustrate the irony of this point. :)
Surely you must be joking? This blog is littered with questions that have been either ignored, not answered in a timely manner, or avoided with ad hominum. Comments like the following...
"Wade,
I have waited for well over a day for an answer to my question. I know you are busy but you have taken the time to respond to others with questions. Why not mine?
Amy"
and like this one...
"Wade,
Must be real busy! Still curious about the lack of defining Baptism in the statement?"
Not to mention my own illustration that I gave. Again, I am fine with Wade ignoring these questions and others. It is his blog and his prerogative. I was just noting the obvious irony.
And... it is ironic that you both came to his defense. ;)
Joe W,
I see some validity in your opinion. Contrary views are often dealt with pretty harshly on this site (as they are on most sites). However, it is often not Wade who goes on the attack, but others on the site.
It is true that questions are often ignored, as well. I try never to ask rhetorical questions. I ask questions for information. If I have a point, I state it, I don't try to ask leading questions.
However, that is how many have treated this blog (and others). They come in like attorneys with questions designed to trap the person who answers.
I think there is a tendency to view all who ask questions in that light. How can you tell a sincere question from a leading question on a blog?
KMC said:
I cannot imagine a case where I would feel compelled to baptize a convert apart from the authority of the local NT church.
Really? You can't think of even one? Are you sure?
Come on. Think harder.
This post has been removed by the author.
a blue blooded southern baptist? what? since when do we have royalty in the sbc? and, does this make someone right in every issue? does this make them "fit" for sbc leadership? i guess dr. yarnell is not blue blooded to express his view and be taken seriously????!!!!???? and, the way some of you are personally attacking dr. yarnell in here is just shameful. he's a scholar and a fine, christian man. you may not agree with him...but, to attack him so personally is something else. from being called a n. korean communist to a terrorist to a false wizard to paycheck loving hireling is just something to behold. it shows me a lot.
also, louis....from hohenwald, tn....my brother...my family on my dad's side is from just south of you....do you know where beech creek, wayne county, tn is?
david
Lucy:
I have only set forth simple principles by which all of us live.
I have not made any judgments about who is correct and who is not correct. I have certainly not made a judgment about Wade.
I will leave the judgments to those who, by their position in the various situations, have to make a judgment.
I have to make enough judgments in my own life each day about how I will respond to others than to make these sort of decisions and judgments for other people.
I have simply noted that the trip from prophet to gadfly is shorter than most of us realize, especially in the ears of our hearers!
And I can think of instances in the Bible (OT and NT) where people chose not to respond or answer questions posed by others, or where specific advice is given not to answer a person or a question because to do so is not productive under the circumstances.
Yes, the one who refuses to answer can be in sin by thinking that he is above those asking the questions.
So, too, the person seeking an audience can think too highly of himself than he ought to think by believing that he or his questions are deserving of a response.
Louis
Volfan, disagreeing with someone's viewpoint is not the same as attacking him. See? I have disagreed with you, but I sincerely hope you do not consider that an attack.
"As soon as we abandon ourselves to God and do the task He has placed closest to us, He begins to fill our lives with surprises. When we become simply a promoter or defender of a particular belief, something within us dies. That is not believing God--it is only believing our belief about Him.... If our certainty is only in our beliefs, we develop a sense of self-righteousness, become overly critical, and are limited by the view that our beliefs are complete and settled. But when we have the right relationship with God, life is full of spontaneous, joyful uncertainty and expectancy. Jesus said,'...believe alos in Me' (John 14:1), not, 'Believe certain things about Me.' Leave everything to Him and it will be gloriously and graciously uncertain how He will come in--but you can be certain that He will come. Remain faithful to Him."
(Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, April 29)
ken,
so, you think that name calling and insinuating that someone is a terrorist and a paycheck loving hireling and other non-nice things as "disagreeing with him?"
ken, i like the way you disagreed with me. :)
louis, did you see my question for you? about beech creek?
david
Vol,
You, Tim Rogers and Peter jumped me big time on another blog for being critical of the attitudes and words you used in disagreeing with others.
I don't see how you can defend one and condemn the other.
Tom, There are many waiting for you to apologize your name calling. I guess you will now call Joe a poor excuse for a human being or something like that.
waiting
Better watch vol, Tom will use it whip again on you.
I for one am glad to see these "Baptist Identitiy" folks pulling into their shells and refusing to cooperate with others. It might mean we won't have to deal with them!
Ok, tongue now out of cheek.
The root issue of all this sniping and fighting going on in the SBC is playing WHO IS IN CHARGE.
One side claims they have the lock on the truth, and cannot begin to cooperate with anyone not in 100% agreement with them.
But you know what I see happening? I sure do NOT see the rank and file getting in line and following them. I see them leaving for other denominations, for non denom churches, and leaving organized Christianity altogether while still very much loving and serving Christ.
Like the RCC before the Reformation, the powers that be in the SBC seem to believe salvation requires them ALLOWING the person to be baptized. It seems to require membership in a local church of which they approve and of course control. It sounds more and more like they believe they control who can be saved and who cannot.
The truth is, they cannot force anyone to agree with them, to stop ministering, to stop preaching, to stop singing, or to stop baptizing. They can refuse to recognize the baptism of course, and refuse membership into their little group.
But more and more the answer of the world is "who cares?"
More and more I see young people getting their Christian music from the media sources. More and more I see them getting their preaching either on tv or from respected authors. More and more I see baptisms in swimming pools by lay persons. More and more I see them refusing seminary in favor of deep study. Marvelous tools are available to them over the net, and they use them. More and more I see them bypass the church when called to missions in favor of parachurch assignments, or just going where God leads and getting a job and setting out to evangelize. More and more I see them organizing those local churches the landmarkers believe are the only valid form of the church. They just see no need to affiliate with any group beyond.
In short, I think the SBC needs to realize it was organized as a cooperating convention of those local churches, and stop trying to be a hierarchical denomination.
Otherwise, we may find that while Christ did indeed establish the church, He established no conventions and we can safely dispense with them altogether.
Linda
BM:
I have only had you to ask for an apology and I'm not even sure that it was you.
Malcolm,
Thanks for your comment above. I do stand by my assessment that your refusal to answer my question was attached with an ad hominem statement, but I look forward to discussing this issue with you personally. I am very serious about my questions, which remain unanswered, and respect your ability to identify yourself as a Baptist, yes, a Southern Baptist, though you and I may disagree on these issues. Further, I look forward to our continued cooperation for the sake of the kingdom through cooperative missinos and evangelism in spite of our disagreements in this area.
Wade
Let’s suppose the C/R was a professional sport coach.
How many losing seasons would expire before the public demanded a new coach?
I have tried to speak with you and work with you, Wade. However, in light of what I can only consider to be a false accusation, dialogue with you seems to be impossible. To interpret my statement as you have, even against my explanation, indicates that it would likely be a fruitless exercise, does it not?
Rex Ray,
How would you define a losing season?
Even 2007, being what it was, the SBC still saw 345,941 baptisms, an increase in primary worship attendance, and increase in churches, and an increase in mission expenditures and total missionaries.
Can you please define a "losing" season for us... statistically speaking?
As one person put it... "A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion."
Rex, It is not a sport, but a kingdom issue. I guess by your account Isalm is a pretty good religion.
To the rest ease up on Wade I like the title of the post. Its just a title.
I only wish Dr. Y would truly grasp the finer points of the historic baptist doctrines of grace.
Jeff
BM:
Why did you attack Rex Ray? I do believe you know what he was trying to say--but you try to make more of it.
belief matters,
watch out, or you'll be the next one to be called a pitiful human being. after all, you dont agree with the "in" crowd in here.
david :)
Louis, Your last comment was simply changing the subject and using spin. Go read your first comment and tell me you were not alluding to Wade and Patterson.
Then I get a big lecture about trying to get in to see Obama. Once again, you keep brining in worldy principles to the body. You simply can think no other way. Open your NT and read some.
Also, they may be the principles by which you operate within the Body but not me. I am so grateful that attitude is not in my church.
We have created these 'important' men with 'official' titles who are our 'authorities' and we should know our 'place'. We really have created a professional Christian caste system. Or gone 'Catholic' in the past 25 years.
If Patterson can make time for "Patmos" to line his pockets even as a busy big time seminary president, he can make time for a pastor who sends money to keep his ailing seminary afloat.
Lawyers! Sheesh! :o)
Lucy
Only 11% of Southern Baptist Churches could be considered to be "healthy and growing"
This study, quoted by Ed Stetzer and published in BP News included as indicators, membership increase, number of baptisms, additions by conversion etc.
Another really great quote by Stetzer is what he believes is an answer to this problem. " Fall in Love with Lost people again, fall in love with seeing men and women come to faith in Christ"
Therein, I believe lies the problem...and the solution.
007:
I was not going to speak to you today, but I will. You try to play games with people and for that you are a pitiful human being.
Attack? Did you play football without a helement? Hardly, I just questioned his argument, not the man.
Vol, Young Tom doesn't scare me. I rejoice that he doesn't live in Arkansas.
belief matters,
dont forget....you and i are not blue blooded southern baptist. we're not sb royalty...at least, i know that i'm not. i used to be a methodist.
belief, was your dad and grandad and his grandad a southern baptist? if so, you may be royalty as well. and, at that point, you will be considered right about everything, and you will inherit the keys to sbc leadership.
david :)
Tom, look up attack in the dictionary. For you do the very thing you accuse others of doing. I imagine you feel pretty safe on this blog since every rows the boat the same way.
"Even 2007, being what it was, the SBC still saw 345,941 baptisms, an increase in primary worship attendance, and increase in churches, and an increase in mission expenditures and total missionaries."
Joe, wonder how many of these were over the age of 6? It would be interesting to know. Anyone know?
For those who have not gone to the Baptist Identity blog linked to in this post, do so then read the comments. It is very instructive in not only behaviors but exclusive new doctrines.
Linda, I think your comment was very astute. I am seeing the same things.
I must be a blueblood. My dad is an SBC pastor. My granddad was a deacon. HOWEVER, My mother's side were methodist. :)
I am sure that would be enough for young Tom Parker to call be a sorry excuse for an SBC'er.
Tom Parker,
I have found myself (by my limited recollection) on opposite sides of several debates with you. However, I have always found you to be someone who addresses ideas, not personalities, who debates well (even if disagreeing with me is inexcusable).
I think that this debate with Vol and others may be one you want to consider walking away from.