Effective Pastors

Dr. Thom Rainer of Southern Seminary and The Rainer Group reported the following about the similarities of pastors of effective churches (follow the link to see what criteria he uses to define 'effective churches'):

...the basic question we wanted to ask was, "Do pastors of effective churches spend their time differently from pastors of other churches?" The answer is a clear "yes," and some of the reasons are obvious!
Pastors of effective churches spend 22 hours in sermon preparation each week, versus 4 hours for the other pastors.
The pastors of the comparison churches utilize 8 hours to do church custodial duties such as opening and closing the church and cleaning chores. The pastors at effective churches spend no time each week in custodial duties.
Effective church pastors spend 5 hours a week in personal evangelism, compared to zero hours a week for the other pastors.

I am always amazed to hear that many pastors do not engage in personal evangelism in their personal time, much less on church time. My spiritual valleys always come in times when have have let my evangelistic opportunities continually slip through my fingers. But what amazing joy the Lord gives when you share the gospel of Jesus Christ with a lost person!

Digging a little deeper, it appears that effective pastors (even in smaller churches) are able to mobilize and utilize church members to take on the custodial duties of the church. Furthermore, 5 hours of evangelism and 22 hours of sermon preparation must be accompanied by several hours in prayer. Where is the time for counseling, putting out fires, and other pastorly duties? Don't commit to these things right away (unless an emergency or death, etc.). Prioritize for prayer and reaching the lost.

Speaking of prayer, a study from Ellison Research came out recently revealing the satisfaction of the average protestant pastor's prayer life.

Research results being released for the first time in the May/June edition of Facts & Trends magazine show that only 16% of Protestant ministers across the country are very satisfied with their personal prayer life. Another 47% are somewhat satisfied with it. Thirty percent are somewhat dissatisfied, and 7% are very dissatisfied with their prayer life.

I heard a radio station host say, "The good news is that pastors know they need improvement." Who doesn't? But what this host is missing is that true prayer warriors will always be dissatisfied (to some measure) with their prayer lives. There is an inherent draw away from prayer, however, in modern church organization. Pastors are often required to be CEO, preacher, counselor, sometimes janitor, etc. I have heard of a few strong pastors, like the late Rick Ferguson, taking (by force if necessary) up to four hours each morning to pray. This is a part of a pastor's duty to his flock. Intense prayer is actually a part of every Christians duty to Christ. Christ Himself said, "So, could you not watch with me one hour?" (Matthew 26:40 ESV). I believe it was Martin Luther who said that he had so much to do in a day that he could not afford to not pray for three hours every morning.

Pray for evangelistic opportunities; God will lay them at your feet. The most faithful church member you will have will be one you have led to Christ. Believe me, there are people all around you agonizing for the absolute truth found in Jesus Christ alone!

Help! I Have No Worship Leader!

If you are a pastor without someone to help for the music portion of worship, I have found the following procedure to be helpful. I used mp3s and cds to fill the lack of anyone who could sing or play instruments (because the Lord did not give me any of those gifts!). These instructions are geared at finding good recordings that the congregation can sing along with, but can also be used to guide the planning process from the pastor's standpoint, especially if the pastor feels lost in the sea of what's out there in Christian worship music.

Get some good hymnals. I really like the 2008 Baptist/Worship Hymnal. Look in the back under topics, and find hymns under headings related to a topic directly relating to or pointing towards the main idea of the sermon. See if there are any you like or speak to these topics or to a church need. In my case, there are many (perhaps most) hymns I find that I have never heard. If I like what they say and they are rich in doctrine and teaching, then I go listen to them at Lifeway Worship Project website or on Rhapsody.com, and then create master list of the ones that speak well to the topic and are biblically sound and doctrinally rich and sound decent. Then I finalize the list.

This process should eventually evolve into a staff meeting between the elders of the church, music ministry, and staff. It should be the service planning that occurs week-in week-out, and will begin and end with the worship leader and pastor finalizing the songs. The major job of the worship leader in our church, besides leading on Sundays, is to seek out the best new and old songs that are most relevant to the scripture being preached on, learn and teach them to the congregation and choir (if the choir exists), write responsive readings and assess the spiritual response of the congregation in our assembly. So as you try to accommodate for a lack of staff help in your church, try to gear the process in anticipation of the roles and requirements of the position you are looking forward to filling when the Lord provides.

I know some music ministers/worship leaders (or whatever title you have adopted to fit your theology!) are not always thrilled to have pastor involvement, but this is the way it has been for centuries. The elders/pastors will be responsible to God for everything that happens on the platform Sunday morning, and unless the worship leader is an elder, take care to be responsible for what is taught through song. I scrutinize everything, from prayer and announcements to song selection and I have even changed words in certain songs to reflect biblical doctrine. Therefore, I give the final go ahead on the songs (since I am accountable to God for them). What I do not want to do is push my own preferences over those of others. I want to make everyone mad, not just a select few! The people who may help you in this process must have thick skin, because you might need to say "no" to a song they really like. People are funny about music—they get really attached to songs emotionally. There could be many reasons I have stayed away from certain songs, ranging from the simple fact that they are overplayed in our church, they are too emotive, or doctrine is lacking…or just bad.

So my major task, and the task of those I ask to help, will be to pick good, doctrinally and sermon-main-idea relevant songs that sound pleasing. You must be careful to pick versions of songs that are not eclectic but have a tempo that congregations can sing along with. Just grabbing the latest Christian radio hits will not serve the congregation or the atmosphere of worship well. I want songs that would not fit snugly into either a country station or a rock station—they must stand alone. That is a preference I push just to keep focus on the words and not the sound.

I purchase the mp3s of the songs I want to play Sunday morning. In MediaShout, and I download the lyrics from CCLI SongSelect and attach the mp3 as an audio file to the lyric cue, and it will play automatically. The pastor needs to practice introducing songs, preparing people through prayer before and between songs, and try to make the transitions as smooth as possible. The difficulty is that most songs have musical solos of varying lengths. This can get bothersome or uncomfortable in a worship setting. Advise the people to use these times in the song (if you cannot find a version that excludes them) to pray about what they are singing and think through the lyrics.

If you decide to go this route, know it isn’t easy and is a lot of work. It will also raise the ire of many people. But God can use it to make people think about what they are actually doing on Sunday morning. It worked well in our situation (which has been in transition), as people were ready when God brought us a music minister.

To God Alone Be the Glory, especially in worship through song.

HT:Juan Sanchez

[dust] **cough, cough***

Wow, anything going on in this place? Maybe I should post something.

"Christ died for your sins"

[Excerpt follows]

The statements “Christ died for his people only” and “Christ died for all people” are both true in some senses, and too often the argument over this issue has been confused because of various senses that can be given to the word “for” in these two statements.

The statement “Christ died for his people only” can be understood to mean that “Christ died to actually pay the penalty for all the sins of his people only.”  In that sense it is true.  But when non-Reformed people hear the sentence “Christ died for his people only,” they often hear in it, “Christ died so that he could make the gospel available only to a chosen few,” and they are troubled over what they see as a real threat to the free offer of the gospel to every person.  Reformed people who hold to a particular redemption should understand the potential for misunderstanding that arises with the sentence, “Christ died for his people only,” and, out of concern for the truth and out of pastoral concern to affirm the free offer of the gospel and to avoid misunderstanding in the body of Christ, they should be more precise in saying exactly what they mean.  The simple sentence, “Christ died for his people only,” while true in the sense explained above, is seldom understood in that way when people unfamiliar with Reformed doctrine hear it, and it therefore is better not to use such an ambiguous statement at all.

On the other hand, the sentence, “Christ died for all people,” is true if it means, “Christ died to make salvation available to all people” or if it means, “Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people.”  In fact, this is the kind of language Scripture itself uses in passages like John 6:51; 1 Timothy 2:6; and 1 John 2:2.(fn)  It really seems to be only nit-picking that creates controversies and useless disputes when Reformed people insist on being such purists in their speech that they object any time someone says that “Christ died for all people.”  There are certainly acceptable ways of understanding that sentence that are consistent with the speech of the scriptural authors themselves.

Similarly, I do not think we should rush to criticize an evangelist who tells a body of unbelievers, “Christ died for your sins,” if it is made clear in the context that it is necessary to trust in Christ before one can receive the benefits of the gospel offer.  In that sense the sentence is simply understood to mean “Christ died to offer you forgiveness for your sins” or “Christ died to make available forgiveness for your sins.”  The important point here is that sinners realize that salvation is available for everyone and that payment of sins is available for everyone.

[end]

excerpt from: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 1994), pp.601-602.

With an overall lack of study these days as more and more up and coming theologians finding their pedogogy in blog posts and praxis in the comment streams, I offer this simple reminder to study.  Pastors are the resident theologians of the churches.  It is vital that they equip themselves with a sound biblical foundation and full sampling of knowledge and ideas from across the evangelical theological spectrum when considering the idea of public teaching, especially over the internet.  I pray that this post, which represents a major voice in seminary classrooms today, spurs pastors on to become better theologians, better representatives of Christ and His church, and ultimately better witnesses of the gospel handed down to us.

Numbers Wordled

Baptism and the Local Church: Why Baptism into the Universal Church is contrary to the Church defined as a Covenant Community

Dr. Malcolm Yarnell recently contributed an article regarding Baptist identity on Rev. Peter Lumpkin’s blog. The article was insightful and betrayed Dr. Yarnell’s passion and knowledge on the free church tradition Baptists have gleaned from the pages of Scripture.

Dr. Yarnell mentioned as a Baptist distinctive the following:

Baptists do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, because they understand that a church requires a covenant and that can only be done where two or more people (and people have visible bodies) have gathered.

I have given much thought to this topic lately, and wanted to put my initial thoughts into writing for interaction and as a basis for further study.


First, the invisible church (hereafter “universal church”) does not exist as a community. Church (ekklesia) is an assembly or gathering. Ekklesia is used in Scripture as assemblies of the righteous and the unrighteous (Acts 19:32). The universal church is not assembled now, and by virtue of the separation by physical death of saints gone before, cannot assemble until the second coming of Christ (1 Thes 4:16-18).

Second, the universal church will exist in the future as a community. There will exist a future universal assembly of believers. At the consummation of the ages, Christ will return for His bride, which will be the local churches combined into one great throng praising God and exalting His holy name (Rev 19). This will be the universal church, and it will then be a physical reality.

Third, the local church is the only covenant community given to believers on earth. In Heb 10:19-25 we are commanded to not neglect the gathering of believers. This command is given under the authority of the Holy Spirit for a reason: God ordained the local church to be the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16; Col 2:19). God gave the local church the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, often conveniently separated when some argue the ability for anyone to baptize outside any earthly authority. Christ gave the local church the authority to carry out His work on earth, just as He gave ministers to be authoritative with His word (2 Tim 3:16-17; 4:1-6), governments to be authoritative with their laws (Rom 14) and congregations to be authoritative with their covenants (Matt 16:16, cf. 18:17-18; 1 Cor 5; 2 John 10-11).

Christians in obedience must covenant with other Christians upon profession of faith. First, gifts given by the Holy Spirit are for edification of the body, not for individual use (1 Cor 14:26). Second, the body must be assembled for use, which can only occur within geographic possibility (1 Cor 12). Third, covenant must entail mutual accountability and binding authority, which is impossible on a “universal” scale (1 Cor 5:11; Matt 18:17). And fourth, covenant communities must do the work of the ministry, logistically impossible on a universal scale (Eph 4:11-13; cf. Col 1:28).

Additionally, unity is promoted by Paul by appealing to each believer’s baptism (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:5). This unity is called for the body of believers locally in each setting, and unity can only be achieved if these believers are bound together in some manner. In 1 Cor 12:24, Paul states that God has composed the body in such a way as to achieve unity and mutual care between one another. His argument is that each member contributes or functions as a body-part to achieve a unified, complete body, and in this way each member is significantly important for its completion. This body to which we were baptized (1 Cor 12:13) must be a local body, for the universal body would be unable to assemble to achieve unity as one complete body (v. 25), have the same care for one another (v. 25), feel suffering throughout (v. 26) or rejoice throughout (v. 26).

Fourth, baptism is an individual and congregational affair. Baptism is not only an individual’s identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but is also one of two dramas given to the covenant community as a graphic portrayal of the gospel. Observance of baptism is two things generally: 1) an individual observing the command of Christ upon profession of faith; and, 2) a congregation of believers observing the gospel they accepted and recall continually in the hope of the glory of Christ (Rom 6:1-11). The covenant community receives the individual baptized as one accountable to them for living obediently the commands of Christ hereafter because: 1) they are giving their approval of the baptism as an acknowledgement of evident salvation in the new believer; 2) they are only part way through the Great Commission, now ready to “teach everything Jesus commanded” (Matt 28:18-20); 3) it is their duty as believers to present every man complete in Christ insofar as they are able (Col 1:28); 4) and it is their duty to observe the believer’s life to ensure the snares of the devil will be eradicated, insofar as they are able (Matt 18:15; 1 Cor 5:5).

Fifth, baptism outside the local church is a baptism into a non-existent community. Baptism is the indication to the Christian that a new life has begun (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21). This new life is now a part of the body of Christ within the context of a community of believers (Eph 4), and this believer is instructed to be enjoined with other believers (Heb 10:19-25). Therefore, how is a new life in Christ an obedient one if the new Christian is not a member of any covenant community? How can a Christian achieve unity outside of anyone to unify with (Eph 4:13)? How can a Christian subject himself to the communion and accountability of the Lord’s Supper alone (1 Cor 10:17; cf. 1 Cor 5:11)? How can a Christian absent from the body edify the body with his spiritual gift (1 Cor 14:26)? He cannot do any of these things if he desires to be obedient to God.

Therefore, if baptism signifies identification with the body of Christ as a believer, how can a baptizer be obedient when baptizing an individual into a non-assembled community? The individual would be left to wander alone until a local community of believers cared enough subject him to mutual, covenantal accountability. Baptism of an individual into a communal void puts the new believer in perilous danger, for it is contrary to the methods and means God has ordained for believers to be edified, encouraged, disciplined and educated in the doctrines of Christ (Matt 28:18-20).

If baptism is an ordinance given for the individual and all believers corporately, and believers are to covenant with believers, and the covenant community is given as the local church, then baptism outside the authority (or, watch-care) of the local church seems contrary to Scripture. It is the job of the church to not only evangelize, but to “present every man mature in Christ” (Col 1:28). It is only within the context of the church, in the fellowship of believers, where this building up takes place (Eph 4:11-13). The doctrine of the church and the doctrine of baptism viewed together points wholly towards baptism being the doorway into the local church, and leaves little (or, no) room for the theological support of baptism into a currently absent universal community of believers.

More on Music

Greg Gilbert followed up his recent post about music in the church with some questions to ponder. I will list them below. When faced with the decision of what church to join, or what type of music to employ, or whether or not you are willing to leave your congregation because of the music experience, these are well worth considering.

He asks:

- Do you get bored when someone reads a longish passage of Scripture in your church? Do you start wishing they’d get on with the music?

- Do you need music playing in the background for the reading of Scripture to affect your emotions?

- Does a prayer seem too “plain” or “stark” to you if it doesn’t have music playing behind it?

- Do you feel depressed a few weeks after a worship conference because you haven’t felt close to God in a long time?

- Do you desperately look forward to the next conference you’re going to attend because you
know that, finally, you’ll be able to feel close to God again?

- If you’re in a big church with great music, are you able to worship when you visit your parents’ small rural church?

- Do you ever feel worshipful in the middle of the week, at work, at school, etc. just because of thinking about God and his grace? Or does that only happen when the music’s playing?

- Do you tend to feel closer to God when you’re alone with your iPOD than you do when you’re gathered with God’s people in your church?

- Do you feel like you just can’t connect with other believers who haven’t had the same “worship experiences” that you have? Can you only connect with other believers who “know what it feels like to really worship?”

- Is your sense of spiritual well-being based more on feeling close to God, or knowing that you are close to God because of Jesus Christ?

Music in the Church

Greg Gilbert has a wonderful post about music in the church. He says,

The bottom line, I suppose, is that it would do every Christian well to do some honest heart-searching about what makes them feel “close to God.” Can you feel close to God just by reading or saying the words, “In Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”? Would you be able to function in a church that’s great in every way except the music? If not, you probably need to give some thought to whether your spiritual life is dependent on something it should not be dependent on.

Check the rest out here.

The Present General Baptists, Part Four

It is my initial impression in my journey through the reformation and beyond that the survival of British Baptists hinged on the efforts of the Particular Baptists to maintain strict doctrinal standards. Despite the rationalistic tendencies that ushered many of them into hyper-Calvinism, the confessional standards- that is, the willingness to subject the conscience to community ordained doctrinal interpretations- are what held the heresies at bay. Further, the strict confessional requirements hindered not the evangelical Calvinist movement of Fuller, Carey and others who carried the Particular Baptists through the 18th century, but provided a steady supply of ministers to take up their mantle.

In General Baptist life, Dan Taylor and his New Connexion wanted cooperation with his slipping General Baptist brethren enough to try it twice. Ultimately, however, their refusal to subject themselves to signed confessional requirements put them at odds with the New Connexion and orthodox Christianity.

As for social justice, I am only left to wonder how quickly the support for the abolition movement would have spread across the UK without the teaching of Caleb Evans at the Particular Baptist Bristol Academy. Seeing the slave trade first-hand at the port of Bristol, he was one of its staunchest opponents, and surely imparted this view to his students. The fund that Robinson decried that provided money to young ministers’ training was doled out to those who confessed a Calvinistic theology. Robinson cried foul based on the narrow parameters of cooperation the Particular Baptist Fund required. But the theological integrity of confessional Particular Baptists protected the denomination from the increasingly rationalistic and benign leaders of the General Baptists. Interestingly, the lack of available leadership did not burden the denomination with the stricter confessional requirements, but it did the General Baptists.

Was the requirement for Calvinism “adding to Scripture?” Indeed not. But certainly adding this requirement for cooperation brought accusations of doing just that. Robinson saw it as oppressing the conscience of men. As referenced earlier in this series, on this requirement of the Fund Robinson noted:

“I hate dominion over conscience, because I am clearly convinced it dishonours God, degrades man, tacitly denies the perfection of the Divine word, dethrones the King of saints, and introduces all manner of wicked passions among Christians.”

One would be hard pressed to make the argument that requirements for cooperation add anything to Scripture. Instead, God’s hand can be clearly seen preserving Baptists in the 18th century by means of confessional cooperation. Indeed, at the turn of the 19th century, evangelical Particular and General Baptists (of the New Connexion stripe) enjoyed a cooperative relationship for the spread of the gospel, but not in any part due to a minimalist confession based solely on primary doctrines of Scripture.

The parallels to Robinson’s practice, due strictly to his view of dissent and authority over the individual conscience, and to the confessional practice of the General Baptists appear to be products of the same outworking of rationalistic thought and an unhealthy dismissal of doctrinal confession. It makes little sense to me why one of the current reformation movements underway in the Southern Baptist Convention would mimic Robinson’s thought and conclusions in regards to dissent as a coveted distinctive, especially when it entails the suggestion of minimizing confessional requirements.

Baptist history does not dictate Baptist practice; Scripture dictates this. But history is helpful in understanding the ramifications of doctrinal decisions. Baptist distinctives are those doctrinal differences which set Baptists apart from any who elevated tradition over Scripture. This would include differences regarding justification, infant baptism, the Lord’s Supper, magisterial reform, state churches and the autonomy of a local congregation, church membership, the authority of Scripture, and the authority of the individual conscience. These distinctives derived from elevating Scripture to its God-given authority, and were maintained by community confession and accountability. The authority of the individual conscience, however, did not trump the community’s confession, especially in regards to cooperative efforts. The General Baptist decline in the 18th century was due in large part to the failure of the confessional accountability. And if Southern Baptists of the 21st century follow the logic that the Spirit of God does not work through the strict confessional community for His work, and retreat to a skeleton confession of cooperation, they may indeed become the Present General Baptists.

The Present General Baptists, Part Three

Raymond Brown in his English Baptists of the 18th Century concludes that General Baptists deteriorated due to their numerical disadvantage, limited geographic distribution and reluctance to build meeting houses (16). They tended to embrace old assumptions and traditions without question and prevented the infiltration of new ideas, resulting in isolation from fellow dissenters (Ibid., 19). Key, however, is that the nature of the Trinity and the person of Christ became divisive. The Christology debate divided and weakened an already fragmented assembly, and indicated a trend among some General Baptist churches to embrace deviant theologies that appeared to deny Christ’s deity (Ibid., 21). The Orthodox Creed of 1679 uniquely and explicitly affirming an orthodox Christology was not widely embraced among General Baptists, further indicating this deviant theological trend (Ibid., 21). So for however disadvantaged they were numerically or geographically, the fact that they slipped into heresy did not bode well with the hand dealt to them in the 18th century. The link to Robinson’s theological deviance and the tie that made him cousin to his General Baptist counterparts however lays in the reason for their theological deviation- that of rationalism and an unhealthy adherence to the freedom of conscience of the individual.

Among General Baptists division ensued with the splitting off of a group called the General Association. Yet even when factions were reunited in a burst of cooperative effort, most General Baptists were unwilling to sign creedal or doctrinal affirmations, as in the Salter’s Hall controversy of 1719. Like Robinson, General Baptists had the notion that detailed confessions and creeds suppressed the rights of the individual. But along with the reader, Brown notes, “In several instances, resistance to subscription became the prelude to heterodoxy,” and “people who refused to sign the articles came eventually to deny them,” with many who were doctrinally uncertain falling away to Unitarianism (Ibid., 22-23). Many General Baptists at this time left to join Particular Baptist churches. General Baptists in the latter half of the century led by Taylor attempted to mend differences, but by 1803 doctrinal differences compelled the New Connexion’s withdrawal (Ibid., 98). The General Assembly, like Robinson, went the way towards unconventional theology and rationalism.

Though the Particular Baptists had their own bouts with rationalism and heretical tendencies in prominent leaders such as John Gill, the evangelistic Calvinists quickly robbed hyper-Calvinists of their influence. The General Assembly had no such favor from God. The Assembly tried to maintain biblical and doctrinal convictions through the Arminian doctrine of universal redemption and the simple, plain truths of Hebrews 6:1-2; but it continued to move toward Unitarianism (Ibid., 103). Attempting to hold a simple, short confession of faith based on Hebrews 6:1-2— or, creating a statement of cooperation based on the simple, basic truths of the gospel— was the death knell to the denomination. They refused to unite with New Connexion churches by signing additional articles of belief, and after Taylor withdrew his group in 1803, the avowed Unitarian William Vidler took leadership of the Assembly (Ibid., 107).

The New Connexion churches grew due to the spiritual life of its leadership, the expansion afforded by the Industrial Revolution, a vigorous associational life and the changing theological climate of Particular (Ibid., 111). But for the convictions of Taylor and those General Baptists who recognized the need for stricter doctrinal standards, the denomination of the General Baptist would have possibly disappeared altogether.

The Present General Baptists, Part Two

Along with the Rational Dissenters Robinson believed that natural law dictated God's intention for man to be diverse, free and thinking (Hughes, With Freedom Fired, 97.) This reliance on natural law in part led the other Rational Dissenters into the heresies of Socianism and Arianism. Though the heretical tendency of Robinson in this period is debated, he at least moved toward Arian and Socinian views, which is what rationalism did to the General Baptists (Ibid., 101). Biographer William Robinson declared, "He was one of the most decided Unitarians of the age" (William Robinson, Select Works of the Rev. Robert Robinson of Cambridge (London: Heaton & Son, 1861), lxxvii). He continues:

"A marked and mournful change seems to have passed upon him soon after the year 1780. No man has the right to call him either Socinian or Arian. He held apparently the indwelling hypothesis to the end of his life, but became vague and confused in its application. He was like a noble vessel broken from its moorings, and drifting out to sea amidst fogs and rocks, without a compass or a rudder."

Robinson, perhaps more than all others of the time was highly devoted to the cause of freedom (Ibid, 45). On freedom both for and within the church, Hughes states, "He believed that of all mankind it was the Dissenters who best understood and most frequently practiced that liberty" (Ibid, 51). Indeed, it was from this sense of liberty that he ardently defended the practice of open communion and rejected the Particular Baptist Funds exclusive stipulation that the receiving persons be Calvinist (Ibid, 57). Writing to Dan Taylor, Robinson asserted,

"I hate dominion over conscience, because I am clearly convinced it dishonours God, degrades man, tacitly denies the perfection of the Divine word, dethrones the King of saints, and introduces all manner of wicked passions among Christians."

The Present General Baptists, Part One

Robert Robinson exists in Baptist history as one of the most resolute and adamant proponents of religious liberty. He was, in his prime and beyond, a man of dissent. Graham Hughes in his biography of Robinson, With Freedom Fired, affords the observation that "liberty was the burning passion of his soul" (116). Liberty was a sacred cause, and he not only published and spoke against the intolerance of religious liberty in Britain's laws, but like many other dissenters of the time he looked with great admiration towards the champions of liberty in the American Revolution.

While the "freedom of thought, utterance, worship, of the press, from the trespassing of the state" (Ibid.) was a source of great passion for Robinson, they were not an ends in themselves. Dissent was not championed as a distinctive, but was utilized to secure liberty. He viewed liberty as a God-given right to all men, innately intertwined in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He read the New Testament as speaking to the liberty of captives of many varieties; and he read natural law as pointing to that right. In fact, Robinson was heavily influenced by Milton and Locke, and has been categorized as a Rational Dissenter. Like Rational Dissenters, Robinson was heavily influenced by natural law: "nature is to be obeyed and nature decrees variety, liberty and private judgment," says Hughes (Ibid., 97). Moreover they were rationalists; they, save Robinson, were often heretical Arians or Socinians.

Robinson's dissent, therefore, came from a deep, underlying affinity toward natural law in combination with the principles of the New Testament. Minus the rationalism, Robinson's activities of dissent were not unlike others of his time. Cambridge successor Robert Hall stated, "The religious opinions of the Dissenters are so various that there is, perhaps, no point on which they are agreed, except in asserting the rights of conscience against all human control and authority" (Ibid., 44).

So what was Robinson's fate as a Particular Baptist, given his disposition over authority of conscience? Not unlike the General Baptists, tough times await this prominent Baptist figure.

Baptist Confessions of Faith

On Baptist Confessions, the following is from pp16-17 of Lumpkin’s Baptist Confessions of Faith.

“Like confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries generally, the Baptist confessions were sectarian, being intended to differentiate Baptists from other groups of Christians and to justify their separate existence.

“The Baptist Movement has traditionally been non-creedal in the sense that it has not erected authoritative confessions of faith as official bases of organization and tests of orthodoxy…

“Their earliest confessions were called forth for apologetic and propaganda purposes in response to criticism from other church groups, State Churches, the Quakers, and groups of Baptists of varying attitudes towards Calvinistic theology. In the seventeenth century, confessions were used both to distinguish Baptist groups from one another and other Protestants, and to show kinship with one another and other Protestant groups. At the same time the confessions were employed, as a rule secondarily, as specific summaries for instruction of members, as means of refuting heresy, and as guides to the study of the Bible (rather than as authoritative substitutes for the Bible).

“In American confessions instructional and propaganda purposes have been paramount. Periods of controversy and crisis have been most productive of Baptist confessions, which have appeared in every century since the sixteenth, though in greatest numbers in the seventeenth. Therefore Baptists have freely made, used, and discarded confessions of faith, which have appeared in the name of individuals, of single churches, and of groups of churches or denominations. For them confessions have ever been simply manifestos of prevailing doctrine in particular groups. No confession has ever permanently bound individuals, churches, associations, conventions, or unions among Baptists. Even when issued, the confessions have allowed for individual interpretation and perspective, so that each signatory was made to feel that the statements spoke for him.”

He originally wrote this prior to the Elliott Controversy and the Broadman Commentary Controversy. Into the 1980’s, neo-orthodoxy had its presence in the SBC seminaries. In the preamble of 1963 BF&M, it read that the "standard to interpret Bible is Jesus Christ." These words were redefined so that liberals could derive their own meaning and sign the document. By saying this, they were saying that Jesus is perfect, and as long as He is perfect, you don't need an infallible Bible. Reaction to these controversies and this approach to the BF&M by denominational leaders helped to spur on the Conservative Resurgence.

The Role of Discipline in the Christian Life

My first year of seminary education taught me an incredible lesson about seeking God. Before entering seminary, I heard by many pastors and ministers that seminary and the ministry could be detrimental to my personal walk with God if I wasn’t careful. I did not understand that, but now I do- with great clarity.

Upon entering seminary I had fervor for the things of God that could not be stifled in any way. I had an increasing desire to be holy, as God calls all believers to be, and to know and love God more each and every day. In fact, I prayed (and still do) everyday that God would grant me a knowledge and love for Him that is greater than anyone in my generation possesses. It was with this attitude and longing for God that I started classes. It was the second semester, just following a revival meeting I preached in Ohio, that I knew something was leading me away from those desires.

It always annoyed me when I heard believers say, “Isn’t he cute…a new Christian…that feeling will pass…” At my conversion in 1997, the feeling passed, but it never really developed. I did not read the Bible or grow spiritually. In 2002, I was admonished to “seek His face.” I asked God to show me what that meant. He did; and that feeling manifest itself in my life stronger everyday. The Spirit began to purify my life, convicting me of sin, of compromise, and laziness in my spiritual life. From that time until now, I have not lost the conviction of giving all for Christ, as He commands all Christians to do. But the feeling ebbed last semester. Last week, the Spirit revealed to me a very important distinction between conviction and feeling.

In your quiet time, you may not always “feel” like God is present. Brandon Wright, a man of God who discipled me for a time just before my surrender to full-time ministry, told me that God is there, not because we feel Him there, but because the Word says He is there. It is my conviction, along with the Apostles and the majority of influential Christian fathers, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, relevant to all generations and all people. The Word of God says He is present: then He is present. Therefore, there is a conviction that remains constant as feelings may ebb and flow. However, there is a feeling present because of your conviction, and that feeling ebbs only when you doubt. That is the feeling I believe many of the older Christians used to patronize, not knowing the power of the conviction to Christ and His all-surpassing glory.

So, what happened last semester? I entered seminary with a foundation solely based on the feeling from my rock-solid convictions about the nature and glory of Christ. In the massive loss of time, sleep and leisure activities, my quiet times with God in the mornings slowly and subtly disintegrated into almost nothing. Along with it, my desire to evangelize, my desire to be holy in all things, and my desire to read the Word of God also began to diminish. The conviction remained, but the feelings were drowned out by a lack of ability to maintain a strong relationship with God. I had the feelings, the desire to seek Him at all costs, but I couldn’t. I could not get out of bed, could not pull myself away from the TV, etc. Why?

Because the Christian life is a life of discipline. We are disciples, entered into the discipline of following Christ. The foundation I lacked upon entering seminary was a foundation of disciplined Bible study and quiet times alone with the Lord. There was not a method to my Bible reading, nor to my study. I studied based on my feelings- what I felt like. I prayed based on my feelings only. Are feelings bad? NO! But, a lack of foundation and discipline is. I learned that first-hand. A disciple of Jesus Christ is called to live a holy life, to seek out sin in your life and destroy it. This can only be done through discipline.

I (we all, including you) must study the Bible systematically, expositionally, and with a purpose at all times. I must write as I study, recording what the Spirit may reveal. I must pray at all times and with great fervor, knowing I am in the presence of the Lord. I must do all things based on a foundation of conviction. This foundation will remain through any situation, circumstance, or Hebrew exam; of this I am certain. These things I resolve to do…to be disciplined…