The Bible and Women in Ministry

Review of A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership (ebook).

Stone, Meredith J. A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership, Waco, TX: Baptist Women in Ministry, 2023.

A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership is a brief 21-page booklet provided by the Baptist Women in Ministry organization, written by the organization’s executive director. Meredith J. Stone has a PhD from Brite Divinity School (TCU), is Executive Director of Baptist Women in Ministry (organized 1983 as Women in Ministry, SBC), and is author of Empire and Gender in LXX Esther (2018).

The book is an easy read to provide an overview of the approach taken by some Baptist women who promote full access for women in Christian and church ministry. The author seeks to address questions of women in church ministry, leadership roles, ordination, etc. She acknowledges, “These questions have been the source of conflict for decades, and the heart of the matter is how we interpret biblical passages related to women’s roles and leadership” (p. 1).

The booklet starts with an unlabeled “Introduction,” followed by eight sections: Women in the Bible (3-4); Women and Creation (5-7); Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament (8); Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament (9-10); Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church (11-13); Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations (14-15); Conclusion (16-17); and Discussion Guide (18-21).

Stone initially inserts a misguided application of the priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church. This may appeal to unthinking Baptists, but lays a shifting foundation for the work. Just because some Baptists interpret the scripture on their own (which they are free to do), is no guarantee that the interpretation and resulting practice is correct. Just because a Baptist Church is free to govern itself and make its own decisions apart from the influence of any other church does not mean she should make decisions contrary to the word God. The priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church only function properly in submission to God and his revealed word. In this introduction, Stone signals early on that the authority of many biblical passages (at the least the ones that challenge “women in ministry”) will be dismissed on cultural and literary grounds (p. 2). These passages will be painted as complicated matters of interpretation which have been unshackled by “women in ministry” in recent years.

Women in the Bible. In this section Stone highlights certain women in the Bible that seem to fit her agenda – Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Mary, Anna, Lydia, Priscilla, Philip’s daughters – noting, “While some women in the Bible exist in submissive roles to men, other women have authority and are prominent leaders” (p. 3). While all these women have an important place in the Bible, the author primarily throws their names out and hopes the reader will come down on her side – rather than, for example, dealing with why none of the prominent women in the New Testament are ordained officers in the church.[i]

Women and creation. Without attacking the creation account directly, Stone delivers a dose of doubt by calling Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 two different creation accounts – rather than clearly affirming the second is giving the details of the same creation account.[ii]  She renders Adam amorphous by claiming a better translation of “man” in Genesis 2:4-25 is “person.”[iii]  A silly illustration of the animals created before the woman is made – trying to side line any discussion of the order of creation of Adam and Eve as ridiculous. That Eve was created to be a helper (Genesis 2:20) is dismissed because the Hebrew word is also used in reference to God (pp. 5-6). 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is pitted against Romans 5:12-19 without resolution, beyond in her own mind simply impeaching 1 Timothy 2 (p. 6). Genesis 3:16 becomes merely “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive” (p. 6).[iv] 

Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament. Galatians 3:28 is not exegeted for meaning, but simply given as a prooftext of equality of ministry (p. 8). 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 and 11:4 provides cover for women praying and prophesying, while the head covering is lifted as merely a respectful temporary item of the cultural context. Stone grabs on to a controversial passage that even liberals dispute the meaning of, that Paul supposedly “calls” Junia an apostle, so that supports the position of the author. Meanwhile, almost no one actually thinks Junia was an apostle.[i] Notably, when Jesus chose the twelve, he did not appoint any women.

Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament. Stone mentions Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The teaching of these texts may be set aside since they are in the epistle genre (p. 9) – a communication between two parties which a third party will not understand. This denies the perspicuity of most of the New Testament. Yet oddly, a third party like Stone is able to figure out that it does not mean anything in our culture today. This was only for particular wives in particular congregations in this particular time. The author writes, “A decision must be made as to how to interpret the passages in light of each other” (p. 10). However, no real decision is made other than that no interpretation is needed for the passages since they should not have to obey them in modern times.[v]

Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church. Often Stone uses a “double down” technique. First, the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 for women to be silent are contextual and not universally applicable (p. 11). Further! verse 36 should be considered a refutation of the command in verses 34-35, making “you” mean “you male Corinthians.” So, it means that only women in this very specific context at this time in Corinth were to remain silent, but wait … it actually means Paul was not telling them to be silent! The author plans to have her cake and eat it too. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the author focuses on “assume authority” (αὐθεντέω) as a hapax – a word used only once in the New Testament. She thinks it can only mean inappropriate power, and just in case, also limits it to a particular congregation (pp. 12-13). To be carefully complete, Stone rejects other matters in the context as irrelevant in “modern practice in worship” (p. 13). For a general principle, the author extracts that it means they were to act “in a way that is appropriate to one’s culture” (p. 13).[vi] To throw in the kitchen sink, Stone mentions that verse 15 is not consistent with salvation by grace through faith (making this a troublesome passage, without offering any explanation of it beyond simply using it to bolster her case for women in ministry). She feigns disbelief that such a passage exists, since women having children is not the cause or means of salvation.

Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations. A careful observer should notice a plan of action in A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. Stone accepts any “favorable” mentions of women in the Bible as prescriptive – promoting the idea that women should be in leadership. Stone rejects any “unfavorable” mentions of women in the Bible as descriptive – literary, cultural, and not teaching anything concerning women in leadership. It is “shocking” how it all works out in a way that is always consistent with what she is promoting! Nevertheless, we should again be reminded that the exceptions prove the rule. 

Conclusion. The conclusion reminds the reader that the book is intended to offer a perspective so “more women will be able to embrace and embody their callings…” (p. 16). In other words, the book did not set out to see what were the most valid interpretations of various passages of scripture, but to interpret them in way to fulfill the book’s purpose. For example, Stone highlights Joel 2:18-32 and Acts 2:14-18 and we are supposed to just accept it as meaning women should be in leadership roles in the church without any dealing with the prophecy, fulfillment, and its context. Apparently only the context should be noted when it can be used to nullify a command. One simple thing to note about Acts 2:14-18 is that Peter believed everything he preached on this day of Pentecost, including what he referred to from the prophet Joel. Yet he and none of the other apostles ever interpreted that as a reason to engage in the ordination of women.

Discussion Guide. The book concludes with a “Discussion Guide” with discussion questions. These are divided into general discussion questions, followed by specific questions related to each section of the book. The questions are more oriented toward feelings – “what does this text mean to you” than facts – “what does this text actually say.”

This book can be “recommended” as a good example of the application of a particular hermeneutic (the theory and methodology of the interpretation of biblical texts) that will support and promote the leadership of women in church ministry.[vii] Of this type of hermeneutic, former feminist Rosaria Butterfield states:

“Ordaining women is the gateway to gay theology. There is no denomination that ordains women that will not eventually ordain homosexuals. I’m not a prophet. I don’t need to be. You just have to read your church history. The reason it is the gateway is that it is the same hermeneutic – different Bible passages, but the same hermeneutic – that is used to ordain women is used to ordain homosexuals.” (“How Parachurch Ministries have Failed to Stand against the LGBTQ Movement.” You can start listening about 32:00 for context, and the quote is at about 35:14 in the video.)

I didn’t find this book existing in print. The book seems somewhat obscure, in that if you do not know of BWIM and their website, you probably won’t be aware of it. I only discovered it because someone promoting ordination of women and rebuking me for citing Rosaria Butterfield mentioned the BWIM site as providing valuable information about the calling of God on women’s lives to allay my ignorance on the subject. And thus, I came to give this review of the booklet.

As an example of what to not believe, I can point readers to A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. A cruise around the Baptist Women in Ministry site will demonstrate Rosaria Butterfield’s observation about hermeneutics and the ordination of women. BWIM does not just support women in ministry, but “is committed to supporting and advocating for any individual who identifies as a woman…to celebrating and supporting LGBTQ+ women and open and affirming congregations,” as well as “non-binary persons.” The book displays interpreting scripture in a way that fits the changing moods of society while rejecting the rather consistent historical interpretation of the churches for 2000 years. If the hermeneutic of this book is applied to homosexuality, it brings about the same approving results for ministry and ordination of homosexuals as it does for women.

As a valid exposition of biblical truth, A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership gets “0” stars, and no recommendation. It is not Baptist. It is not biblical.

---

[i] Stone will later (p. 8), claim that Paul calls Junia an apostle (and inferring that Junia is a woman, this part probably correctly). This hangs a lot on a passage over which there is much dispute. Paul says, “Andronicus and Junia…are of note among the apostles,” not that they are apostles (though some people do receive it with that meaning).
[ii] Most (if not all) of these “Baptist Women in Ministry” supporters exist in the plain of liberalism, since conservatism is inconsistent with their views.
[iii] Most translators disagree, even moderate to liberal ones. For example, of the nearly 60 translations on Bible Gateway, only the idiosyncratic Complete Jewish Bible, the work of a single translator, David H. Stern, uses person in Genesis 2:8 –while all the rest use man.
[iv] One consistent theme is that commands that are inconsistent with the views of Baptist Women in Ministry are always the ones that are “descriptive.”
[v] Stone also used the proximity of the instructions to women to the instructions to servants and masters to further diminish the authority of the instructions (p. 10). She does not bother to explain that 1 Peter 3 has no such context and still exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands.
[vi] An uncomfortable conclusion of accepting this principle is that, at some point, women in the churches in the United States ditched not only the text, but the simpler principle as well, by starting to break out of the cultural norms that we had in place. As far as biblical church order, ordained ministers have a calling and an office, but are not of greater importance than everyone else in the church. Men who are not preachers have their gifts. Women have their gifts. All are a part of the church body (cf. Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12). All have differing gifts for the edification of the body. “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
[vii] Some women in leadership have dubbed their biblical interpretations “her-meneutics” as opposed to “his-meneutics” – a focus on women’s interpretation of the Bible. “Her.meneutics” is the Christianity Today blog for women.

What we lose

As an old dinosaur, perhaps, I am particularly pained and puzzled by the move away from Bibles as books to Bibles on screens, phones, and computers. Now to be clear, I am not against using these resources when they can be a help – but, like Dustin Benge (a younger person and also an educator), overall, I see the switch is a loss rather than a gain.

What we lose when the Bible is only on a screen:

1. You remember where the verse lives on the page and aids memorization.

2. The page shows you much more at once. You see the context, not just a few verses at once.

3. The page keeps your notes. Years from now they will still be there, in your own hand.

4. The page cannot distract you with a notification. It only asks to be read.

5. The page is something your children watch you open and they know it’s the Bible.

The screen gives much. The page gives more.

- Dustin Benge

Household baptisms, reprise

In total there are three clear statements referencing “household baptism” in the New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33-34; I Corinthians 1:16), as well as two that may be considered implied (Acts 10:47-48; 18:8). Pædobaptists assert that “household baptism” are proof of “infant baptism.”[1]  However, the second (infant baptism) does not logically follow the first (household baptism).[2] In addition to the logical fallacy, contextual statements in each biblical case provide evidence against rather than support for infant baptism. 

Rather than infant baptism, the Bible teaches believers’ baptism. The command, precept, and example of the New Testament is that belief – faith in the Lord Jesus Christ – must precede baptism (immersion in water).

Below is a chart showing these five biblical “household baptisms.”

---

[1] “…when the NT merely says that Lydia believed and she was baptized and her household, it is far more natural to assume her children were included.” Derek Carlsen, Faith and Courage, page 374. “Pædobaptist” is a theological term for those who baptize infants. Most are more properly “pædorantist,” that is, they sprinkle (ραντιζω) rather than baptize (immerse, βαπτιζω) infants.
[2] Pædobaptists must assume that all households always have infants, which is incorrect. Notice that Carlsen must assume (1) Lydia is married, (2) Lydia has children, (3) Lydia has young children for whom she must stand proxy, and (4) the household in this needed case must necessarily include parents and children.

Baptism and Church Communion

“To the Christian reader. 

“When it pleased God, of his free Grace, to cause me to make a serious inquiry after Jesus Christ, and to give me some taste of his pardoning Love, the sense of which did engage my heart with desires to be obedient to his will in all things, I used all indeavers both by Converse with such as were able, and also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with earnest desires of God, that I might be directed in a right way of Worship; and after some time concluded, that the safest way was to follow the Footsteps of the Flock (namely) that Order laid down by Christ and his Apostles, and practiced by the Primitive Christians in their times; which I found to be, that after Conversion they were Baptized, added to the Church, and continued in the Apostles’ Doctrine, Fellowship, Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; according to which I thought my self bound to be Conformable. And having continued in the Profession of the same for these forty years, although through many Weaknesses, and Fears, Temptations, and Sufferings, yet not without some Witness from God of his gracious Acceptance and Strength to this very day: The sense I have of my own Weakness and Inability, would have been a Bar to me to appear in this Publick way, did I not see a necessity lying upon me for the Truth’s sake, and the sakes of many, by reason of some that have lately risen up to weaken, if not to make void, that great Ordinance of Baptism, by indeavouring to maintain, that all persons that Believe, although they never did, nor do Practice the same, may partake of the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and all other Gospel instituted Duties.”

A Sober Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, William Kiffin, 1681 [“…we dare not break that Rule and Order by which we find the Primitive Saints walkt…” (pp. 130-31)]

William Kiffin answers Robert Poole

QUERIE V. How can you vindicate by the Word of God, your Anabaptisticall way, from the sinfull guile of notorious Schisme, and disection from all the Reformed Churches?

Ans. They that run may reade what fire this pen and heart was inflamed withall in the writing and inditing this querie; but first of all, if by Reformed Churches, you mean those Churches planted by the Apostles in the Primative times, which are the platforme for all Churches in all ages to look unto, to be guided by these Apostolicall Rules left them; wee then shall vindicate by the Word of God our Anabaptisticall way, as you are pleased to call it, from that guile; and first, although wee confesse our selves ignorant of many things, which we ought to know and desire, to waight daily for the further discoveries of Light and truth, from him which is the only giver of it to his poor people, yet so far as we are come, we desire to walke by the same Rule they did, and first of all, wee Baptize none into Christ Jesus, but such as professe faith in Christ Jesus, Rom. 6.3. by which faith they are made sonnes of God, and so having put on Christ, are Baptized into Christ, Gal. 3.26, 27. and that Christ hath commanded this, and no other way of Baptisme, See Matth. 28.19. Mark. 1.4, 5. Luke 3.7, 8. and that this also was the Practise of the Apostles, See Acts 2.41. and 8.12.36, 37 and 10.47, 48. and that being thus baptized upon profession of Faith, they are then added to the Church, 2 Act. 41. and being added to the Church, wee conceive our selves bound to watch over one another, and in case of sinne, to deale faithfully one with another according to these Scriptures, Levit. 19.17, 18. Matth. 18.15. and if they remain obstinate, to cast them out, as those that are not fit to live in the Church, according to that Rule, 2 Cor. 5.4, 5. Matth. 18.19, 30. by all which, and many other parteculars I might name, it appears through Mercy, we can free our selves from that guile; and truely, if your eyes were opened to peruse your own practises and wayes, you would then see wee could better free our selves from that notorious guile of Schisme from those Reformed Churches, then you can free your selves from the notorious guile of Schismying from Rome; For 1. You hold their Baptisme true, their Ordination of Ministers true, their maintenance by Tythes and Offerings true, their people all fit matter for a Church, and so true, and yet you will seperate from them for some Corruptions; now for our parts, wee denie all and every one of these amongst you to be true, and therefore doe seperate from you; so then, when you have made satisfaction for your notorious Schisme, and returne as dutifull Sonnes to their Mother, or else have cast off all your filthty Rubbish of her abominations which are found amongst you, we will returne to you, or shew our just grounds to the contrary.

Pages 12-13 of A briefe remonstrance of the reasons and grounds of those people commonly called Anabaptists, for their seperation, &c. Or certaine queries concerning their faith and practice, propounded by Mr. Robert Poole; answered and resolved by William Kiffin. London: 1645.

Speaking in the square

In Imagined space in Sacred Harp singing, Jonathon M. Smith writes about controlling divisiveness by limiting leaders addressing the class from the hollow square. Today, this is often presented and misrepresented as the standard historical practice which must be held as the norm. Yet, Smith himself acknowledges this is a teaching method imposed in modernity that does not actually square with historical practice.[i] On page 246, footnote 139, Smith writes:

“Documentary evidence suggests that this norm was regularly breeched in Sacred Harp singings in the Southeast throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by singers who addressed the class when called to lead. However, modern singing schools promote the ideal of refraining from speaking from the center of the square as an important historical precedent.”

Just because you can get up a singing camp to promote the views of a select group as normative does not change historical facts. In days gone by, when the standard practitioner of Sacred Harp was a Christian, no one tried to suppress testimonies in the square. They were offensive to none, with the possible exception of someone who went on and on with no end in sight! However, that was about the consumption of time, not the content of the talk. Today, many modern practitioners feel a special need to suppress such spiritual expressions, since they offend their worldview of unbelief. Somehow they are able to compartmentalize the sacred nature of the old Christian hymns in The Sacred Harp, but cannot abide a real-time expression of the same sacred nature made by living Christian witnesses. May God help us.

---

[i] Smith twice alludes to this being standard historical practice, including claiming that “early Sacred Harp singings” adopted the practice of not speaking in the square. Significantly, he does not actually provide any historical evidence.

[ii] Some things to think about. Who says the purpose was to control divisiveness? Is there any historical evidence that it was used this way? Why is this a modern concern? Who brought in divisiveness?

Baptists and Baptism Lite

“Baptism has been secularized; God, for all intents and purposes, is shuffled to the sidelines. The entire focus is on what those being baptized are doing. They are taking a step of obedience to God, and they are publicly professing their faith. But what, if anything, was God, who we know best in Jesus Christ, doing? Was God involved at all? Was God even present? If so, how, and what was he doing? Did baptism do anything? Or is baptism a matter that is entirely human, without any significant divine involvement?” Mark G. McKim, The Secularization of Baptism: How Baptists Took God out of Baptism, and How to Fix the Problem, Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2025

“The ordinances are a crucial part of what makes a church a church. When rightly understood, they present to the eye and the mouth a sensible gospel—a gospel that can be felt, seen, and tasted.” Josh Manley in “Who Should Administer the Ordinances?”

How singularly strange that many of the churches identified as “Baptist” possess an anemic and ambiguous view (and practice) of their most defining characteristic, baptism of believers by immersion!

It is theologically important. The Bible is our rule of faith and practice, and therefore the source of instruction on the meaning and practice of baptism. Baptism should follow the Bible, not modern secular philosophy. Baptism of the believer is important, but the God of the baptism of believers is the most important focus of biblical truth. Cf. Romans 11:36; 1 Peter 5:11; Revelation 4:11.

It is practically important. If the God of all the universe, who commanded baptism, is not involved in each baptism, then we become weak and sickly in the importance we place on it. Many modern Baptists try to “de-stress” baptism as much as possible – it doesn’t matter, it is not that important, it is okay for a believer to go through life unbaptized, and such like. This is ridiculous! Many professing Baptists live by a secular and deistic pattern, as if God has little involvement in the day-to-day matters of their lives. Acts 8:37-39; 1 Peter 3:21; Hebrews 8:5.

It is relationally important. The right heart, the right response, the right sincerity that moves the believers to identify initially, objectively, and publicly with their redeeming Lord. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity, with the Lord of the baptism and in the mode of baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Cf. John 4:24; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

In The Secularization of Baptism, McKim theorizes and demonstrates that “four factors led to the symbolic-only position becoming dominant. These were suspicion, in reaction to Roman Catholicism, of the idea of God revealing himself through the physical; the influence of the Enlightenment (and ‘embarrassment’ with claims that God could be acting in the world today); reaction against the Oxford Movement; and reaction against the understanding of baptism advocated by the Disciples of Christ (‘Campbellites’).”

Let me be clear. We Baptists believe that baptism is symbolic rather than salvific. I believe there is a bad tendency among some to go into a kind of sacramentalism on this issue. However, the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much is not the true Baptist position. Consider historically that the early American Baptist language on baptism was so strong that many of them initially mistook Alexander Campbell to be saying the same things they were. (Boy, were we fooled!) I fear that often modern Baptists just find it easier to adopt the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much attitude rather than do the hard work of carving out the middle position where the Bible stands. It is easy, and it fits the spirit of the age. And it is or can be hard work to explain it correctly. If you veer too far one way, it sounds like salvific sacramentalism. If you veer too far the other way, it sounds like anything, everything, and (mostly) nothing! It leads to many of the errors of modern day Baptists, from careless (e.g., not carefully requiring a sound profession of faith) to indiscreet (e.g., fire engine baptisteries and water slide baptisms). May God help us seek the old paths and walk therein.

Romans 6:3-6 ;Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Christian shape note

It is a sad commentary on The Sacred Harp that it is rather consistently promoted in modern times as a secular non-Christian activity. Yes, they will usually make some admission to its Christian origins and the existence of Christian hymn texts – but the emphasis is that this is for anyone and everyone. It does not matter what you believe, what is your lifestyle, or even if your worldview is antagonistic toward Christianity.

Now, we recognize that it is true that singings have always been public events to which anyone and everyone was invited. Sacred Harp singers thought their activity was a good thing that could be a blessing to anyone. However, that has been turned on its head, so that anyone and everyone should be strategically involved in how Sacred Harp should be conducted, promoted, written, and revised. 

In contrast to modern “standards,” the old conventions had detailed constitutions and bylaws. Every member had to agree to and abide by those rules. The North East Texas Musical Convention was organized circa 1866 (based on the dating of its annual sessions). “Article 9th” of the Constitution stated “The Sacred Harp shall be our text book at each meeting.” Not only was decorum expected at the convention, but outside of it as well. For example, “Article 10th” of the Bylaws stated “If any member be guilty of any bad conduct, such as drunkenness or disturbing the pease at Public worship, shall be dealt with as the Body may deem wright.”

Obviously the name “Sacred” Harp, the Christian themes of the hymns, and the purpose of conventions promoting “sacred vocal music” indicate what the origin and history of the music is. As one of our bright young Alabama singers reflected, “No one is going to make people say the apostles creed at the door, however, it’s the bare minimum to recognize the Christian nature of what is being participated in.” She also noted, “If that’s a turn-off for someone, perhaps they have been mocking God with a solemn sound upon a thoughtless tongue.”

In the context of that conversation, my daughter also emphasized, “It’s fair to say it’s increasingly evident that describing it [Sacred Harp] transparently as Christian is important and necessary.”

Some of us want to take back our tradition to what it was and is. This is not disinviting non-Christians, but a refined invitation asserting that you need to know and understand what this is before you come. If you do not like that, no one is making you do anything. Your choice.

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.”

Money, money, money, mun-ne

Peter Gurry on translations:

On John Piper’s Desiring God site, “The Word Increased and Multiplied: Grasping the Complexities of Bible Translation,” by Peter Gurry, who is an Associate Professor of New Testament at Phoenix Seminary.

Multitude of English language translations.

Gurry notes that “one scholar writing in 1925 catalogued over one hundred English Bible translations in whole or in part” (John V. Madison, “English Versions of the New Testament: A Bibliographical List,” Journal of Biblical Literature, No. 44 (1925): 261–88). He says that there are several reasons for this.

“The English language has the most Bible translations available of any language in history. Such variety is due to a number of factors, including differences in theological convictions and translation philosophy, new manuscript discoveries, a desire to reach broader audiences, and the financial needs of publishers.”

Notice that one factor is the financial needs of publishers.

Money.

Gurry discusses a few things regarding Bible publishing and money. On the one hand, a Bible translation success is potentially a financial boon for a publisher. Of course, a failure is not.

“One final motivation for new translations is financial. Publishing is a fickle business. Major publishers survive the risks in large part thanks to their backlist. These are books that have already come out and that keep selling. They can include everything from coloring books to classic bestsellers like Lord of the Rings. They also include the Bible. In a recent court case, the CEO of HarperCollins, one of the five big US publishing houses, which owns Thomas Nelson and Zondervan, revealed that Bible sales account for $80 million of their business. So there is significant potential to be gained if a publisher owns the rights to a popular Bible translation. But there are also no guarantees, and new translations do flop (as the TNIV did). Like other books, a Bible translation is a gamble — sometimes a very expensive one. By the time the NIV was finally released in the 1970s, its editorial costs were estimated to be around $8 million ($40 million in today’s dollars).”

Another part of this issue is groups trying to save money by publishing their own Bibles. This releases the group from paying substantial fees for the use of another publishers Bible.

“Translations can make money, but they can also save it. Very few of us notice an important page in our Bibles that precedes Genesis 1:1 because it’s tucked away between the title page and the table of contents. It’s the copyright page. The copyright page says who owns the translation, but it also specifies how much of the translation can be quoted before permission must be sought. My NIV puts the number at 500 verses, whereas my ESV puts it at 250. For most of us, these restrictions never apply and do not matter. But for publishers that sell Bible-study curricula, VBS material, commentaries, and the like, these limits matter a lot. Even when permission is granted, it may come with the need to pay royalties, and these cut into a publisher’s bottom line. So, it is often in a publisher’s own interest to have the rights to their own translation, and many do. Crossway owns the ESV, Zondervan owns exclusive rights to publish the NIV, Broadman and Holman owns the CSB, and Tyndale House Publishers owns the NLT. Each of these has their own set of Bible-study resources that use their own translation. It saves money.”

Gurry works to diminish the liability of admitting to publishing Bibles for financial reasons, writing about a publisher’s ongoing expenses and publishers putting some profits into translation into other languages. Nevertheless, “In any case, financial incentives certainly explain the increase in translation options. As long as people buy new translations, publishers will supply them.”

Gurry is a proponent of multiple translations, so his calling out financial issues is soft. We English-speakers – and especially Americans – ought not think of the proliferation of English translation as an embarrassment of riches, but just an embarrassment, period! We are spoiled, impulsive, and wasteful people.

The kings and priests in the Lord’s churches ought to consider the gravity of multiplying hundreds of translations to ourselves while some languages do not even have one. And the pillar and ground of truth ought also consider our neglect. We have farmed out the publishing of God’s word to financial interests.

Christ through the front door

Philippians 2:5,9 Christ Jesus … God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified…

Ephesians 3:21 unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus…

Many 21st-century American churches have an ABC focus – anything but Christ. On the right it may be separatist, conservative, and combative. On the left it may be welcoming, affirming, and transforming. In the middle it may be moderate, irenic, and ecumenical. Anything but Christ.

In my experience, the “run-of-the-mill” “Bible-believing” church likes to focus on things in the realm of entertainment and activity. We’ll get folks attention with a Super Bowl party, a Six Flags trip, or a Celebrity guest. Maybe a food and games festival. Then we’ll sneak Christ in the back door. 

Avoid such a church like you’d avoid the plague. Flee it like you’d flee the path of a raging storm. Ask for the old paths, where is the good way. Look for a church that seeks Christ in its prayers, worships Christ in its songs, and exalts Christ in its preaching. Look for a church that glorifies and magnifies his name. Look for a church that marches the Lord Jesus Christ in through the front door and seats him center stage for all to see. Avoid a church that smuggles him in under cover.

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?

Seven aspects of church music

We might say that Colossians 3:16 expands the aspects of Christian singing to bring out seven things.

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

1. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” The “devotional” aspect of Christian singing.
2. “teaching and …” The “educational” aspect of Christian singing. 
3. “… and admonishing” The “motivational” aspect of Christian singing.
4. “one another” The “congregational” aspect of Christian singing.
5. “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” The “biblical” aspect of Christian singing.
6. “singing with grace in your hearts” The “internal” aspect of Christian singing.
7. “singing with grace … to the Lord” The “vertical” aspect of Christian singing.

Four aspects of church music

Ephesians 5:19 speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

1. “speaking to yourselves” The “congregational” aspect of Christian singing.
2. “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” The “biblical” aspect of Christian singing.
3. “singing and making melody in your heart” The “internal” aspect of Christian singing.
4. “singing and making melody … to the Lord” The “vertical” aspect of Christian singing.

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.)

Faith Promise Giving, once more

Awhile back I had an anonymous commenter challenge my blog post about faith promise giving as “a total misunderstanding of what Oswald J Smith taught.” The person writes:

“This is a total misunderstanding of what Oswald J Smith taught on the matter. Furthermore, if you listened to him carefully, you’d have known that he wasn’t the creator of the idea.

“A faith promise was a promise one made to God to trust him to provide for them to give more than they thought their budget would allow. They would then believe God to provide for them to give what they had promised. He never asked anyone to be foolish or unwise but only to trust God to help them give more than they themselves might be able to without His extra provision. Respectfully presented. Nothing unbiblical about that.”

I replied briefly then, but make these additional remarks. Let us look a little further. Below is the 2-page tract of Oswald J. Smith (in Times roman type) and some responses from me (in Arial italic type).

A FAITH PROMISE OFFERING

Oswald J. Smith, Litt. D.*

A Faith Promise Offering is a Scriptural offering; it is a Pauline offering, and, therefore, God blesses it (2 Corinthians 8-9).

The Apostle Paul took up Faith Promise offerings. He would get the Church to promise a certain amount and then he would give the Church a year to pay it. Then, you remember, as the year drew to a close, he would send Titus, or someone else, to remind the Church of the promise that had been made, so that he would not be ashamed when he arrived. He wanted to be sure it would be paid. Then, at the end of the year, he came and collected it.

In this tract, Oswald Smith grounds his system in the practice of Paul, the apostle. Does his explanation match the practice of Paul? Only in a caricatured way. Of course, the Bible mentions no such thing as a “Faith Promise Offering.” No doubt, Smith would likely admit that and say he put a name to a principle he found in the Bible. Does this principle and practice exist? While Smith says Paul “would get the Church to promise a certain amount,” the text of 2 Corinthians 8-9 says no such thing. In fact, it is much the opposite. The churches of Macedonia were willing of their own liberality, and asked Paul to receive and distribute their gift (8:3-4). Further, Paul said that he spoke “not by commandment” (8:8).

In this tract Oswald J. Smith presents Faith Promise as a scriptural manner of giving. However, in Smith’s personal testimony “How God Taught Me To Give,” we find he did not discover this method through Bible study. Rather than taught from the word of God, he says that God spoke to him and told him to give a faith offering (and how much to give). All told, this gives the smell of an adopted practice that went searching for scripture to back it up – and 2 Corinthians 8-9 was the best available.

Have you ever in your life given a Faith Offering, or have you only given a cash offering? It doesn’t require any faith to give a cash offering. If I have a dollar in my pocket, all I have to do is tell my hand to go into my pocket, find the dollar, take it out and put it on the [offering] plate. I don’t have to pray about it. I don’t have to ask God for it. I don’t have to trust Him for any definite amount. I just have to give it.”

In encouraging to offer by “faith” what they do not have, Smith disparages those who give out of what they have – even though Paul said, “it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (8:12). Such a standard also disparages the “cash offering” of the poor widow who threw in her two mites, all that she had (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4).

But with a Faith Promise Offering it is entirely different. I have to pray about it and ask God how much He would have me give, and then trust Him for it, and month by month go to Him in prayer and ask Him for the amount promised, and wait upon Him until it comes in. that is the offering that brings the blessing.”

Smith would have us believe that those who do not give faith promises are not spiritual in their giving – they are not moved by faith in God, and they do not pray about their giving. This disparages the faith and practice of all those who do not follow his method.

That is about the only kind of an offering I have taken up for Missions in all these years, well over a quarter of a century now—a Faith Promise Offering. I would never go back to a cash offering. With a cash offering I could only get a very little, but with a Faith Promise Offering I can get much. In our Annual Missionary Convention we never get more than $7,000 in cash, but we get a quarter of a million or more in Faith Promises.

The testimony in this paragraph has nothing to do with scriptural or spiritual giving, but descends into pure pragmatics – we get a lot more money this way.

There is many a church that will not give a Faith Promise Offering. They are not interested in Scriptural giving. They will not obligate themselves for the definite support of their missionaries. They will not promise a certain amount to any one worker. They simply divide whatever comes in, in the way of cash, between various missionary societies. They don’t have to trust God for anything. If it comes in, they give it. But since there is no need to exercise faith, therefore there is no burden, no responsibility. I have no use for that kind of giving. I believe that every individual church should obligate itself in faith before God for a certain definite amount, and pray until that amount has been received.

The disparaging continues. Those who will not give a “Faith Promise Offering…are not interested in Scriptural giving.” Those who do not give this way are not trusting God. How arrogant, how high-handed! 

I do not believe in pledges. I have never taken up a pledge offering in my life. What is the difference, you ask, between a pledge offering and a Faith Promise Offering? All the difference in the world. A pledge offering is between you and a church, between you and a missionary society, and some day the deacons may come along and try to collect it, or you may receive a letter asking for it. In other words, you can be held responsible for a pledge offering.

A Faith Promise Offering, on the other hand, is between you and God. No one will ever ask you for it. No official will ever call on you to collect it. No one will ever send you a letter reminding you of it. It is a promise made by you to God, and to God alone. If you are unable to pay it, all you have to do is to tell God. Give Him your excuse and if He accepts it, you are free. You do not have to pay it. That, I say, is a Faith Promise Offering. That is the kind of an offering I preach and teach and take everywhere I go. I want to be Scriptural in all I do.

In these two paragraphs, Smith unconsciously contradicts his foundational text. Paul’s practice is like the pledge offering, between the church at Corinth and the missionary society (Paul and his co-laborers). Like the pledge, where someone will come along and try to collect it, so Paul “came and collected it.” In Smith’s “Faith Promise” system, “no one will ever ask you for it” – but in his description of Paul’s system, someone does ask for it! His text will not bear the weight of his teaching.

I have gone to many a church that has been opposed to a pledge offering, but as soon as I have explained the nature of a Faith Promise Offering, all opposition has disappeared, and those who have been most antagonistic to a pledge of any kind, have been perfectly willing to accept the plan of a Faith Promise Offering, and God has accomplished wonders.

I believe we could get all the missionary money we need if we would take up Faith Promise Offerings in all our churches.

These two paragraphs once again appeal to the pragmatism of the practice. I have no problem believing that doing things God’s way is practical. However, that is not the reason we do those things. And in this case, Smith fails to clearly establish that his practice comports with Scripture. 

Interestingly, Smith promotes this as a marvelous missions munificence, while never bothering to explain that this New Testament era collection was being taken for the saints at Jerusalem, not missions.

Have you ever given such an offering? If not, do it and you will be amazed the way God will bless you.

* Dr. Oswald J. Smith was the originator of the idea of a Faith Promise offering for missions. For many years, he was pastor of The Peoples Church in Toronto, Canada, where he challenged that congregation to raise $1 for missions for every $1 they spent on themselves. That story still continues today with his son as pastor.

The anonymous respondent claimed that “if you listened to him carefully, you’d have known that he wasn’t the creator of the idea.” Yet this tract plainly credits Oswald J. Smith as “the originator of the idea of a Faith Promise offering for missions.” I didn’t make that up.

Perhaps “anonymous” can equivocate because there were some antecedents before Smith created the “Faith Promise offering for missions.” 

In “Faith Promise Giving,” Eugene Gurganus says it originated with A. B. Simpson and was refined by Oswald J. Smith (Missions in the Local Church, Melbourne E. Cuthbert, Jeannie Lockerbie, 1998 p. 147). I think the clarity is found that Simpson was using a form of pledging which Smith refined and named “Faith Promise.”

“How God Taught Me to Give” by Oswald J. Smith is his personal testimony that shows he does not credit the word of God for showing him this truth, but a sort of subjective experience in which God told him to give a faith promise offering.

In the video How God Taught Me to Give, Oswald Smith tells his experience, beginning with the Proverbs 11:24-25. Despite starting with a text, the testimony is based on an experience, not from studying the Bible.

Perhaps Smith’s own son helps clear up the timeline. He writes about it this way:

The first faith promise offering in our times was probably organized by a Presbyterian minister. Dr. A. B. Simpson founded the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination — although a denomination was not a part of his original vision. Dr. Simpson was greatly concerned about world evangelization and the older Alliance churches existed primarily to promote and support foreign missions.

To do this they had a missionary convention every year at which their people were urged to designate a large percentage of their total giving to missions. They still do this. The offering is a commitment of what people will trust God to enable them to do win the next twelve months and it is generally called a pledge. The Christian and Missionary Alliance churches established the system and led the way for the rest of us in this kind of giving for missions.

…

The Alliance method of raising money for mission captured father’s imagination, but he was bothered by their use of the word ‘pledge.’ …My father searched for some word that would express the concept that had always been used in the Christian and Missionary Alliance churches – a word to take the place of ‘pledge.’

He concluded that the two words ‘faith promise’ would be ideal. This would retain the missionary offering concept of the Alliance people and eliminate the unfortunate connotations of the word ‘pledge.’ Whether or not this was actually originated by father I do not know. However, it is safe to say that it was his ministry that made the evangelical world familiar with the expression ‘faith promise.’ Very few of the tracts or booklets that have been written on the subject can complete their topic without reference at some point to Dr. Oswald J. Smith. (The Senders: World Missions Conferences and Faith Promise Offerings, Paul B. Smith, Burlington, Ontario: Welch Publishing Company, Inc., 1979, pp. 59-61)

So, according Paul Smith, Oswald J. Smith’s son, the “faith promise” system rose out of the missions pledge of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Smith tweaked it, gave it a new name, and new emphasis. The contemporary “faith promise giving” most certainly finds its genesis in Smith, even if he drew on the previous practices of others. Nevertheless, whether it originated with Oswald J. Smith, A. B. Simpson, or someone else is a deflection from the scriptural discussion, and will not make the errors of it scriptural.

“You don’t need any faith to give a cash offering,” says Oswald J. Smith. Says I, “Tell that to the poor widow who gave her two mites.”

---

Note: For another writing on Faith Promise giving, see Is “Faith Promise Mission Giving” Bible-Based?