Maybe they’ll take up an offering

The following story told by a preacher that I heard in a chapel service over forty years ago. I have long since forgotten the name of the preacher who told it, but I well remember the story. It is a good illustration of one of the problems of the so-called “universal invisible church.” 

A member of a singing group contacted this pastor by telephone. The singing group was trying to schedule visits to sing at the various churches in his area. The pastor was not familiar with the group. The man who called explained that were not charging for coming; they only asked that the church take up an offering for them. In the process of the conversation, the pastor asked the singer what church they were members of. The man answered, “Oh, we’re part of the universal invisible church.” The pastor replied, “Well, why don’t you just sing for them, and maybe they will take up an offering for you.”

So ended the conversation.

AI Worship (and Preaching)

“Can a soul-less artist produce a soul-full act of worship?”

I am very concerned about AI in general, and when it invades Christian preaching and singing, so much the worse.[i]

In 1996, I wrote an imaginary “Possible Scenario – Any Church, USA,” lamenting how some churches were projecting music and preaching on screens instead of having real people lead their worship. In the “possible scenario” the church pews became people-empty, but filled with cassette players. The silence was broken only by an occasional electronic “amen.”[ii] Not as good as Orwell’s book 1984, yet my “1996” has become “2026.” Except perhaps the members now won’t even bother with a source for electronic amens. Now here is this.

“How does Ray feel about this sudden success? He doesn’t. Because Ray doesn’t feel anything. His voice, his songs, his music, his appearance and even his ‘Mississippi Soul’ branding are entirely AI-generated. The current No. 1 ‘Christian artist’ is not a person. It is a product.”

The No. 1 “Christian artist” is neither Christian nor an artist. “He” is not even human.

We can complain about it – and rightfully so – but modern Christians have been headed toward this path for years. We just didn’t have all the technology previously (and don’t have all the technology now that we will have).

Disclaimer: I first saw this report at Baptist New Global (BNG), which I have linked to, and have not looked elsewhere for a better source. This link is definitely not a recommendation of BNG or the author of this piece. Nevertheless, we agree on the problematic nature of “AI worship.” “My real concern with AI-generated worship music is not so much that AI songs will ‘infect’ Christian worship, but that Christian worship already has drifted into a thin, commercialized space where emotional accessibility is mistaken for spiritual depth.”

---

[i] We have to wonder how many sermons are now created by AI rather than study, sweat, and prayer – and the Holy Spirit.
[ii] Yes, that was a few years ago! I updated it in 2016 to “CD players, DVRs and such like,” but I think that is mostly out of date now too.

The church, its nature and purpose

Initial questions.

1. What is the church? This question asks of its being, nature, or essence. It is an ontological question.[i] 
2. What does the church do? This question asks of its duty, purpose, or work. It is a functional question.[ii] 

Ontological question.

The church is a specific assembly of people.[iii] The people are born again believers, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, baptized upon the profession of their faith. A church is not an imaginary invisible body that none can see or hear. A church is not a denominational group or organizational hierarchy. The church begins with those who are born again by the Holy Spirit (John 3:7; 1 Peter 1:23),[iv] baptized upon the profession of their faith (Acts 8:37-38), and covenanted together to gather in Jesus’s name (Matthew 18:20). The church is not just an expression of some mystical invisible church, but is made up of baptized believers gathering together (1 Corinthians 11:18; 14:23; Hebrews 10:25), is in the world as an ambassage representing Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), and can be identified locally/geographically as an expression of Christ's kingdom (the church at Corinth, the churches of Galatia, the seven churches of Asia, etc.).

Functional question.

A correct answer to the “functional” question of what the church does will harmonize with the “ontological” question of what the church is. It will do what assemblies of believers do.[v] Too often an answer regarding what church is supposed “to do” does not take in to account what the church “is.” Many answers are simply pragmatic postures of human innovation. Other answers are mystical nonsense. In neither of these do we see something that resembles how the church functions in the New Testament.[vi]

What the church does can be characterized as assembling and dispersing, gathering and going, worship and witness. What the church does, based on biblical faith and practice, includes: preaching/teaching the word of God, administering the ordinances, evangelizing the lost, aiding the poor (including widows and orphans), encouraging the weak, exhorting the doubters, and in general exercising the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of the assembly. These things are seen in the function of the New Testament churches, doing what they are commanded to do, and functioning based on what they are.[vii]

Final thoughts.

If we do not know what a church is, we also will not know what a church is supposed to do. It becomes anything, everything, and nothing. Often we end up with “Frankenchurch,” a monster assembled by quack doctors using various unharmonious bits and pieces. It may transform into something similar to what was described in a recent Facebook post:

“A lot of churches today are cemeteries with air conditioning; the worship teams are entertainers; the pastors avoid truth; and the congregation sleepwalks through the motions; and people call that faithfulness. No, it is spiritual death dressed in Sunday’s best.”[viii]

---

[i] Ontological, adjective. Of or relating to ontology, the study of the nature or essence of existence or being as such.
[ii] Functional, adjective. Of or connected to design or specific use; serving the purpose for which a thing is designed.
[iii] In prospect, it may be viewed as a general assembly of all firstborn, gathered together in Christ, in eternity. Cf.  Hebrew 12:22-23; Revelation 21:1-14. In the present, the church is a covenanted congregation of baptized believers.
[iv] This position is often called “regenerate church membership.”
[v] As seen in the Bible in what they are commanded to do (e.g. Matthew 28:18-20), and in what they are represented as doing. Cf., for example, Matthew 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-47; Acts 8:1; Acts 12:5, 12; Acts 13:1ff.; Acts 14:27; Acts 20:27-28; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 1 Corinthians 11:7-34; 1 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 9:1-7; Colossians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:18; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 3:1-15; 1 Peter 5:1-4, 14; 1 John 1:3; 3 John 1:5-8.
[vi] Which is our rule of faith and practice.
[vii] Both the nature of the church and the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice insist that our congregational gatherings be restricted to those elements that Scripture requires – praying, thanksgiving, praising, singing, Scripture reading, preaching/teaching, giving, observing the ordinances, ordination and sending, testimonies, greetings, reporting the Lord’s work, decision-making, and church discipline. Any element must be understood from a command, approved example, or necessary implication of Scripture.
[viii] This was posted (in a video) on Facebook by a man who goes by the name “Topher.”

A Landmark Southern Baptist Association in Texas

It is curiously intriguing that some modern-day Southern Baptists – particularly Southern Baptists with “anti-Landmark” sentiments – exert energy and effort to rescue their heroes from the charge of being “Landmark Baptist.” (For two quick examples of “rescuing” B. H. Carroll, see the notes below.[i] ) Into this fray steps the Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of Shelby County.

I encountered this intriguing example of “rescue” – or plain old historical ignorance – when trying to ferret out the history of the Shelby-Doches Baptist Association (a local association of Southern Baptist churches in our area). The history of the Nacogdoches Association was clear enough to me. I was already familiar with it. However, I kept running into road blocks, into confusing and contradictory assertions regarding the “Shelby County” Association.[ii] Shelby-Doches Association organized in 1925 as a merger of the Nacogdoches and Sabine River Associations.[iii] So far, however, I have not seen a Texas Baptist historian identify the origin of the Sabine River Association, which obviously existed before it merged with the Nacogdoches Association. I discovered that the Sabine River Association was organized circa 1902-03 as the Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of Shelby County, by a minority of Shelby County Missionary Baptist Association churches that wanted to maintain affiliation and cooperation with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.[iv] The 1909 meeting at Clever Creek was called the 7th Annual Session. After 1911 and by 1914, the name was changed to Sabine River Baptist Association of Shelby County.[v]

I suppose that historians have not deliberately suppressed the fact that the Southern Baptist split from the Shelby County Missionary Association was called “Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of Shelby County.” I suspect it is more likely that it has not crossed many minds that this was a group of churches supporting the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Southern Baptist Convention.[vi]

It is provocative that the Southern Baptist minority – denominational supporters of the Baptist General Convention of Texas – on the same side as B. H. Carroll – took the name “Landmark,” a name which detractors say only identifies those who split from the Convention! They were denominational Landmarkers—whether or not it makes sense. In my opinion, this circumstance should give the naysayers pause when they try to separate “Landmark” from “supporting the Convention.”[vii]

---

[i] “…the only movement that Carroll did support which had Landmark influences was the Whitsitt Controversy; and although that controversy dealt with successionism, it was only a secondary issue for Carroll. Carroll did share some theological and historical views with the Landmarkists, but there were too many areas of disagreement to consider him a true Landmarker.” (Fighting the Good Fight: the Life and Work of Benajah Harvey Carroll, Alan J. Lefever, Austin, TX: Eakin Press, 1994, p. 75)
“If he was a Landmarker, he was a denominational Landmarker—and that doesn’t make sense.” (“B. H. Carroll defies narrow theological labels, historians assert,” The Baptist Standard, November 13, 2014) Alan Lefever is director of the Texas Baptist Historical Collection
“While Carroll agitated for Whitsitt’s removal, he never fully embraced the Landmark understanding of Baptist origins as championed by his younger brother J. M. Carroll.” (The Worst Decision B. H. Carroll Never Made: Southern Seminary, the Whitsitt Controversy & the Quest for Institutional Accountability, Jason K. Allen; President of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Kansas City, Missouri)
[ii] Perhaps exacerbated in part by several associations including the word “Sabine” in their names (Sabine, Sabine River, Sabine-Neches, Sabine Valley – and also some people confusing the words “Saline” and “Sabine.”
[iii] “Texas Associations,” J. D. Brandon, Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume II, Norman W. Cox, editor. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1958, p. 1397. “According to previous agreement messengers of the churches of what had formerly composed the Nacogdoches Baptist Association of Nacogdoches County, Texas and the Sabine River Association of Shelby County, Texas met here at the Baptist Church of this village [Martinsville, Nacogdoches County, Texas] to organize the Shelby-Doches Baptist Association, to cover the territory of the two counties.” (Minutes of the First Annual Session of the Shelby-Doches Missionary Baptist Association, October 8-9, 1925, p. 3)
[iv] “Circa” because I have not found the organizational minutes. 1902-03 is based on the dating of the annual sessions.
[v] See minutes held in the collection at the A. Webb Roberts Library of Southwestern Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
[vi] Thereby never bothering to make the connection.
[vii] It is my understanding that the entire ministry of Landmarker “J. R. Graves” was spent in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Views of Baptist Origins, reprise

Back in 2007, I posted a “Views of Baptist Origins” outline. As I looked around the blog, I did not find that I ever posted the “final” version that I used in the booklet A Better Paradigm for the Study of Baptist History? Here it is, below:

Outline of various views of Baptist origins, presented in a chronologically-oriented format.

                I. Apostolic origins (continuation theories)

a.      Continuation of biblical teachings (spiritual succession)

b.      Succession of Baptist churches

                            i.     Church perpetuity

                            ii.     Chain-link succession

1.      Church succession (succession of church organizations)

2.      Apostolic succession (succession of valid ordinations)

3.      Baptismal succession (succession of valid baptisms)

                II. Post-apostolic origins (restoration or non-continuation theories)

a.      Converging streams/Multiple origins

b.      Spontaneous origination

                             i.     Influence of Anabaptists

                             ii.     Outgrowth of English Separatism

See also: 

• The study of Baptist origins
• Classifications of Baptist Historians
• Spontaneous origination of Baptists
• Restoration views of Baptist origins
• Continuation of Baptist churches or baptistic principles
• Why are Baptists still discussing their origins?
• My opinion on continuation/succession

These thoughts were written almost 20 years ago now. I might change a few things if I were writing them today (hopefully I have learned a little something in 18 years). However, I think they are still substantially accurate and representative of my thoughts.

Church covenants and Church relationships

Churches should have a covenant relationship. Instead, many churches have consumer relationship.

Covenant relationship.

A covenant is a formal agreement or sincere promise between two or more parties to both act and not act in certain ways. Particularly in a church relationship, this also includes agreeing that they believe and not believe certain teachings. A church covenant relationship, then, is based on mutual agreement or sincere promises between the members of the congregation.

A “church covenant” is based on:

• mutual commitment
• interdependence
• brotherly love

A covenant relationship is a relationship with commitment (Romans 15:5-7; Ephesians 5:21), communication (1 Thessalonians 4:18;; 5:11; James 5:16), concern (John 15:12; Hebrews 13:17), devotion (Romans 12:10; 16:16), determination (Hebrews 10:24-25; Ephesians 4:32), and exhortation (Romans 15:14; 1 Timothy 6:2). A covenant cannot and should not be lightly broken. It is entered by the commitment of two parties (the church & the individual). There is a unified commitment to follow Christ as head and each observe his responsibility one toward another.

Consumer relationship.

A consumer is a person who uses a commodity or service; one who purchases goods and services for personal consumption (benefit). A consumer relationship, then, is based on the provision and consumption of services. When satisfactory service is no longer provided, a new provider is sought out.

A scan of the present “church’s desolation” makes it obvious that many members attach themselves to churches as a consumer in a consumer relationship. They attend the church when it provides the services they desire. When those benefits are no longer being provided, they leave and look for another church.

Question.

Will we choose to follow the Bible, or follow the world?

Credobaptism

Introduction.

“Us simple folk” are more likely to refer to “believer’s baptism” or “believer’s immersion” than to credobaptism – but credobaptism is good terminology, and sits well across from the more common or popular term “pedobaptism.”

Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing only those who make a conscious credible profession of faith. Believer’s baptism.

Pedobaptism, or paeodobaptism (from the Greek word paido meaning “child” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or small children (usually on the credit of their parents being believers). Infant baptism.

More important than the right terminology is the right theology. Credobaptism is right biblical orthodoxy (right belief), biblical orthopraxy (right practice), and biblical orthokardy (right heart). Orthodoxy is always essential for Orthopraxy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3:4; James 1:22-25); Orthopraxy is always essential to Orthokardy (Hebrews 8:5; John 14:15); Orthokardy is always essential to Orthodoxy (John 4:24; 13:35; I Corinthians 13:1-3). 

Credobaptism is Biblical.[i]

The biblical theology, orthodoxy. Credobaptism fits the doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology. Salvation is by grace through faith, with a good confession required prior to baptism. The church is a congregation made up of a regenerate (born again, believing) membership. No fuzzy math is needed to fit credobaptism with these theologies.

The biblical example, orthopraxy. Throughout the New Testament there are clear examples of the baptism of adults who responded in belief to the preaching of the gospel. This is indisputable, even by those who practice pedobaptism. Infant baptism is at best inferred – but the inferred passages do not stand up to scrutiny. See “Household Baptisms” and “Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children.”

The biblical unity, orthokardy. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and much of the Protestant tradition, there are multiple baptisms – baptism of unknowing infants and baptism of professing believers; baptism by sprinkling, baptism by pouring, and baptism by immersion. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity.

Biblical theology and practice settle the matter. However, there are two supporting legs that fit properly into the biblical theology and practice.

Credobaptism is Practical.

The believing person submitting to baptism acts in a manner in response to God, answering a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).[ii] That person will understand the purpose of baptism (Acts 8:37), encounter the rite in an experiential way (Acts 8:38), and remember the experience (Acts 8:39). Both the conscience and conscious are involved. There will be no mental void where baptism is concerned. You will not have to be told by someone else that you were baptized. The baptism of believers is meet, fitting, “suited to every sinner’s case.”[iii]

Credobaptism is Historical. 

Credobaptism is the historic New Testament practice – and the historic practice of the early churches before the rite was corrupted. It continued to be historical in churches that practiced it, even when most others had departed from biblical faith and practice. 

In some of the early sources such as the Didache, believer’s baptism can be seen, even though little additions were beginning to creep in.[iv] For example, that the persons being baptized are volitional believers is assumed, in that they are commanded to fast before they were baptized (Didache, 7.4).

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows the build-up of non-biblical practice, while still maintaining a general baptismal base practice that arises from believer’s baptism. The catechumens were asked about their belief in God the Father, their belief in God the Son, and their belief in God the Holy Spirit.[v]

“That the churches of the post-apostolic age did not long remain faithful to apostolic precept and example in all respects [not just baptism, rlv] would be generally admitted.” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609, Albert Henry Newman, page 1)

Conclusion.

“Infant baptism was an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of the magical efficacy of water baptism itself to impart salvation. One countervailing error that slowed its introduction was the idea held and taught by some that ‘mortal sins’ committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Quite a reason to delay baptism to the expected end of life!”[vi]

This is not to say that every denomination that practices pedobaptism believes there is magical efficacy of salvation in the water. However, the origins of it are inexplicably tied to such superstitions, and the maintenance of the practice reveals a deficiency in applying sola scriptura to an extra-biblical, emotional, incremental, and traditional practice.

Credobaptism stands on solid ground. The Bible supports it. It is, unsurprisingly, universally recognized as scriptural by all Christian churches that practice some form of baptism. All other forms are on shifting sand.

---

[i] Most Bible students are forced to admit this – unless they have jettisoned baptism altogether. Baptism of believers is obvious, exampled, and necessary. Baptism of infants has no biblical example, is unnecessary, and must be extrapolated (after a fashion) from the old covenant circumcision.
[ii] The person about to submit to baptism or the person who has just been baptized is called a “baptizand.” That terminology is not in common use among most Baptists, at least in my experience.

[iii] Baptism is delayed until a credible profession of faith (credobaptism vs. pedobaptism) but not delayed after a credible profession of faith.
[iv] However, the additions likely were not in the original document.
[v] The three questions before baptism were: “Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?” “Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, etc.?” “Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost…?” The baptizand was required to answer in the affirmative, “I believe.”
[vi] Source lost, unknown (Or else I wrote this, but I do not remember that I did.)

The Church, the Body

THE CHURCH, THE BODY

The Bible uses many metaphors to refer to the church, the local congregation of baptized believers. Many of them are familiar to us – a bride (John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2), a building (1 Corinthians 3:9; Psalm 127:1), a city/Zion (Matthew 5:14; 1 Peter 2:6-10; Psalm 127:1), a field (1 Corinthians 3:6-9), a flock (Luke 12:32), a house or temple (Ephesians 2:20–22; 1 Timothy 3:15). The church is a bride and Jesus the husband; a building and Jesus the builder, a field and Jesus the owner, a flock and Jesus the shepherd, a temple and Jesus the inhabiter of it.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Here the church metaphor is “body.”

Romans 12:4-8 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

The teaching through the metaphor of “the body” emphasizes unity (one life), diversity (many parts, functions), and headship (one head). It puts us in our place.

It puts us in our place in regard to ourselves. We are not alone (Romans 12:3 “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think”)

• Considering the church as a body jettisons high thoughts of ourselves (“not to think of himself more highly”).
• Considering the church as a body reminds us God is working with others (“God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith”).
• Considering the church as a body exalts the goodness of each having his own important and varying gifts (“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us”).

It puts us in our place in regard to one another. We are the body (1 Corinthians 12:27 “ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular”). 1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

• The church as a body is one in the unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3 “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”). There is organic unity and practical unity.
• The church as a body serves both the head and one another (1 Corinthians 12:4-6 “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all”). 
• The church as a body, through differing gifts of the Spirit, can serve and function effectively and efficiently (1 Corinthians 12:4–7). Every member has an unique function and also depends on the other members (1 Corinthians 12:14–25). 
• The church as a body – the whole body, every member of it – shares one and the same life.  “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” (1 Corinthians 12:26).

It puts us in our place in regard to our Lord. Christ is the head (Colossians 1:18 “And he is the head of the body, the church”). 

• Jesus Christ is head in the sense of authority to whom we submit (Ephesians 5:23–24 “the church is subject unto Christ”). 
• Jesus Christ is head in the sense of influencing and ministering to the body, e.g. for health and growth (Colossians 2:19 “the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together”). 
• Jesus Christ is head in the sense of his exercising power over the body for its good. He is the Saviour of the body (Ephesians 5:23).

We church members need to be put in our place, in at least two senses.

To put someone is his place is to remind someone of his position, to show him he is not better than others, not as important as one thinks he is. Understanding the church as a body performs this function for us. We are part of something bigger than ourselves

To put something is its place is to position or arrange an object correctly, such as installing physical objects in their intended or correct location. A library book has a certain and exact number which identifies its placement in the proper order in relation to the rest of the books on the shelf. Understanding the church as a body teaches us of our proper placement “on the shelf” – under and subject to the head of the body, Jesus Christ.

Universality and unity

I found the following comments saved on my computer. I did not write down the source. I have searched and not found a source. I might have written this, or might have copied and pasted it from somewhere. So I do not want to take credit for it. Nevertheless, I believe it is worth posting.

Jesus is gathering a people for himself from every tribe, tongue, and nation through his new covenant. This people is therefore a racially, linguistically, and geographically diverse people – expressed in local congregations. This doctrine indicates a congregation should recognize other gospel-preaching congregations of like faith and practice as true churches. This additionally implies that a congregation recognizes the members of those other churches as true Christians.

On the one hand, congregations of baptized believers are partners in labor together with God and with one another. On the other hand, the Bible does not prescribe any formal institutional connections or structures between local congregations. The unity is biblical and spiritual rather than organizational.

Catholicity and Separation

I just read an article in which a conservative Calvinistic Southern Baptist trashed separatism and promoted catholicity. He reserved special attention for the “fundamentalist” brand of separatism. The author is not someone who moved from Fundamentalism to Liberalism, but rather someone who has moved from Fundamentalism to a Reformed position.

He makes some good points. Fundamentalism can exalt carnality, pride, and an “us four, no more” attitude. Their gospel is not broad enough or deep enough to save and sanctify anyone who does not dot their i’s and cross their t’s. Division over extremely exacting eschatological theories becomes the norm.

There is a right sort of “catholicity”[i] that chronologically sees across time and generations, knowing we belong to the same church institution as and adhere to the same gospel preached by the apostles.  It geographically reaches across continents, nations, and communities.[ii] It linguistically embraces different tongues and peoples. “…I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

Unfortunately, this sort of “catholicity” often embraces “Catholicism” as representative of the “true church” up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. It flies in the face of a New Testament Christianity that separated itself from infidelity, heresy, and immorality (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:17; Titus 3:10; Ephesians 5:1-4). It distinguishes itself from and denies the poor and afflicted faithful martyrs of Jesus (e.g., Revelation 2:10, 13; 17:6). It recognizes the unorthodox majority and rejects the orthodox remnant.[iii] 

There is a right sort of “fundamentalism” that loves, seeks for, and adheres to the fundamental principles of the Bible, and the Christian religion based on it. It rejects compromise of those principles, while enthusiastically and evangelistically sowing those principles in the field of the world.

Unfortunately, strains of fundamentalism promote individuality to the detriment of the corporate nature of gathered believers (Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), as well as the fellowship of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17; 14:33). It minimizes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:5-6).[iv] It elevates private interpretations as the norm to determine orthodoxy, fellowship, and separation (Mark 7:9; 2 Peter 1:20). It becomes a haven for little dictators.[v] 

Where does the middle way begin? Perhaps: The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Autonomous churches that are guided by this belief about the Bible. A gospel that is to be preached to every creature. And strong doses of humility.

Both “Big F” Fundamentalism and “Big C” Catholicism miss the mark, in different directions. Let us take up our Bibles and learn the Bible way of the unity of the faith and separation unto the gospel of God.

---

[i] Recognizing that the words “catholic” and “catholicity” have a broader more generic meaning, I nevertheless generally avoid them as more likely to help rather than hurt the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.

[ii] Human beings and local churches are limited by geography, but connect with other congregations across the globe through fellowship of the word and Spirit.
[iii] I am unable to read the Bible, see the New Testament church there, research church history, and then pretend that the only church that existed for 15 centuries was Roman Catholic! I have sadly heard too many Reformed brethren say so. Away with such.

[iv] “A keen awareness of where the church has always stood” is needed, if we also have the biblical insight to understand what the church is, biblically.
[v] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy (and at least some species of Reformed churches) are havens for big dictators!

Not forsaking the assembling

“...a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” Ecclesiastes 4:12

As long as I have been in the ministry (and even before that, I suppose), I have known people who claimed to be Christians who also claimed they did not need to go to church. Such folks fall into different categories. Some are nominal Christians who have zero interest in church. Some have been hurt or offended at some church and have dropped out and stay home. Some have figured out they can “do church” by listening to the radio, watching TV – or perhaps “attend” their own church’s live online service. Some are so radical that they cannot tolerate any who do not agree with them, and apparently cannot go to church until they find the perfect church (i.e., that agree with them on all points). There are doubtless other categories, but these are the four that come to mind first for me.

A few weeks ago, someone I know had some work done at his house. The man doing the work professes to be a Christian but says he does not need to go to church. My friend talked to him a bit, especially pointing him to the Hebrews 10:25 passage about “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” He did not make any headway. He later asked me about, especially concerning what Scripture might be used to convince folks that they should go to church. The Bible does teach the gathering of baptized believers. Rather clearly. Sometimes the problem is not so much showing someone what the Bible says. The actual problem is that the non-church-going Christian will not accept the authority of the Bible as their sole rule of faith and practice in this matter and submit to it.

Another related problem might be a common American/Western idea of “going to church.” It is just somewhere you go and something you do on a regular or semi-regular basis, rather than a commitment to the Lord and his people. Related to this is a consumer mentality, in that one “goes to church” for what he or she can get out of it, rather than considering there might be something to put into it. Taken together, with this mentality, when church going no longer seems pleasing or beneficial, the church-goer just stops going and does something else that is pleasing and beneficial.

The best scriptural case for “going to church” is made with the “threefold cord” of command, precept, and example.

Command.

Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

The Bible teaches Christians to gather. In the context of commands to draw near God (v. 22), to hold fast the profession of our faith (v. 23), and to consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works (v. 24), the writer to the Hebrews commands the Lord’s people to assemble (stated as a command to not forsake the assembling they are presently fulfilling in conjunction with the other commands given).

Assembling with fellow believers “because God said so” really ought to be good enough for the servant of God. Nevertheless, assembling is not merely for the sake of assembling. Assembling integrates with other commands to the Christian. We fulfill them as we gather together: we combine in corporate worship (1 Corinthians 14:25; John 4:24), hear the preaching of the word (2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:3), edify/build up one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11), baptize (Acts 2:41), eat the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), exercise church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4-5), sing to God & one another (Colossians 3:16), and pray together (James 5:16; Acts 4:31).

Other New Testament admonitions made in relation to “One Anothering” indicate near presence, the expectation of gathering together (bear one another’s burdens, exhort one another, greet one another, give an holy kiss, wash one another’s feet, the right hand of fellowship, the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, anointing with oil, admonish one another, comfort one another). Heath Woolman, Pastor of Fruit Cove Baptist Church in St. Johns, Florida, wrote, “Scripture also commands us to take part in the reciprocal imperatives of the Christian life (1 Cor. 12:25, Gal. 6:2, Col. 3:13, et.al.).” Writing in the context of technology driven “online church,” he observes that these imperatives “cannot be adequately expressed or obeyed through technology-mediation, ‘online churches,’ or ‘online church membership.’” I would add they cannot be fulfilled through the church of the fishing boat, becoming one with nature, or simply staying at home doing nothing. Christians obey their Lord.

Precept.

The New Testament concept and doctrine of the church is an assembly. The church is an ekklesia, a called-out assembly, a congregation of baptized believers. The very thing church means assembly and exudes the idea of gathering. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20).

The church of Corinth was an assembly, a local body of believers in the city of Corinth. Notice 1 Corinthians 12:25, “that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” They came together with psalms, teachings, tongues, etc. See 1 Corinthians 14:26, “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” Paul warned that they must bring it all into an orderly fashion, in consistency with the God of order. There were local bodies of believers assembling in the cities of Asia (Revelation 2:1-3:22), in Galatia (Galatians 1:2), in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:1), in Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1), and so on. Assembly is found within the very nature of these bodies.

One modern foe of assembling is the ascendancy of the idea of the “universal invisible church.” Many emphasize that they are members of that church, with little or no need to acknowledge the visible nature of the church. However, New Testament churches were local and visible, gathered assemblies that met together at certain times and in certain places. The ascendancy of the “invisible” church dethrones “the true church” (i.e., local visible churches). The church is an assembly; if she does not assemble, she is not a church. May we labor to recover this church truth, and in doing so realize again the importance of assembling ourselves together.

Example.

The New Testament is replete with examples of the baptized disciples gathering together. They were intricately involved in one another’s lives, joys, sufferings, ministry, and goals. Each time the Bible describes a church gathering, assembling, coming together, etc., it has provided an example of the believers practicing the command of God taught in the precepts of God. Notice a few examples from the book of Acts:

• Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
• Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
• Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
• Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
• Acts 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

Conclusion.

The disciples who “were called Christians first” were an assembling body of believers in Antioch Syria. They represent the New Testament “norm.” The “Lone Ranger” who does his own thing apart from the churches of Christ is not a New Testament type of Christian. He is not submitting to the authority of the word of God. Command, precept, and example combine to teach us believers should assemble together in local churches. This should be what some might flippantly call “a no-brainer.” God commands assembly. Obey. With joy.

May we with the sweet psalmist David once again excitedly say, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord” (Psalm 122:1).

Answering William’s Thirty Questions

Thirty questions on our ecclesiology, by William Thornton, posted on SBC Voices.

William is a retired SBC pastor who is quite amiable, with whom I have interacted in a couple of forums (Baptist Life & SBC Voices), and who I would describe as slightly to the right of moderate. On the Baptist Life forum, which tended very moderate to liberal, he stood out as conservative there.

The subject of women pastors is one of high alert in the SBC at the moment. Discussions abound. In their June 2023 Convention the delegates voted to uphold the decision of the Executive Committee, which sees churches with women pastors in violation of the Baptist Faith and Message (the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture) and not in friendly cooperation with the Convention. One was the high-profile Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, founded by Rick Warren. A lot of current SBC discussion is nuanced on positions that may not be pastoral but has pastor or minister in the job title, or positions that are pastoral, but do not have pastor or minister in the job title (e.g. director, instead).

I am not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of the questions are really outside my interest, since they are pretty specific to the SBC. On the other hand, I noticed few people at SBC Voices seemed willing to tackle them head on. Rather, they just post what they want to say, throwing something in the general vicinity of the questions. So I thought I would do so, primarily to exercise my slumping brain on the subject of Baptist ecclesiology (a very important subject).

The thirty questions and thirty answers:

1. If a church has multiple pastors, who is the pastor and how does the congregation express this?

If a church has a scriptural plurality of pastors (elders) then they would express it by calling them all pastors equally. The problem is that many churches that have multiple pastors usually have an hierarchy of employees called “pastors” while employing many of them in positions that have little resemblance to biblical pastoral ministry.

2. Is the fresh-faced nineteen-year-old summer student pastor the same as his ultimate supervisor?

I have no idea what a “summer student pastor” is, and less inclination to find out. It does not sound like a biblical pastoral position to me.

3. The SBC spent decades with a pastor/deacon model. Those decades were the greatest in our growth. Why is that model so easily discarded?

I am not SBC, so probably not highly qualified to answer this question. The one SBC church with which I am most familiar concerning their “pastor/deacon” model may have employed it successfully, but not scripturally, in my opinion. The business of the church was conducted in the private deacon’s meeting and then presented to the church for approval by “perfunctory” vote (see William’s question 24). I think that model should be discarded.

4. How much of our ecclesiology can be traced to American affluence and liberty?

I believe that American affluence and political views on freedom, liberty, and democracy have influenced the ecclesiology in Baptist Churches in the U.S. I have no idea how much, but do believe it has had some negative effect – in the sense of looking to the “U.S.” as a model rather than the Bible.

5. If churches didn’t have buildings and budgets would church governance look different?

I expect so, at least somewhat. Nevertheless, our bigger problem is the more general lack of focus on biblical faith and practice.

6. Is it fair to say that Southern Baptists, once megachurches and their celebrity pastors moved to the multi-site model, changed their ecclesiology to accommodate that?

Yes, I think megachurches and celebrity pastors have negatively affected the ecclesiology of Southern Baptists, as well as other Baptists in the U.S. A church meeting in several locations does not meet the biblical definition of a congregation.

7. Concomitantly, why do we always avoid the title “bishop” when referring to the pastor who has charge of multiple churches?

I do not think this is new. It is my own experience in the churches with which I have been associated in my lifetime, that they have generally either avoided or neglected the use of the word “bishop” to refer to pastors. This was well before megachurches, multi-site churches, and (mostly) celebrity pastors. It is my opinion that this scriptural word was avoided mainly because of its misuse by other denominations and in a desire to steer clear of misunderstanding – that “elder” and “pastor” would carry less baggage than bishop in most cases.

8. If any kind of woman pastor is constitutionally prohibited, don’t we have to get into the business of functional job duties?

No, just do not have women in pastoral job duties. However, it is problematic that some churches give women the same functional job duties they would consider pastoral, but skirt the issue by calling them by some “title” other than pastor.

9. If we delve into job duties are we not then forced to decide on the age of males at which females are prohibited from teaching, supervising, and directing?

Yes, I would say that some churches give women authority over males at certain ages, which, if they were called pastors, to which they would object.

10. Is there any ecclesiastical component other than women as pastors that would receive the level of scrutiny that we are now giving to churches?

Is there? I don’t know. Should there be? Yes – divorce and remarriage in the ministry being one of them. And all the other qualifications should be resurrected with proper emphasis. It is a fact that many churches have punted the biblical qualifications in favor of instead judging one’s experience, educational, and executive qualifications, and such like.

11. Is the focus on women motivated in large part by the ease at which men can distinguish between a woman and a man?

Probably not. Hopefully Southern Baptists still can distinguish, but many in our society cannot profess to tell the difference between a woman and a man.

12. Is there any other qualification of pastor that is likely to receive such scrutiny? Why not?

Traditionally, “husband of one wife” has received a lot of scrutiny, but that bird seems to have flown the coop. See also question 10.

13. If a church has an executive pastor, why can that position not be filled by a woman?

What is an executive pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position to be filled according to the qualifications of I Timothy and Titus, how can it be filled by a woman?

14. What does a worship pastor pastor?

What is a worship pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position, wouldn’t all pastors be “worship pastors” whose qualifications are set forth in Timothy and Titus?

15. What other major statement of faith, creed, or confession utilizes forward slash phrases?

Huh? This was initially meaningless to me, until I found that William refers to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message using slashes in Article VI – “pastor/elder/overseer.” William always like to insert a little humor.

16. How much sense does it make to declare that your church can cooperate with other churches that have female directors or ministers but not cooperate with those who have female pastors?

A local church is autonomous, and so can cooperate with whomever she wishes. However, biblical cooperation is based on biblical principles. Are there any biblical principles for female directors, female ministers, or female pastors? What is the difference? I assume William is probably hinting at a hypocrisy hidden in there being no difference in function, only in name.

17. One of our few success stories of this century is the increasing proportion of African American and other ethnic churches who identify as SBC. Does it concern anyone that we may totally undermine these successes?

How is this being undermined? William does not say. We are not SBC, so this question is somewhat immaterial to us. Our church, as a local church, fellowships with “ethnic churches” based on shared biblical faith and practice rather than our supporting a common program.

18. If a mixed adult group has man/woman team teacher and the main teacher is the woman, is this a problem?

Yes, it sounds like a way of circumventing not having a woman teach adult men (i.e., by calling in a team).

19. How long has it been since your church prohibited women from speaking in a church conference?

We do not prohibit it, though they do not run the church business. We do not prohibit men who are not pastors from speaking in church conference either. Prohibiting women from speaking in conference is more an issue of one’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 than with the issue of women pastors. I know some churches that do prohibit this, based on that Scripture in 1 Corinthians. Is William trying to imply churches are inconsistent to refuse women pastors while allowing them to speak in church conference? We also allow women to sing and testify.

20. If our constitution says a woman may not be “any kind of pastor” is it acceptable to have other titles, e.g., minister, director, assistant?

This seems to be rooted in a progressivism that desires to create positions that the Bible does not create or recognize as Scriptural offices.

21. What is a co-pastor?

I suppose it is according to what the church that uses it means. Sometimes it has the sense “together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually” (suggesting equality); “sometimes it has the sense “auxiliary, subsidiary” (suggesting subordination). A group of equal plural elders would be “co-pastors” in a sense according to the first definition. A group of “under-pastors” serving under a the direction of a senior pastor would be “co-pastors” according to the second definition.

22. If a church has pastors, elders, and deacons should they be excluded?

What? Excluded from what? I do not understand this question.

23. If deacons have administrative authority, and in most SBC churches this is the case, how is this unbiblical?

Biblically, deacons are servants of the church. If the church assigns them administrative duties, then they could be biblically serving the church. If they have administrative authority over the church, it would be unbiblical.

24. Is a church legitimately congregational if only perfunctory votes are taken?

Perfunctory is likely a matter of perspective. Do you think some other church’s votes are perfunctory, and does that church see that operation as perfunctory? Perfunctory in this context likely means “performed merely as a routine duty.” The votes of the church I mentioned in question 3 seemed “perfunctory” to me. However, it is likely that their “routine” approval of the deacons’ motions and seconds could turn to something else if the deacons proposed something they did not like. So, though I did not like their system, and perhaps they were not congregational carefully enough, but in the end still exercised congregational oversight.

25. Should all women who have affixed to their church position the term “pastor” be considered carnal Christians, ipso facto disobedient, and out of fellowship with God?

They would be disobedient to the extent they disobeyed the biblical faith and practice. Same as a believer who refuses to be baptized, or one who deliberately chooses sprinkling over immersion, and so on.

26. How has our American system of itinerant ministry shaped our ecclesiology?

Here I am assuming William means the common practice of preachers moving from church to church (often upwardly), rather than ministering long-term in one church (especially the church in which they were raised and ordained). To me, a true itinerant minister is not a pastor. However, that has often be the effect in churches. A pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, and the church soon gives him to the boot. Or, a pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, but soon finds a much better offer which “calls” him away. I am not sure this has shaped our ecclesiology in terms of definitions (though perhaps so), but I do believe it has negatively shaped our ecclesiology in practice.

27. Is ordination a consideration in any discussion of women pastors or ministers?

Yes, it should be. If women should not be pastors (and they should not), then they also should not be ordained.

28. What determines whether or not speaking is preaching? Is it the furniture involved or the gender of the speaker?

Preaching is an act of public biblical proclamation and teaching. Furniture and gender do not determine it; the Bible is our rule of faith and practice.

29. How long before Lottie, Annie, and Bertha lose their high standing in today’s SBC?

I have no idea, but have always thought it a bit odd to have all the big offering pushes in the SBC named after women.

30. Do you think folks in the pews care about all this?

Yes, in our pews in our church they do care.