Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - The Organization of the Church - Summary of Ecclesiology Part II

On the topic of organization and church government, Strong is convinced that a church as an organization will not only naturally happen, but is prescribed in Scripture. He believes that the NT depicts a developing organization, which existed only in germ before Christ's death, but which was "already complete in all essential particulars before the close of the inspired canon, so that the record of it may constitute a providential example of binding authority upon all subsequent ages." This organization should be properly populated with regenerate persons, but given his belief that Scripture depicts a visible church "comprehending some who are not true believers," Strong allows for the possibility that the organization might not.[12]

This institutional model is adaptable, according to Strong, but always follows a generic type that is democratic, and possesses only two orders of officials and only two ordinances.[13] Here Strong is again Christocentric, clarifying that this model is democratic insofar as the body is trying to interpret the will of Christ, its "sovereign and lawgiver," but with regard to its source of authority, Christ, it is an "absolute monarchy."[14] The two offices that Strong accepts as valid are: bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and deacon. Strong opposes Calvin's differentiation between teaching and ruling elders, since the same individual should be gifted with both the gifts of teaching and ruling.[15] This teaching / ruling pastor, when it comes to church discipline, does not have the role of "judge," but rather that of a "prosecuting attorney" of public offenses. Strong divides transgressions that require discipline into two categories: private and public. Each is to be dealt with according to different rules. Discipline needed for private matters is focused on the restoration of the erring believer, but discipline enacted for public sins seems to be primarily for the protection of the institution, and only secondarily for the restoration of the individual believer.[16]

[12] Strong considers that Ananias and Sapphira were not true believers. Strong, Systematic Theology, 894-97. One has to wonder if, by the use of his terminology, Strong is trying to constitute different categories. When he first introduces the concept of the invisible church and the individual church, he is very consistent in using the term individual and not visible. While here he refers to the "visible church as comprehending some who are not true believers" (emphasis mine), not the individual church. It could be that Strong allows for an invisible or universal church composed of true believers that takes form in an individual, but still invisible, church composed of true believers, that in turns organizes itself into a visible church, which ideally should be composed only of true believers, but practically is not.

[13] Ibid., 897. Later in the text, Strong equates democratic with congregational (904). To be noted is Strong's very Biblical understanding of congregationalism: "Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together" (905).

[14] Ibid., 903. This is central to the understanding of Strong's view of the pastor. For Strong, "it should be the ambition of the pastor not 'to run the church,' but to teach the church intelligently and Scripturally to manage its own affairs. The word 'minister' means, not master, but servant. The true pastor inspires, but does not drive" (908). With Christ as the absolute head, the church does not need another head, instead, as Eph 4:11 states, it needs an equipper of the saints for the work of the ministry.

[15] Ibid., 914-15. The duties of the pastor, bishop, or elder are to be: 1) a spiritual teacher, 2) an administrator of the ordinances (to be discussed in more detail below), and 3) superintender of discipline and presiding officer at meetings. The duties of a deacon are to be: 1) a helper to the pastor by "forming a bond of union between pastor and people," 2) ministering to the sick and the poor, ministering in an "informal way" to the spiritual needs of the church, and tending to some "external duties" associated with the service of the sanctuary (see 916-18).

[16] Ibid., 924-26.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - A Christocentric Church - Summary of Ecclesiology Part I

Unlike his contemporary, B. H. Carroll,[5] Strong does not base his definition of the church on the understanding of the Greek term εκκλησια, but on several Scripture passages on the church.[6] From them Strong concludes that "the church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on earth."[7] Yet, Strong believes that "the Scriptures, however, distinguish between this invisible or universal church, and the individual church," and while he begins his study discussing the church in its "largest sense," he eventually focuses on what he deems to be the prevailing usage of the term εκκλησια in the New Testament, that of the "individual church, in which the universal church takes local and temporal form, and in which the idea of the church as a whole is concretely exhibited."[8]

Strong offers at least two lists of principles around which believers can unite themselves as individual churches,[9] but for him the "primary and most essential element in ecclesiology" is the concept of "regeneration which comes about through union with Christ," viz. regenerate church membership. Strong elaborates by quoting Leighton Williams: "the essence of the gospel is a new life in Christ, of which Christian experience is the outworking . . . Christian life is as important as conversion. Faith must show itself by works."[10] Therefore, the foundation and outworking of the church has to be Christocentric, and not anthropocentric, allowing Strong to state that the church cannot be "a voluntary association of believers, united together for the purposes of worship and edification," but has to be "formed from within. Christ, present by the Holy Ghost, regenerating men by the sovereign action of the Spirit, and organizing them into himself as the living center." This, for Strong, is "the only principle that can explain the existence of the church." This understanding of the doctrine of regeneration also demands a voluntary church where "union with the church logically follows, not precedes, the soul's spiritual union with Christ," for "union with the church is but the outward expression of a proceeding union with Christ."[11]

What do you think about Strong's Christocentricity in his understanding of the church?

[5] For B. H. Carroll's view of the church see: B. H. Carroll, Ecclesia: The Church - Bible Class Lecture, February, 1903, The Baptist Distinctives Series, vol. 38 (Louisville: 1903; reprint, Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2006). The "primary meaning" of ecclesia, according to Carroll, is "an organized assembly, whose members have been properly called out from private homes or business to attend to public affairs." This concept of assembly forces Carroll to create a dichotomy between the "particular assembly of Jesus Christ on earth" and "his general assembly in glory" (15-6). These, according to Carroll, are not and cannot be co-existent (critiquing the creeds, 24), for the nature of the membership of the general assembly forces it to be an assembly only "in prospect" (17). Nevertheless, "each particular assembly is a representation or type of the general assembly" (29). He accepts applying the "figures" for the church to both the particular and the general assembly, but he denies the use of them for the "particular assemblies collectively" (19). As will be seen later in this paper, this is not the only point of ecclesiological disagreement between Carroll and Strong. To be fair to Strong's position, it should be noted that he does not totally dismiss the assembling nature of the church, for he states concerning the individual churches, that they were never so large that they could not assemble (see Strong, Systematic Theology, 891). But, unlike Carroll, he does not see this assembling concept as an invalidation of the concept of the universal church, as is seen below.

[6] Matt 16:18; Eph 1:22, 23; 3:10; 5:24, 25; Col 1:18; Heb 12:23; see Strong, Systematic Theology, 887.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 889; 892. In his discussion of the invisible church, while Strong prefers the terminology of invisible church, the sources he presents oscillate between the use of the term invisible church, universal church, and the kingdom. Unfortunately, the terminology used in Strong's sources here obfuscates the understanding of Strong's beliefs. On p. 887, Strong first equates church and kingdom, and then cites Andrews's differences between the church and the kingdom, which Strong prefers to refer to as the visible and invisible church. Yet, two pages later, he cites A. J. Gordon in stating that the church and the kingdom are identical, if by the kingdom one does not refer to "the visible reign and government of Jesus Christ in earth" (889). While Strong's citing of other authors is beneficial in allowing the reader to see which theologians shaped his theology and which theologians he was reacting against, this is one of many examples where the reader is left with a feeling of uncertainty on exactly how Strong would have articulated his position on some issues.

[9] One such list is: 1) sufficiency and sole authority of Scripture; 2) regeneration as a pre-requisite of church membership; 3) immersion only; 4) the order of the ordinances; 5) congregational church government; 6) independent churches; 7) freedom of the individual conscience and independence of the church and state (Ibid., 890).

[10] Ibid. Strong quotes Leighton Williams (possibly the pastor of the Amity Baptist Church on West Fifty-Fourth Street in New York) twice in Systematic Theology, but does not offer any bibliographical information for him.

[11] Ibid., 893.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Intro

When reading about Augustus Hopkins Strong, the discussion often revolves around his concept of "ethical monism," or his orthodoxy (especially in light of his hiring and retaining Walter Rauschenbusch as a faculty member at Rochester Seminary [1]), or his acceptance of theistic evolution and the "pictorial-summary" interpretation of Genesis 1:1. If his ecclesiology is mentioned, it is usually just mentioned briefly and at most summarized in a short paragraph.[2] Yet, Strong did dedicate two chapters of his Systematic Theology to the topic of "Ecclesiology, or the Doctrine of the Church."[3] Therefore, while ecclesiology is not what people remember him for, due to the longevity and the "formative influence" of his Systematic Theology on both Northern and Southern Baptists,[4] there are benefits to undertake an analysis of his ecclesiological views.

Here we will only look at a detailed analysis of one aspect of his ecclesiology: Strong's view of baptism. Maybe in the future I will have time to look at more. The approach that will be employed will be, first, to summarize succinctly his ecclesiology for the sake of providing a theological framework for the more detailed discussion on baptism. Second, his doctrine of baptism will be presented. Third, the doctrines of baptism of some of his contemporaries will be presented to give a historical context to this analysis. Finally, his doctrine of baptism will be evaluated. I hope to show that Strong's doctrine of baptism is orthodox, Baptist, and biblical and has a clear Christocentric framework. In addition, it will be seen that the oddities in Strong's doctrine of baptism can be tied to an anthropocentric shift.

I know this series will probably have a small following due to its topic, but let me encourage you to follow it. I think that we can learn much from history. So ... be looking for the next post that will present a summary of Strong's ecclesiology.

[1] According to McBeth, in H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), 598, Strong agonized about the Rauschenbusch situation, for he was committed both to keeping the seminary orthodox and to academic freedom, but ultimately favored his desire for academic freedom and "refused to silence or restrict" Rauschenbusch.

[2] See for example: Timothy George and David S. Dockery, Baptist Theologians (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1990), 299, and James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study, 1st ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 301-02. In addition, a brief review of theological journals did not produce any articles concerning Strong's ecclesiological views.

[3] These are found in Part VII of the 3rd Volume of Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903; reprint, Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 887-980.

[4] Speaking to its longevity is the fact that this volume has recently been re-printed by Judson Press in 2010. This is one of many republications since the 1960 reprint by Judson, consulted for this paper, which was already the twenty-first reprint. Speaking to its influence, see McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 597-98, Garrett, Baptist Theology, 294, and George and Dockery, Baptist Theologians, 289.

Van Dam. The Elder - A Book Review

Van Dam, Cornelis. The Elder: Today's Ministry Rooted in All of Scripture. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009. 283 pp. Softcover, $17.99.

The Elder is one volume in P&R's new Explorations in Biblical Theology series that tries to find the middle ground between academic and semi-popular books. This "solidly reformed" series' target audience ranges from the seminarian to the "thoughtful lay reader." Van Dam does a good job at connecting with his target audience by writing a book that is easily read, full of Scripture references, and seasoned with a few footnotes and two bibliographies.

Van Dam's chief goal is to "enhance a biblical understanding and functioning of the office of elder" (xii). His central presupposition is that there is continuity between Old Testament (OT) elders and New Testament (NT) elders. This continuity "need not be doubted"; yet, his justification is not convincing. Add to this the presence of some contradictions and the blurring of some Biblical categories, and one gets the feeling that Van Dam's system, rather than the text of Scripture, is driving his theology. To use N. T. Wright's analogy, it would seem that the roaring lion of Scripture is here often turned into a tame pet made to stand on its hind legs and dance a jig.

A prime example is the discussion about the typically reformed division between ruling and teaching elders. Van Dam uses his presupposition of continuity with the OT to justify this division. While he claims that NT (ruling) elders are truly parallel with OT elders, Van Dam claims a different parallel for the "minister of the Gospel," who is analogous to the Levitical office of the priest as an administrator of the Word and official spokesmen for God. Yet, according to Van Dam, he is "in essence a specialized elder" (117). So, besides the obvious question of what Van Dam does with the concepts of the priesthood of all believers and Christ being our only mediator with God, one wonders: if the "minister of the Gospel" is indeed a specialized elder, why is he paralleled to the OT priests and not to the OT elders? It seems that his theological system forces this two-step. A similar suspicion arises when ruling and teaching are presented as separate gifts to justify separate offices. Yet, only ten pages later, the pastor is declared to need multiple gifts. So, since a pastor should have multiple gifts, why does the differentiation of gifting force two separate offices?

The discussion on church discipline, while initially encouraging, is similarly affected by his system and also harmed by inconsistencies. While the initial phases of church discipline are enacted by the congregation, in Van Dam's view, the elders are the only ones who can move forward with the final step of church discipline and with re-admittance to the body due to true repentance. They are the gatekeepers who can shut the doors of the kingdom and separate the excommunicated one from "blessings such as forgiveness of sins" (174). In light of these strong statements, one is confused to learn that the elders cannot condemn the excommunicated one to hell. What then does it mean to exclude one from "blessings such as forgiveness of sins," and to shut the doors of the kingdom? The need for church discipline is also unclear: at times, the focus, driven by the OT parallel, is on the purity of the body, and at times, the focus is on the repentance of the sinner.

In addition to major jigs, there are also several other smaller reels that continue to weaken this volume. Van Dam is not consistent with his understanding of the interrelation between office and authority. At times, Van Dam associates the authority of the elder with God or with the Word, but not with the office as such. At other times, he associates authority with the office itself. The distinction between spiritual gifts and church offices seems to be acknowledged when useful, but ignored when not. Passages teaching about apostles are applied to elders without justification, just to mention a one example.

On a positive note, Van Dam reveals his pastor's heart when he exhorts elders to know the Bible and to know their flock. For him, the role of an elder "is not about getting something," but about giving (201). These biblical exhortations are much appreciated in an age of pastor-as-CEO. Also much appreciated is his stance that women should participate in the church, but that they do not need to be an elder in order to use their gifts in the body.

While this volume had a few good points, it was overall very disappointing. I would still strongly recommend to all who wish to understand Presbyterian and Reformed theology with respect to the office of the elder. In a time when many Baptists are often more enamored with following systems of theology than the Bible itself, I hope that an attentive reading of this volume will douse their torrid love affair for manmade systems and bring them back to the careful study of the lion of Scripture.

Diddly-eye, what?

One of our favorite new romantic comedies is Leap Year. In it, the male lead character, Declan, repeatedly uses the phrase "Diddly-eye". So, Cindy and I embarked on a search to determine what "Diddly-eye" means. Here are our preliminary results, listed in what we see as the most likely options (together with our sources).

1) In Scottish a Diddie (or Diddy) is a twit, confused person.[1] So, maybe this is an adjectival use of the term diddy, implying that she is a twit by the look in her eyes.

2) Apparently the Dublin eye is known, in true Dublinese, as the Diddly eye![2] So, maybe since she was focused on going to Dublin, she was Diddly-eyed.

3) In a variety of Scottish songs, the term diddly-eye appears in a series of what appears to be nonsensical terms.[3] In addition, this seems to be how it is used by Ned Flanders in an episode of the Simpsons.[4] So, maybe this is just a nonsensical expression.

4) Apparently there is such a things as Diddly-eye music.[5] But that use does not make much sense to me.

So, any thoughts? Any Irish people out there who can shed some light on this expression?

Wayland. Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches - A Book Review

Wayland, Francis. Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. New York: Sheldon, 1857. 336 pp. Free PDF on books.google.com or $20.00 used.

Wayland Academy in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, and the town of Wayland, Massachusetts have one thing in common: they are both named after Francis Wayland. Wayland, born in 1796 to a Baptist preacher and his wife, after studying medicine for three years and receiving his license to practice, abandoned the study of medicine in 1816 to attend Andover Theological Seminary. His studies having been interrupted by financial hardship, he accepted a position as a tutor at Union College for four years. He then was called to be the pastor of First Baptist Church, Boston. After receiving an honorary D. D. from Brown (1822) and getting married (1825), he eventually resigned his pastorate and accepted a professorship at Union College, teaching mathematics and philosophy (1826). In 1827 he was elected as president of Brown University, where he stayed over twenty-eight years. Upon his retirement from Brown, he served as the pastor of First Baptist, Providence for two years.[1]

Summary

While Wayland is mostly known for his writings in moral philosophy, intellectual philosophy, and political economy, he did publish several volumes in theology and Christian studies. One of these is this collection of fifty-two papers that originally appeared, probably during his tenure at First Baptist, Providence, in The Examiner under the name of Roger Williams (preface). In the first essay, Wayland presents a case for the unity among Baptists due to a lack of creeds and a focus on God's Word. He then states that the following essays are "the simple record of the observation of an individual" concerning the "principles and practice . . . of Baptists in the northern States" (16). The remaining essays are the record of his conversations with his readership: Wayland writing on a regular basis and, not only opining, but also answering the requests of his readers (on several occasions Wayland noted that a topic or the expansion of a topic is due to the request of a reader).

The topics evolve as follows: Wayland first begins talking about the doctrinal beliefs of Baptists (II-III). This makes him start lamenting how Baptist practices have changed in the last 50 years (III-IX). Here he is led to defend the typically uneducated Baptist preacher of 50 years ago, pointing out the benefits of such a man to reach the uneducated masses and the reliance that such a man had to have on the Spirit of God. This starts a new series of articles on the Ministry (X-XIII). He is led to lament how seminaries are not being effective in the production of ministers and uses as evidence the 4,000 ministers that were currently needed. In turn, this leads him to discuss how to improve the Ministry (XIV-XV). The highlight of this series of articles, which he revisits later in the volume, is the push for local Baptists to be active in their churches, and for their churches and their pastors to train people in their own congregation. After having concluded, temporarily, his remarks on the Baptist Ministry, Wayland returns to a discussion of doctrine, specifically the doctrine of Baptism (XVI - XVII). As any writing of his time, Wayland discussed the mode and the subjects of baptism, and criticized infant baptism. He then realizes that he had not offered any "suggestions on the subject of licensure and ordination of ministries" (99), and therefore dedicates the next three essays to the topic (XVIII-XX). Here he focuses on the call of God, as recognized by the individual and the community, on an individual's life.

Having often alluded to the loss suffered by Baptists "by following the examples of other denominations," Wayland then proceeds to list and discuss points of difference and commonality between Baptists and other denominations (XXI-XXIV), including a section specifically comparing Baptists and Pedobaptists with regards to doctrines other than baptism, per the request of a reader. He follows this set of essays with a discussion of places where Baptists have erred in imitating others (XXV-XXVII), noting issues in music, architecture, and details in the weekly service and in marriage and funeral services. This leads into a discussion on church and congregation, societies, denominations, conventions, missionary unions, and other related topics (XXVIII-XXXII). Due to a reader's request, Wayland then returns to the concept of Christian ministry in Baptist denominations (XXXIII). This leads him to a discussion on the public worship of God and the problem of maintaining it in the West, which brings him back to the issue of the great need for Ministers of the Gospel (XXXIV). Believing that the furtherance of the gospel is the duty of all believers, Wayland begins to advise his brethren in the West: they should not forsake public worship and weekly gathering, but cultivate their own walk with God and pray for God to raise a leader from among them (XXXV-XXXIX). This brings him to opine on the responsibilities of the churches in the cities (XL), before writing an essay on seminaries, colleges, and academies and how they should be structured to facilitate the formation of ministers of all ages and abilities (XLI). Ultimately, Wayland returns to the theory that the minister should labor to train other ministers (XLII-XLIII). Being convicted by his own arguments, he dedicates his last essays (XLIV-LII) to offering advice to the aspiring minister. His topics range from how to expand one's mental abilities to the preparation and delivery of sermons, from the importance of visitation to the importance of week-day and Lord's day services.

Critical Evaluation

From the point of view of structure, this volume, due to its nature, is not inherently structured. There is a semblance of a flow as one would have in a free-flowing conversation, for this is a conversation between Wayland and his audience, but there does not seem to be a clear path and a clear target, with the exception of the target at large which is the recording and discussion of principles and practices of the Baptists. At times topics are revisited, as in a conversation, and most essays start with a reference to the essay that preceded it. Therefore, while full of great historical information and insight, this non-indexed text is not user friendly as a quick research tool, unless one downloads the text version and uses some software's search feature. Yet, the author is not to blame, for this was not his original intended purpose for this volume.

As for the content, it might be surprising that someone as educated as Wayland, college and seminary student and the professor and president of a university, would downplay the formal education of ministers as much as he does in this volume. A careful reading of his essays, though, reveals that Wayland is not opposed to formal education, for in numerous occasions he supports it. What he is opposed to is the requirement of a formal education. He justifies this historically, experientially, scripturally, and practically. Pointing to the uneducated preachers of the early 1800s, he suggests they were able to deliver sermons in such a manner that everybody understood them, for they were using the language of the masses to deliver to the masses. Religious character, which is more important than education or intelligence to Wayland, does not require an education. Ultimately, speaking of the one called to minister, Wayland states that: "if he be apt to teach, he will be neither an imbecile nor a pedant" (52).

An integral part of his argument is based on the recurring theme of dependence on the Holy Spirit (for a few examples see: 20, 47, 80, 108, 115, 120, 123, 132, 207, 219, 243, 304) and on the New Testament (for a few examples see: 47, 86, 138). In this volume, Baptist doctrine is considered to have been taught by the Spirit to, "for the most part, plain, unlearned men" who "looked up in humility to the Holy Spirit to teach them the meaning of the word of God" (123). In the same vein, Wayland exclaims twice: "Is there any Holy Ghost?" (47, 108) as an answer to objections raised by his readers. Therefore, the God who does not make mistakes will call and sustain his people, with or without the use of educational institutions.

Another integral part of his argument is the Christian responsibilities of believers, of local churches, and of ministers themselves. For Wayland, "the gospel requires, that a Christian should be not only a receiver, but a dispenser of spiritual benefits" (381). So, when advising the believers in the West, he tells them that "there are gifts for edification among you, if you will only look after them and employ them. Christ does not plant barren vines in his vineyard" (233-34). He, therefore, critiques the church's reliance "on voluntary associations to do what each one should do himself" (270). Finding and training people among the local church is presented as not only more practical, as shown by many examples and many situations presented by Wayland, but it has as one of its advantages the fact that, unlike seminaries, local pastors can impart practical knowledge to their would be ministers. In addition:

What could be more delightful than for a minister to have three or four brethren uniting with him in carrying forward the work of God, all animated by the same spirit, all aiming at the same object, and filling the whole district in which they live with the preaching of the word (268).

Vocational, bi-vocational, and non-vocational ministries are all advocated depending on the local situation and the working of God. Both his emphasis on the Spirit and the emphasis on in-house training and church participation are as applicable now as they were back then, and are very appreciated in today's Christian culture.

Given the emphasis just discussed, an area of confusion in the understanding of Wayland's theology, as seen in this volume, is his understanding of ministry. At one point he is very clear on his dislike for the clergy / laity division. He states:

The fact is, if we must speak the truth, almost all our denominations are sinking down into the belief that all the direct work for the conversion of the world is to be done by the ministry; thus making a broad distinction between the clergy and the laity (I use these terms, not because I approve of them, but because they are so much in vogue). We are coming to think the minister is to do the work of the Lord, and the business of the private brother is simply to pay him for it (80-81).

Throughout the volume, though, he continually uses the term 'the ministry' and differentiates the ones who are not in the ministry with the ones who are in the ministry, inadvertently creating this same clergy laity distinction that he despises. Overall, though, Wayland's writing on the topic of ministry captures in many ways the essence of the critique of the modern, simple church movement, while still being in a very structured environment. This is not the only place where this book engages contemporary topics.

In his critique of the change in church music due to the influence of other denominations (XXV), Wayland laments the decline of spontaneity and true worship he found in "congregational singing." Wayland argues that true worship should be planned, led, and sung, by the regenerate believers for the sole purpose of the worship of God. While he points out that instruments cannot worship God, and therefore seems to discount their appropriateness in worship, he does not dwell on this issue, but looks at what he saw as a bigger issue. The issue is the pattern he sees his contemporary Baptist churches adopting from the Congregationalists, who themselves adopted it from the Episcopalians: the pattern of the professionalization of the music, necessitating an organ and a choir. Here, he laments that true worship is replaced by the search for excellence which often results in "the congregation [listening] in silence to a mere musical performance, precisely as the audience at a concert or an opera" (151). This struggle is as current today as it was back then, causing the spilling of much ink and the splitting of many churches. May Baptists learn from history and be willing to say, like Wayland, that "artistic excellence" in not essential to blend "the whole audience in one consciousness of solemn worship" (150) and that "it is wicked to substitute a mere musical diversion for the solemn worship of God" (152).

Conclusion

Written one hundred and fifty years ago, this volume still speaks volumes to the issues our churches are faced with, while, at the same time, encouraging its readers that God, through His Spirit, is able. As Solomon so aptly said, "there is nothing new under the sun." Whether one wants to understand Baptist historic principles, get a glimpse of historic Baptist life and issues, be encouraged to preach without notes, or follow a series of personal training lessons, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches is a very pleasant, interesting, stimulating, and thought provoking read.

[1] See: Martha Mitchell, Encyclopedia Brunoniana (Providence: Brown University Library, 1993), s.v. "Wayland, Francis" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=W0110; Internet; Edited Appletons Encyclopedia (Virtualology, 2001), s.v. "Francis Wayland" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.famousamericans.net/franciswayland/; Internet; and Answer Corp., Biographies (Farmington Hills, MI: The Gale Group, Inc. 2006), s.v. "Francis Wayland" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.answers.com/topic/wayland-francis; Internet.

Dargan. Ecclesiology - a Book Review

Dargan, Edwin Charles. Ecclesiology: A Study of the Churches, 2nd and carefully rev. ed. Louisville: C.T. Dearing, 1905. 692 pp. Free PDF on books.google.com or www.archives.org.

Edwin Charles Dargan, professor of homiletics and ecclesiology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent many years before and after his time at Southern pastoring. He was a pastor in Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. He was also editorial secretary of the Sunday School Board, and as such was involved in deciding the advisability of issuing and in the writing of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. [1]

Summary

Originally prepared primarily as a text-book for Dargan's Ecclesiology classes (5), and therefore seemingly written primarily for Baptist pastors (35), Ecclesiology is Dargan's most famous volume published outside of his works concerning homiletics. It is considered by Garrett as "the second major monograph on ecclesiology by a Southern Baptist following Dagg." The volume reviewed here is the second edition, which according to Dargan was "most carefully revised, in fact almost rewritten," but not due to a change of "opinions on any essential points" (5).

Ecclesiology is divided into three parts: polity, ordinances, and work and worship. In the polity section, Dargan focuses on the NT evidence, history, and theology of church polity. Here he presents a view of a congregational church made up of regenerate believers, with two offices. In his two introductory chapters, Dargan is careful to define some ground rules and some terminology. In his chapters on church history, Dargan traces the development of church polity throughout the centuries. He concludes this part with chapters on councils, mutual relations between churches, Christian unions with other churches, and church and state relations.

In the ordinance section, Dargan, after an introduction of the topic of ordinances in general, discusses baptism and then the Lord's Supper. After an overview of the obligation of baptism, Dargan discusses the mode, the agent, the recipient, and the significance of baptism, and the problems with infant baptism. Dargan sees the act of baptism as "not spiritually efficacious in any sense, but is symbolical and declarative" (463). It is for "believers and believers only" (407). The mode must be that of single immersion and "the agent should be himself immersed, and act under authority" (390).

As for the Lord's Supper, he sees "the meaning of the ordinance [as] very clear and definite. It is distinctly and preeminently a memorial observance in regard to the great sacrifice of Christ, the atoning work of the Redeemer." He does admit that there are other subsidiary meanings, but focusing on them would be "to some extent . . . unworthy" (500). The Supper should be continually observed (491) exclusively by true believers (492). There are elements seen in the last supper, such as the use of un-leavened bread, wine, location, and the posture of the participants, which are not to be interpreted as commandments for the Lord's Supper (492). Dargan also points out that when Paul, in 1 Cor 11:27, mentions eating or drinking in an unworthy manner, this is not a reference to the state of the believer, but "in a manner out of keeping with the solemn and blessed meaning of the ordinance" (498).

In the last section on the work and worship of the church, he subdivides the church's relation to God as a charter relation, a personal relation, and an instrumental relation (540-41). Here he looks at worship, discipline, evangelism, missions, education, charity, and humanitarian work. For Dargan, "one of the most important works of the church is the edifying of itself. It owes duties to mankind and to God that it can by no means decline, but these do not require that it should be anything else than keenly alive to its own prosperity and growth" (551).

Critical Evaluation

Due to size limitations, this critique will focus on the reviewer's pet peeves and other items of special interest. This in no way constitutes an exhaustive list of positive and negative criticisms on such a massive volume.

Throughout the volume, the reader gets the impression that Dargan's main focus is on the externals of ecclesiology. For example, Dargan starts his volume with Part I - "Polity of the Churches," an entire section on polity, and while in this section he spends time discussing the meaning and usage of εκκλησια, Dargan does not devote any time developing his understanding of the essence of the church. All Dargan offers is a "Baptist" definition of the church based on church polity: the church "is a local body or society of baptized believers in Christ, where the true worship of God is observed, the word of God is preached and the ordinances of the New Testament are properly administered" (22). A similar weakness is found in his discussion of worship. Here there is no mention of passages like Rom 12:1-2 or Revelation 4, which deal with the essence of worship, but mainly a focus on the externals of the weekly service of the church. In the chapters dedicated to baptism, it also seems that Dargan again is mainly concerned with the externals, in this case it's the mode of baptism. This is evidenced in the forward placement, and in the larger number of chapters (four out of eleven) dedicated to the mode. On the other hand, the symbolism of baptism is relegated to the end of his discussion. While this possibly could be explained by the fact that some parts of the symbolism can better be illustrated and explained when the mode has been correctly ascertained, it would seem that the symbolism of baptism should be more important and therefore should be more central to the discussion.

Another general criticism is that, while in his discussion of the offices of the church Dargan begins with an admonition to be cognizant of one's own preconceptions, he seems to be plagued by his own preconceptions in several parts of his work. When looking at lists like Eph 4:11 and 1 Cor 12:28, he immediately assumes that appellations apostles, prophets, and teachers must be referring to offices (71), even if he later admits that the rest of the list in 1 Cor 12 is referring to gifts (81) and that Eph 4:11 is a list of gifts (86). Had he seen these as lists of spiritual gifts rather than lists of offices, as he finally concludes about prophets (79) and teachers (80), it would have helped his understanding and explanation of these gifts and the officers who possess these gifts. This understanding, though, is possibly present when he explains why the Baptist churches of his time were not exact replicas of the NT model (177ff). Realizing that the Spirit of God gives gifts according to His good pleasure, Dargan states that some of these gifts existed by direct divine appointment and not by the church authority. If ever in the good providence of God these gifts are again bestowed upon the churches, together with such undoubted divine credentials as to disallow every trace of fanaticism, we must accept them; but as things are, the churches have no more right now than they had then to decree and appoint these manifestations of divine grace and power (177).

Here he lumps the apostolic office with a listing of gifts he sees as no longer extant. Similarly, when discussing worship, the reader gets the impression that Dargan is entrapped in his concept of institutional worship where worship is a ritual and not a presentation of our bodies as living sacrifices, holy, acceptable to God, as our act of reasonable service.
There are a few instances where Dargan is inconsistent with his logic behind the use of terminology. Having shown that the etymology of the English word "church" comes from κυριακον, referring to the place of gathering as of the Lord's, Dargan upholds the propriety of calling the building and the congregation "the church." He readily admits that there is some ambiguity in the terminology, but here in a way dissimilar to his treatment of the terms bishop (86), communion, and Eucharist (485), he does not show the presence of mind to suggest a change of terminology. Here a change of the non-biblical terminology would have been beneficial to keep young, immature believers from misunderstanding what the term "church" in the NT refers to, therefore helping them correctly to understand the Biblical teachings on the church. As for the use of the terms bishop, communion, and Eucharist, appropriate teaching concerning the biblical meaning of the terms seems more appropriate than abandoning their usage.
As for the understanding of the meaning of εκκλησια, after a long survey of its different uses, Dargan concludes that "there is no need of the common appellations 'universal,' 'invisible,' 'visible,' 'militant,' 'triumphant,'" for "the church, in the New Testament senses of the word, is a local body of believers in Christ, and then more generally, the collective number of professing Christians, and then most generally of all, the sum total of all true believers everywhere, and in all times" (51).

Dargan's discussion on mutual relations in Baptist churches (Part I - Chapter XII) is somewhat dated, for it is not as much a treatise of the Biblical reasons why there should be cooperation (this is just briefly mentioned at the beginning of the chapter) as it is a description of the different ways Baptist churches cooperate. It has inherent historical value, but its practical value in our day and age is questionable. On the other hand, his chapter on church union with non-Baptist churches, denominations, and institutions is welcomed and something that is not as commonly found in volumes on ecclesiology. Dargan subdivides church union into four levels: doctrinal, organic, co-operative, and spiritual. With the intent to cooperate while remaining pure to one's understanding of the mandates of Scripture, Dargan considers the first two as difficult to achieve and historically lead to the centralization of power, the third one as easier, but historically unsuccessful, and the last one as not difficult. Dargan here issues an encouragement and a warning: "Baptists must love their brethren of other denominations, but must not partake in their errors" (247). May today's Baptists heed this warning!

In his discussion of the symbolism of baptism, Dargan's view of baptism as a declaration not just of repentance, but of obedience and of consecration (469f) is refreshing and should be heeded by today's Baptists. Also of interest is the fact that, while there are some allusions to baptism being the entrance into the church, there is no systematic treatment of this in the eleven chapters dedicated to baptism.

In his discussion on the supper, Dargan discusses a variety of passages that are possible allusions to the Lord's Supper (493ff). His treatment of these passages is welcomed, since these are not commonly discussed in books on ecclesiology. Unfortunately, the reader is left feeling that some of his decisions, as to whether these are genuine allusions or doubtful allusions, are arbitrary and not well supported. Dargan does note that the 1 Cor 11 passage indicates that the Lord's supper was observed as or in connection with a meal, but does so in a disapproving tone, wrongly seeing this practice, rather than the sinfulness of the Corinthians, as "virtually destroying the ordinance" (496). This explains why later on, he is in favor of a celebration connected with a "simple service of prayer and praise and reading of Scripture." He also disfavors the celebration of the Supper at the end of the morning service because often "the performance of this solemn rite is hurried through without sufficient solemnity or impressiveness" (531).

In the last part, Dargan presents a very institutionalized church. Yet, he does encourage community: "It is of the utmost importance that the members in the different walks of life should not only become acquainted with each other, but should feel a real personal interest in each other's welfare" (545). He also encourages older people to look out for other people's children (552-53). He also rightly warns that too much machinery will undoubtedly keep up a lively rattle, but it may not be a very effective working force after all. In fact the multiplication of agencies will easily interfere with real spiritual power; and merely humanitarian and social activity is sure to obscure too much the proper spiritual work of the churches (548).

Conclusion

Ecclesiology is a classic work in Baptist ecclesiology, and for that reason alone it is a recommended read for all serious students of the church. It is also a good resource of lists of issues to consider when studying ecclesiology, and a good summary of the historical and denominational trends in church polity, the ordinances, and the worship of the church.

[1] James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study, 1st ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 245-46, 442.

[2] Ibid., 245.

Pastor as examples, even in shepherding

I have often argued that one of the main roles of a pastor is to be an example.

... As I was reading Ecclesiology by Dargan (book review forthcoming), I got to thinking about the fact that most "shepherd" terminology in Scripture refers to Christ, not pastors (see for example John 10:11, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 2:25). And then it hit me ... as an example, pastors need to imitate Christ and be Christlike. If He is a shepherd, then, obviously, they need to be shepherds, not only because that is part of their gifting, but also to set an example of shepherding, so that all believers can be shepherds at some level or other. Like any other gift, here also there seems to be the general mandate and focused mandate (i.e. - we are all called to evangelize, but some are gifted as evangelists; we are all called to teach, but some are gifted as teachers; etc.). In this case, if you think about it, we are all called to shepherd (really most of the "one another" sayings in Scripture), even if some are specially gifted as shepherds.

So, to my pastor friends out there, don't forget to model shepherding to the people that God has put in your life. And along those lines, don't forget to model all that God has called you to do as a pastor. It's not enough to just live our "Christian life" in front of people, we have to be actively imitating Christ so that we can tell people to imitate us, as we imitate Him.

Those "one another"s

As followers of Christ and brothers and sisters in Christ we are called to help one another grow toward Christian maturity by:

• bearing one another's burdens (Gal 6:2)
• encouraging one another (1 Th 4:18; Heb 10:25)
• exhorting one another (Heb 3:13)
• praying for one another
• confessing our sins to one another (Jm 5:16)
• speaking the truth in love to one another (Eph 4:15)
• admonishing one another (Col 3:16)
• building up one another (1 Th 5:11)
• teaching one another (Col 3:16)
• comforting one another (1 Cor 13:11)
• submitting to one another (Eph 5:21)
• serving one another (Mt 20:27-8)
• patiently bearing one another (Eph 4:2)
• regarding one another as more important than ourselves (Rom 12:10)
• caring for one another (1 Pt 4:10)
• exercising our spiritual gifts to serve one another (1 Pt 4:10)
• being kind and tenderhearted to one another (Eph 4:32)
• forgiving one another (Eph 4:32)
• loving one another (Jn 13:34-5)

So, the question is: are doing these "one another"s?

Church Buildings - Francis Wayland

We assemble to offer spiritual sacrifice. We meet to hear the word of God explained and brought home to our consciences and our hearts, and to bring under the sound of the gospel as many as we are able. Christ came to preach the gospel to the poor, and to the end of time, the evidence of the truth of his religion is, that "to the poor the gospel is preached." Hence we need a neat, convenient audience-room, well ventilated, well warmed, and also perfectly adapted to the wants of both speaker and hearer. We want this to be provided at as small expense as possible, for two reasons: first, we wish to bring the gospel within the reach of the poor, and of those of moderate means; and, secondly, we need a great many such houses, because, if we are faithful to Christ, we expect an abundant increase.

found in Francis Wayland, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches (New York: Sheldon, 1857), 155-56.

Wayland is more institutional than I am, but I think that he has the right emphasis: not on the building, not on the cult of personalities, but on the people. Would that more churches honestly look at where their efforts and finances are spent and say like Wayland: "We want this to be provided at as small expense as possible."

Carroll. Inspiration of the Bible - A Book Review

Carroll, B. H. Inspiration of the Bible. Edited by J. B. Cranfill. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1980. 137 pp. $6.50.

A self described infidel, until he found the Lord in 1865, Carroll, after having read Voltaire, Epicurus, Zeno, Huxley, and Darwin, just to name a few, and having found "nothing under the whole heaven; absolutely nothing" worth having in them, was taken hold of by the Bible's "unearthly power" (132-4). Knowing that his calling was to preach, Carroll was ordained in 1866, preached to small churches in Burleson County, and then became the pastor, in 1870, of First Baptist Church, Waco. After two years at the Texas Baptist Education Commission, he taught theology and Bible at Baylor, organized Baylor Theological Seminary, and was central to the founding of Southwestern Theological Seminary, serving as its first president. His preaching and his ministry were centered on the Word of God, whose inspiration is the focus of the present volume.

Summary

A candidate for the World's Guinness Book of Records for the number of forwards in its 1980 edition (one each by W. A. Criswell, J. B. Cranfill, George W. Truett, and L. R. Scarborough, in addition to an introduction by Paige Patterson), Inspiration of the Bible (a delayed volume edited and first published posthumously, in 1930, by J. B. Cranfill) is bracketed by the statement on Scripture of the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession. This statement was not only a litmus test for the faculty of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary under Carroll's tenure (35), but more relevant to this review, sets the tone for Carroll's view of Scripture and of this entire volume. This volume was clearly written to countervail the effort of higher critics to undermine the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. Carroll achieves this by presenting evidence from Scripture and history that this doctrine had been believed "from time immemorial" (111), by presenting examples of inspiration in Scripture (even dedicating a whole chapter on defending the contested book of Daniel), and by apologetically tackling a myriad of difficulties and objections.

Critical Evaluation

Throughout this book, Carroll shows himself to be a visionary, answering the debates of the day with answers that are still pertinent today. For example, Carroll dismisses the responsibility of science in the questioning of inspiration, for science cannot discuss the supernatural, only the natural (28-9). As a matter of fact, according to Carroll, true science "is and has ever been in harmony with the Scriptures" (117). He therefore points out that the "disturber is speculative philosophy" (29), which dishonestly calls unproven, undemonstrated theories science (40). These same accusations are echoed in the current intelligent design debate. In another section, unapologetically believing that the Bible is the word of God, and unknowingly anticipating the turn of the century conservative resurgence, Carroll answered his contemporary, who espoused that the Bible only contained the Word of God, that the level of inspiration required to identify which parts were the word of God and which were not, was much greater than the kind of inspiration he was talking about (54). The illumination of a man "may go up and down," but the inspiration of the Book has no degrees (83).

In addition, Carroll should be commended for being careful not to say more than was needed to be said. For example, since Paul in 2 Cor 12 was not clear on the method of inspiration, Carroll did not include in his definition the method of inspiration (66). Ultimately Carroll defines "inspiration, in its Scriptural meaning, [as] that communication from God of a supernatural power invariably and adequately and perfectly accomplishing the end desired, whatever that end may be, and which no inherent force that is resident in nature, and no development of, or combination of inherent forces would in any length of time or under any environment bring about." This definition was so important to Carroll that he wished for people to write it "in letters of fire upon the tablet of [their] memory," and to facilitate the process he repeated it twice in the span of two consecutive paragraphs (37).

Conclusion

In this volume the reader is presented with the work and beliefs of a man who in his lifetime had answered clearly the thousands of Biblical contradictions of his youthful infidelity, save half a dozen (121), and was faithful to inspired Scripture. Beyond its apologetic benefits, this volume is an important historical treasure of what Baptists used to believe and will hopefully continue to believe in the years to come.

Criswell. Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True - A Book Review

Criswell, W. A. Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True. Nashville: B&H, 1969. 160 pp. $18.50.

Most known for his pastoring of First Baptist, Dallas, and his denominational involvement in the SBC, Criswell, a graduate of Baylor University and Southern Baptist Seminary, was influential in the lives of well known believers such as Billy Graham, Paige and Dorothy Patterson, and Rick Warren, just to name a few, as well as a myriad of other not as well known believers. His commitment to Scripture was legendary, demonstrated by his involvement in the conservative resurgence; his dedication to preach through the entire Bible literally, grammatically, historically at First Baptist; and books like Why I Preach the Bible is Literally True, one of his fifty plus publications.[1]

Summary

This self-described "testimony" from Criswell's heart was not written as a textbook, but as an encouragement for "minister to preach the Bible as the literal, inspired, God-breathed truth of heaven" (7). Criswell structured this in three parts: Why I Believe That the Bible is Literally True; What I Preach, Believing That the Bible is Literally True; and An Appeal to My Brethren to Preach That the Bible is Literally True. In the first part, Criswell offers arguments from experience, Scripture, archeology, history, comparative religions, and logic to convince his audience that the text they have in their hands is literally true. In the second part, he encourages the preacher, using logic and his personal experience, to preach through the Bible and to preach the Bible and the gospel as literal. He also encourages them to trust in the Bible when it comes to counseling and dealing with human problems. In the midst of this part, he dedicates two more chapters to apologetic arguments for the veracity of Scripture: one dealing with the book of Genesis and the other dealing with the theory of evolution. In two other chapters he deals with the veracity of Christ and of his atonement and the effects of a non-literal Bible on the Gospel, encouraging the preacher to preach a real incarnation, a literal atonement, a physical resurrection, and a living Lord who will come back physically. In the last part, he appeals to his brothers in Christ to stand on the authority of Scripture. Here his appeal is to logic, experience, history, Baptist heritage, and to the flaws of the liberal position.

Critical Evaluation

The greatest critical assessment of this book is its "preachy" nature. With little to no value as a research or academic tool, due to its lack of all but one footnote (several people are quoted throughout the book, including: B. H. Carroll, R. A. Torrey, and Winston Churchill, but none, except for Churchill are referenced), this book was truly written for the sole purpose of being an encouragement. This results in some benefits, but also in some flaws.

The first benefit is that the book is an easy, uplifting read that leaves the reader encouraged about the veracity of Scripture. As in a good sermon, Criswell seasons his writing with illustrations, making this book a depository of illustrations. This depository should be appreciated by preachers preparing to preach on passages that deal with the subject of the veracity of Scripture (even if one has to trust Criswell at face value on their accuracy and veracity due to the lack of referencing). A good example is his illustration of how the oneness of the Bible illustrates its miraculous nature (72): it is vivid, well articulated, and well makes his point. This volume in not only a depository of illustrations, but also a depository of single sentence quotes and logical arguments, each well phrased and right to the point.

Another benefit is embodied in the last two parts of the book, where Criswell pleas with his audience to follow in his footsteps and describes practically what that means. Again, as with a good sermon, the reader is presented with practical applications and exhorted to follow their examples. Central to these is his testimony of preaching through the entire Bible, a feat that took him eighteen years to accomplish. His insistence on preaching "literally, grammatically, historically" is welcomed and only slightly tarnished by his toleration of spiritualizing, the poorest method of preaching according to Criswell, as at times effective (142-43). In addition, in an era where our churches abdicate their duty to train young men to use their gifts in the body of Christ, and relegate the formation of pastors to professional institutions, his suggestion that a pastor should have several understudies around him and allow them to take turns preaching is refreshing (87). This sends a clear message that it is not about the cult of personality, but the centrality of the Word of God.

Unfortunately, the tone of this book also leads to some oversimplifications, generalizations, and at times, inaccuracies. A good example is Criswell's presentation of textual criticism and the certitude of the original Biblical text in his section on the "Certainty of the Exact Scriptural Text." It is simplistic and misguided. His comment that "we have a certain and final answer regarding the original and ultimate text" is debated by many conservative, Bible believing Greek scholars. His following statement that "for all practical purposes, the original text is settled," while toned down, is still not accurate (67-8). While one might excuse this crude oversimplification due to the nature of the book, one should never forget that the job of a pastor is to encourage and teach. Therefore, we are to push people to excel, not furnish them with simplistic information that will cause them to make erroneous statements from the pulpit. Criswell's attitude does not come as a total surprise when one realizes that he wrote in an era when, according to him, modern critical theology had left the church in a "modern sea of conflicting storms and currents" (153). This fact is probably the germ of his belief that that "a large portion of our much-vaunted critical study of the Bible is a laborious and empty investigation of supposed flyspecks" (46), and what made him consider the areas of the New Testament and Old Testament still investigated and discussed by scholars as flyspecks not worthy of discussion. Nevertheless, while their existence does not invalidate the message of Scripture, it does invalidate the assurance of certainty of the form of the final text and points to the fact that they should not be ignored.

Besides its "preachy" nature, this book has several other areas that are to be critiqued. In his chapter entitled "Is the Bible Full of Errors and Contradictions?", Criswell correctly states that one has "to distinguish between a difficulty not yet solved and an error," and then rightly implies that Scripture has no errors; all perceived errors are just difficulties (45). To make his point, he presents various difficulties along with plausible solutions. Most of these are well presented and beneficial in answering skeptics. One of these, unfortunately, is not beneficial. The explanation that follows the objections to the celestial events that happened during the battle of Gibeon, in Joshua 10:12-14, reads like a capitulation from Criswell's stance of a literal reading of Scripture. Here he takes an apologetic approach, explaining that the Bible was written in a language "of simple observation, not scientific empiricism" (49), instead of insisting that a miracle does not follow natural laws. He gets close to this latter approach a few pages later, while discussing miracles in the Bible. Here he is less apologetic about the lengthening of the day and even notes that there are historical records, outside of the Bible, of a similar event (52-3). Why not present this evidence earlier? On a side note, one does wonder what Criswell's definition of a miracle is. If a miracle is the temporary suspension of natural law, then "gravity" and the "resurrection in the spring" are not miracles, as Criswell states they are (111).

While researching Criswell, one is quickly confronted with the black cloud of accusations of racism surrounding his pre 1968 comments, to the South Carolina legislature, against integration. In 1968, he publically advocated desegregation,[2] but there are several passages in this volume which, knowing the above history, could unfortunately be read with a racist tint. The first one is found in his caricature of the narrative of missionaries that land on a savage island where the natives are "more like beasts than human beings" (12). The second is in his insistence on the regression of the human race, stating that it has descended "in some instances to the level of the Australian aborigine" (104). While the heart of the first comment can be understood as a rhetoric device, the implications that a culture that is not as developed as our western culture is a proof of human regression seems misplaced, and the reference to Australian aborigine is un-necessary. Western culture, with its putrid ethics and its sophisticated sins, is much more a proof of the regression of the human race and the lostness of the human heart.

Conclusion

Overall, Criswell does achieve his goal of encouraging the preachers out there, penning a book that echoes his preaching fame, and that explains the popularity of this volume. Given the climate in which it was written and Criswell's role in the conservative resurgence, it makes sense that Criswell desired to lead by example through this volume, and his effort is appreciated and commendable. While there are a couple of sections which could use some adjustments, this book can be a mine of illustrations and quotes for any preacher preparing a sermon on a passage that deals with the veracity of Scripture.

[1] "W. A. Criswell, a Baptist Leader, Dies at 92," The New York Times, 12 January 2002 [on-line]; accessed 22 September 2010; available from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/us/w-a-criswell-a-baptist-leader-dies-at-92.html; Internet. "W. A. Criswell," Wikipedia [on-line]; accessed 22 September 2010; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._Criswell; Internet. W. A. Criswell, Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True (Nashville: B&H, 1969), dust jacket's back flap.

[2] For an example, see "W. A. Criswell, a Baptist Leader, Dies at 92" and "W. A. Criswell."

Carroll. Ecclesia: The Church - A Book Review

Carroll, B. H. Ecclesia: The Church - Bible Class Lecture, February, 1903. The Baptist Distinctives Series, vol. 38. Louisville: 1903. Reprint, Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2006. 174 pp. $17.19.

A Texas native and a Civil War soldier, at first with the Texas Rangers and then in the regular army, B. H. Carroll is better known for his pastoring of First Baptist Church, Waco, his organizing of Baylor Theological Seminary in 1904, and the founding of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1908. At the latter, he served as the first president until his death in Fort Worth, on November 11, 1914. Carroll published thirty-three volumes during his life, including, among others: a thirteen volume commentary, several books of sermons, and this collection of class notes on the church (171-73).

Summary

This Baptist Distinctives Series re-publication of Ecclesia - The Church is comprised of the transcription of two of B. H. Carroll's 1903 lectures on the topic, three appendices, and a small biographical sketch of B. H. Carroll. In the first lecture, Carroll sets out six important divisive questions about the church which he intends to discuss, however he answers only one: what is the church? While he intends to answer the other five in the second lecture (32), he finds himself answering questions that arose from the first lecture in lecture two and relegating the answers to the other five questions to future class periods (72), which were not recorded in this volume. Since his answer to "What is the church?" is centered on the etymological meaning of the Greek word ecclesia, in between the two lectures, this volume produces Appendix No. 1, which contains examples, given by Carroll to his students, of the classical Greek usage of the word ecclesia, and the complete list of the Septuagint usage, Apochryphal usage, and New Testament usage of the word. Carroll's remarks on all these usages are also included in this appendix. Two other appendices follow these two lectures. Appendix No. 2 includes three sermons about Baptist distinctives: "Baptism in Water," "A Discussion of the Lord's Supper," and "Distinctive Baptist Principles." Appendix No. 3 is a short, one-page exhortation by John A. Broadus on why Baptists should win over protestants to Baptist Views.

Critical Evaluation

The heart of Carroll's argument is the etymological meaning of ecclesia. He denies that ecclesia could be used "in a new and sacred sense" and claims, therefore, that it must retain its ordinary meaning (34). He also warns his reader that, while illustrating by synonyms can be useful, defining by synonyms is dangerous (56). The "primary meaning" of ecclesia, according to Carroll, is "an organized assembly, whose members have been properly called out from private homes or business to attend to public affairs." This concept of assembly forces Carroll to create a dichotomy between the "particular assembly of Jesus Christ on earth" and "his general assembly in glory" (15-6). These, according to Carroll, are not and cannot be co-existent (critiquing the creeds, 24), for the nature of the membership of the general assembly forces it to be an assembly only "in prospect" (17). Nevertheless, "each particular assembly is a representation or type of the general assembly" (29). He accepts applying the "figures" for the church to both the particular and the general assembly, but he denies the use of them for the "particular assemblies collectively" (19).

It is commendable that Carroll included Appendix No. 1 "to enable the country preacher with few books, and who knows nothing of Greek, to form his own conclusion as to the meaning of ecclesia" (33). This speaks, not only of a heart who cares for learned and non-learned people alike, but also to his belief in the overwhelming evidence found in the usage of the word and in a lack of any attempt to hide any contrary evidence. Case in point of this last remark is his candid admission that the use of ecclesia in Acts 9:31 is difficult to explain (62). There are a few arguments from logic or from government which are not very convincing (i.e. argument from confusion, 30), but overall Carroll's argument is pretty tight and convincing if his primary assumption is valid.

As for Appendix No. 2, Carroll presents a very Baptist view of baptism, starting with the great commission and moving forward, systematically explaining the proper subject, the meaning, and the design of baptism. His only weakness here is his argumentation for baptism having to be performed by an officer, based on a parallel with secular government (83). Throughout this section of the appendix, one can tell that he was clearly dealing with many Presbyterian objections, answering them by: presenting a great parallel with the purification of priests (96-7), dealing with pedo-baptism and the baptism of unbelievers using John as an example (85), and addressing the wrong parallel of baptism and circumcision (99). Very appreciated is his reminder that baptism should not be approached lightly, as many apparently did then (95), and still do today. His section on the Lord's Supper is the transcription of a sermon dedicated to "truth-loving Pedo-Baptists," as a loving appeal to "their reason and love of justice" (107). For this reason, the majority of the section is directed toward the "Trojan horse" (136) of open communion. His arguments are well formulated, impassioned, but never get pugnacious or hostile in tone. A good summary of his main points is found on p. 139. The last section is a reprint of a sermon printed in Baptists and Their Doctrines and originally presented at the Pastor's conference in Dallas, TX, in 1903. Here he disclaims that Baptist are characterized by two doctrines (immersion is baptism and baptism is essential to salvation), and, after having corrected the misconceptions associated with these, he presents five areas of distinctive Baptist principles. These are presented in a logical flow: starting with Scripture, with a focus on the New Testament, moving on to the individual's responsibility with respect to God and his freedom of conscience, which is then followed by the understanding of salvation, and finally the understanding of the church. His well known imagery of circles and the river of baptism summarizes this whole concept, but overall is not very helpful.

Conclusion

In a fashion appreciated by an engineer, Carroll presents the data and his analysis of it as he teaches on the church. Unlike many who spend all their time discussing only the distinctives of the church, Carroll starts by seeking to understand the essence of the church and then deals with her distinctives. Any serious student of ecclesiology should read and be engaged with the ideas presented in this volume. In addition, Carroll's understanding of the church is crucial to understanding the view of the church held by some modern Baptist theologians who seek to be consistent with their Baptist traditions. If for no other reason, the reading of this book has great historical value, especially in an era when many Baptists seem to be enamored with Presbyterian ecclesiology.

Majority rule in the church? - A. H. Strong

Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together.

found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903. repr., Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 905.

It reminds me of the numerous NT passages where we are told that the disciples were all in one accord. May we all take this attitude in our churches!

Possible roots of Baptist Baby Dedication - A. H. Strong

In Key West, Florida, a town of 22,000 inhabitants, infant baptism has a stronger hold than anywhere else at the South. Baptist parents had sometimes gone to the Methodist preacher to have their children baptized. To prevent this, the Baptist pastors established the custom of laying their hands upon the heads of infants in the congregation, and 'blessing' them, i.e., asking God's blessing to rest upon them. But this custom came to be confounded with christening, and was called such. Now the Baptist pastors are having a hard struggle to explain and limit the custom which they themselves have introduced. Perverse human nature will take advantage of even the slightest additions to N. T. prescriptions, and will bring out of the germs of false doctrine a fearful harvest of evil.

found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903. repr., Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 957.

I have often wondered where the concept of Baptist baby dedication came from ... could this be it?

Here we go again ...

Well, another semester is here for me and my fellow classmates at SWBTS. This semester I am taking two writing seminars (Eschatology & Baptist Theologians) and Theological German. On the schedule are 12 book reviews and two 30 page papers ... so, you know what that means for this blog: not much time to do much independent writing, with the exception of a few "quote" posts here and there, and the future publication of 12 book reviews and two series. One series will be on AH Strong's ecclesiological views (they are quite interesting) and the other will have something to do with Anabaptists and eschatology.

I hope all of you are doing well, and I look forward to future interactions.

The Tripartite Law - N. T. Wright

Precisely because of the emphasis on the unique accomplishments of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament could not continue to have exactly the same role within the Christian community that it had had before. . . . From the start, in the ministry of Jesus and the work of Paul, we find constant reference to the fact that with the fulfillment comes a new moment in the story, a new act in the play. Heavy-handed schemes such as those of Marcion and the theologically cognate ones of some Reformers do no justice to the sophisticated early Christian sense of continuing to live under the whole scripture, albeit in this multi-layered manner. Nor, for that matter, do the pragmatic, rule-of-thumb conclusions of some other writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who saw the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws being abolished while the "moral" ones remained, ignoring the fact that most ancient Jews would not have recognized such a distinction.

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 56-7.

As I have been reading N. T. Wright, I came upon this quote and it reminded me of a series I did back in 2008. Here is a link to the "Final thoughts" post which has links to all the posts in the series. Hope it is helpful.

Systems Enslaving Scripture - N. T. Wright

"Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion. It is no longer "authoritative" in any strict sense; that is, it may be cited as though in "proof" of some point or other, but it is not leading the way, energizing the church with the fresh breath of God himself. The question must always be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve an existing theology or vice versa."

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 70.

Unfortunately he describes here a phenomenon which has been far too common for far too long. There are many cherished systems out there, and too many people holding on to their system more tightly than they hold on to Scripture. What if we pledged not to allow our systems to "tame" Scripture, but for our understanding of Scripture to be system free? What if we questioned everything and looked at Scripture with a fresh eye, allowing it to shape our theology, instead of trying to use it to prove our theology? Then we would allow Scripture to energize "the church with the fresh breath of God himself." Will you be the vessel for that breath of fresh air?

Authority: Scripture vs. System - N. T. Wright

I have been reading N. T. Wright's book to prepare for my PhD comprehensive exams (which I will take in 2012 or so), and have been really enjoying it. In Chapter 5, The First Sixteen Centuries, Wright looks at how the use and understanding of Scripture changed over the centuries. Starting with allegory, he sees a tension developing: a tension "between authority and interpretation." Here he asks a very good question:

At what point in this process are we forced to conclude that what is really "authoritative" within such an operation is the system of theology or devotion already believed or embraced on other grounds, which is then "discovered" in the text by the interpretative method being used?

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 66.

So what do you think? How often have I committed that same mistake? How often have you? What can we do, as Wes asked in the comments to another post, do guard ourselves from that mistake?

Waffle House Systems

My friend and advisor is know for describing what some systematic theologians do with a Waffle House analogy. If you have ever been to a Waffle House restaurant and have ever observed the waffle making process, you might have noticed that while the waffle is cooking some dough tends to spill out and down the sides of the waffle iron. This renegade dough cooks just like the rest and I am sure that it is as tasty as the rest, but just before the waffle is removed from the iron the expert waffle maker takes a knife and cuts this unsightly waffle dough so as to produce a perfectly round waffle. Often, theologians, as they try to produce a perfect system, also take their knife and cut the renegade information that does not quite fit their system. This information is ignored, downplayed, or re-interpreted.

I am currently pursuing a Ph. D. in Systematic Theology at SWBTS (with a minor Baptist and Free church studies). Because of how the program is set up at SWBTS, last year I took reading seminars in systematic theology. During my readings I was often frustrated by how philosophical based and not Scriptural based systematic theology can be (I guess that I am a Biblical theologian at heart, not a systematic theologian). But, what frustrated me the most is that, for some people, their system became more important than Scripture itself. To be fair, when one puts anything in any kind of a system, there are bound to be some pieces that do not fit perfectly, but this is a flaw of the system, not of the raw information.

So here is my challenge: let us commit to not allow systems to define our theology. Let us commit to only allow Scripture to define our theology. Let us not pull out our theological knife and trim what does not fit. Let us make sure that we do not ignore, downplay, or re-interpret anything that does not fit our theology. Instead let us be challenged by what does not fit. Will you join me? Be forewarned, it's harder than you think ...

A thought that ran through my mind about Abortion, Slavery, Pornography, Evolution, ...

The other day I was thinking about the value of human life, and I had this thought about abortion, slavery, pornography, and evolution: all of them distort our view of how special God's creation is and of how precious life is. Think about it ... slavery reduces humans to a piece of property, abortion reduces humans to an unwanted ball of chemicals, pornography reduces humans to an object to satisfy lust, and evolution reduces humans to a big chemical mistake. None of these consider how special humans are or how precious life is. People just become objects and not the beloved creatures for whom Christ came to die. It would be easy for me to blame the first three on evolution, but the reality is that the first three existed way before Darwin. Ultimately, we have to blame it all on unbelief: not believing what God has taught us about His creation and not believing that God loves us (humans). If only we believed Him and His Word ...

What are your thoughts on the topic?

Ordination - Conclusion

In this series, an attempt was made to ascertain if the New Testament supported the concept of ordination. After looking at terminology and practice in the Old Testament, rabbinic Judaism, and the New Testament, two constants were identified in the Biblical data: there is a clear pattern of commissioning, but there is little agreement on the concept of ordination. The pattern of commissioning was summarized as the appointing of someone, who is gifted, to a specific task. It should happen through the laying on of hands, motivated by the call of God, and imbibed in prayer. S/he is to be from within a congregation and will be a representative of the congregation doing the commissioning. This does not imply an impartation of authority on the individual being commissioned. The understanding of ordination was then determined to be affected by one’s definition of ordination. Finally a sketch of what a theology of ordination and commissioning could look like was offered, and a few of its practical advantages were offered. Ultimately, no matter what we decide Scripture teaches on ordination, it behooves us all to be able to articulate our beliefs about it and to teach others so that all may be edified. Thanks for coming along with me on this journey. I pray we were both drawn closer to Christ and His Word through it.

Here is the summary of the posts in this series:

Introduction
Quick Lexical Investigation
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part I, Part II, and Part III
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Rabbinic Judaism
Evidence from the New Testament - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6
Analysis and Discussion of the Biblical Data - Intro, Commissioning Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, and Ordination
So What of Ordination?
Proposal - Part 1 and Part 2

Excursus 1 - The NT Concept of Ministry
Excursus 2 - Hierarchy in the Body of Christ

Ordination - a Proposal - Part 2 of 2

So, if ordination is for all beleivers at baptism, what of special callings? Commissioning would then be the norm for those. The Scriptural record presents us with examples of believers who were ministering when the Spirit of God presented them with a special calling. To this, the response of the church was to commission said individuals. So, since it would seem that commissioning is the way they are recognized in Scripture, we should follow the same pattern.[1] Room does not suffice here to tackle the distinction between function and gifting, but one must understand that while some functions in the body of Christ require a certain gifting, being gifted does not require the individual to be in a certain function, only the call of God does that. It should also be noted that in the last excursus, while studying 1 Corinthians 12, a Scriptural tension was identified: all gifts are important and necessary, yet some seem to be more important. It is my belief that this view of ordination and commissioning best resolves that tension, because it honors all gifts, yet when necessary, commissioning allows some gifts to be specially recognized.

The argument could be made that this is just a changing of terminology and that it does not substantially change anything, but that misses two crucial points. First, baptism as ordination would not only continuously teach that all believers are supposed to minister, it also would create a basis of accountability and a marker in time to which brothers and sisters in Christ could point when exhorting a believer who has abdicated his responsibility to minister (à la Anabaptist).[2] Second, commissioning is a very focused approach to appointing people. If done well, it requires the involvement of God and of the community. Since commissioning is task centered, unlike ordination, it has limited scope and no transferability. Since it also does not implicitly impart authority, besides the representation of the commissioning body or the authority associated with a specific task or role, commissioning deals with some of the tensions with the issue of women’s ordination. Commissioning of elders would be limited to men, but commissioning of other sorts could be open to women. This would free NAMB to commission a called, qualified woman as a chaplain, for example, with no reservations, for, once her task is done, her commission expires, therefore not risking a blurring or categories.[3]

Now, lest I be accused of naïveté, I do realize that such a Copernican change would not come without its issues, but a theology of ordination / commissioning developed along these lines seems to be more faithful to the New Testament and to have the potential of alleviating some current problems. What do you think? Could this be implemented? How would churches react to such a change?

[1] White, in White, “So You Have Been Called to the Ministry,” 5, notes that “even Spurgeon, the most famous preacher never to be ordained agreed that confirmation of the church was a needed element for the call to ministry.” Commissioning would be such a confirmation.

[2] During church discipline, Anabaptists were known to remind the person being disciplined of their baptismal vows.

[3] In Ann Miller, “The Ordination of Women Among Texas Baptists,” Perspective in Religious Studies 29.3 (Fall 2002): 269-70, Miller expresses frustration with NAMB’s policy of endorsing, but not ordaining. While commissioning would not solve the heart of the issue, a theology of ordination and commissioning developed along these lines seems to have the potential of alleviating the current issues that surround ordination, or if nothing else, it would force people to deal with the real issue, instead of getting stuck on the side issue of ordination.