Yarnell Sermon Pivotal Gauntlet in IMB Policy
Dr. Malcom Yarnell's dialogue with David Rogers continues at loveeachstone. His white paper will be the seed of much blogging and SBC discussion as it posits the "official" position of the IMB majority trustess in a sermonic format.

One Blogger's Reply.
My response would be the following:

Wow. I see now that if you disagree with the "narrow" view of cooperation as evidenced in the Yarnell sermon, you are "out of line" with the BF&M. I didn't know we had voted on Dr. Yarnell's sermon as being synonymous with the BF&M 2000. Perhaps it was in a footnote the years I joined with thousands of other messengers to adopt the document.!?

Seriously, Dr. Yarnell's passion and commitment to our Lord are shining through in the white paper. What is distressing is his narrow view that only Baptists (should I now read that only Southern Baptists!?) are actually fulfilling the Great Commission.

My NT/Greek professor in Seminary (Kendall Easley. . .Mid-America) made a helpful distinction which has served me throughout my pastoring and teaching. He suggested what would help most debates would be a clear demarcation between heresy and error. Many times we throw mud at brothers with whom we disagree, and actually go across the line into calling them heretics, when in actuality what they are believing/practicing is error.

Without pretending to speak verbatim for David, Wade Burleson, Joel Rainey, et al; I would say that we believe that one can be absolutely committed to Southern Baptist theology, ecclesiology, and polity without viewing our Christian brothers (may I say Great Commission Christian brothers!) as being so out-of-touch with the Savior that we could not evangelize, pray, take communion, and worship alongside of them.

In this regard, we view the Billy Graham style of cooperation as the more proper model, as against a more militant (a.k.a. fundamentalist) seperation model.

I will diligently and vigorously defend my Baptist position with my paedobaptist friends, and with my Wesleyan buddies as well. But I will not accuse them, either to their face, or behind their back as being either unsaved or in disobedience to the Great Commission because of their equally cherished (and, in their hearts, Biblical) beliefs.

Interestingly, under Part II, D, (Baptizing) in defining the heart of a Baptist, Yarnell states 10 reasons for baptism:

1) baptism for believers only
2) baptism by immersion alone;
3)baptism based upon one’s profession of faith;
4)baptism as a meaningful symbolic representation of personal conversion;
5)baptism as a faith commitment;
6)baptism as an ethical commitment;
7)baptism into a local congregation;
8)baptism as participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ;
9)baptism as identification with the one God who is yet three—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
10)baptism as a public testimony to regeneration.

How does this decalogue on baptism relate the the FOUR beliefs necessary for IMB appointment by the majority trustees? Interestingly, nowhere in Yarnell's list is eternal security mentioned. So if one should adopt even Yarnell's expanded list (again, endulge me to affirm that David, Wade, et al strongly support each of the 10)---that still does not get you over the hurdle of exluding so-called "alien immersion" because of eternal security as the policy does.

Under II, E (Teaching), Yarnell states that "The sufficiency of Scripture states that our “doctrines”–that is, our teachings–need to be drawn from the Bible, and that we may never go beyond the Bible for our authority. Scripture, in other words, is sufficient for the message and practice of Baptist churches and their people."

One couldn't possibly write a better critique of the IMB policy than what Yarnell has done in these two sentences! Baptists will seperate only when the Bible demands such. . .and those who oppose the new policy are saying that Scripture nowhere demands a rejection of baptism solely upon a lack of belief in eternal security.

Interestingly, while challenging the reader/listener to avoid the extremes of Hyper-Calvinism and Hyper-Arminianism, Yarnell fails to highlight the irony that in warning of the dangers of Hyper Calvinism & Arminianism, he neglects to mention the equally dangerous notion of theological reductionism.

Reductionism is the idea that all of important theology may be summarized around one key idea. In the classic SBC layperson, this would be evidenced by thinking that all one must believe is "once-saved-always-saved." How, theologically, is one to maintian this "one point Calvinism?" It doesn't matter---we all, in the words of Rodney King, need to just get along. (By the way, I am not accusing Yarnell of believing this point).

In Yarnell's paper, Baptist theology shares the disease of theological reductionism by filtering out all other distinctives as secondary to the Great Commission. I know of thousands of pastors, teachers, and missionaries of other denominations who could affirm what he has written along these lines.

Thankfully, in most of the rest of the white paper Yarnell positions true Baptist theology as being deeper and broader than this. But in searching for a "Key" to tie Baptist theology down, (a somewhat needless exercise, I would suggest---why do we need such a so-called distinctive, just because the Reformers or Anabaptists had one?!) Yarnell appears to slip for a moment into this morass.

I look forward to hearing from others in this continuing debate.

SBC Controversy leads to a Resurrection!
AP--(Murray, Kentucky) This just in from Chuck Norris. . .The endless blogs on tongues and baptism (how exactly do those two topics fit together. . .I've heard of wet kisses!?. . .but we digress) has led one blogger's site to actually RISE from the dead. Or at least from a very lengthy hiatus. Other responsibilities like work and family have been left in the wake, reports suggest. For the two people who have been faithful readers in the past to my blog, welcome back.

Musings on Future Ramifications on IMB Policy
For the uninitiated, read the summaries of the controversy here or here.
What I have not seen elaborated on anywhere in the blogosphere are the possible future implications upon the candidates and their churches, not because of either of the "telltale" issues of tongues or baptism concerning the candidates themselves, but rather the authority issue as concerning the church from which they come.

For instance, suppose Alex and Sandy are baptized members of 1st Baptist Anytown, of Western Kentucky. This growing church has strong SBC history and ties, contributes 10% of their undesignated contributions to CP, and affirms in their church bylaws BFM 2000 as their confessional stance. But because this local church accepts "alien immersion" from denominations which immerse but do not require a belief in eternal security for membership, are Alex and Sandy to be accepted for missionary service? The slippery slope would suggest not. This year the IMB trustees are after those whose baptism is invalid. One can easily imagine that in 2-3 years (once all of the non-pure candidates are cleansed from the would-be missionary ranks) the trustees will want to make sure that each candidate also comes from a church that only accepts pure baptisms!

This reality is alive and well among churches who hold to "proper authority" (the 4th suggestion in the Hatley paper). Frequently in many parts of the SBC (including in Western Kentucky where our imaginary Alex & Sandy reside) Kentucky Baptist/Southern Baptist churches are denied a letter from being granted from their "sister" KBC/SBC church down the road---because the previous church views the "alien immersion" church as not being a church of "like faith and order." [In our hypothetical, Sandy's little sister comes to join 1st Baptist Anytown from "Strict and True Baptist Church" in the same town. . .but a letter is denied because 1st Anytown is out of step theologically].

So today we are told Alex and Sandy can be missionaries (since they themselves have a "biblical" baptism in spite of 1st Anytown's misguided acceptance of invalid baptisms) but tomorrow perhaps they will be denied because their church has some in their ranks who were immersed in a church without eternal security requirements.

The slippery slope arguments only become more absurd when you consider that while Alex and Sandy are suitable candidates by baptism, their pneumatology is, it must be said, not correct. While they affirm the BF&M 2000 in every detail (since it has no comments on tongues, after all!) they are non-charismatic non-cessationists. In short, while never having spoken in either a "language" of tongues as a gift in public worship nor experienced tongues in their private prayer life, they nevertheless interpret Paul incorrectly, it seems, by viewing the gifts of 1 Cor. 12-14 as being possible for today. Alex (College and Seminary trained with CP dollars) reads the text of the Bible itself, finds no declaration that the sign gifts are inoperable, and thus remains cautiously open to all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Alas we see again, that though he remains a viable candidate today for overseas appointment, the trustee theologians in a year or so will vote that not only must candidates embrace a non-charismatic cessationist practice, they must also adhere to the same in theory and theology.

It is with a grieving heart that I pray that our convention, which has seen a great theological, missiological, and truly evangelical move of God around this world will not be diverted from purpose or practice by straining at the gnat of theological detail upon which humble, loving friends should be able to disagree but work together.

Evolutionary Monkey Business

Newsweek's magazine for College students, Current, has a very interesting article "Monkey Business," on the campus presence of students who do not accept evolution. As the author, Victoria Bosch (a senior at Penn State University) suggests,

Each year, students who are not convinced by evolution enter college classrooms. These students are often nervous about how their beliefs will affect their grades in natural science courses. Their backgrounds are varied; many who believe in creationism or intelligent design describe themselves as evangelical Christians, like Scott, but others are Muslim, agnostic, or even atheist. Some think the Biblical explanation of the beginning of life is literally accurate, that life began in the days after an omnipotent god created the Earth. Others think that life began with small organisms and that the evolutionary process that did occur with our development was guided by a deity. Still others think that evolutionary theory lacks the necessary support to make it believable.

Further: Though there are few firm statistics, it is clear that not everyone with a university degree hanging on the wall believes in evolution. A CBS News poll released in October 2005 stated that 15 percent of all Americans believe that humans evolved without the guidance of a god; other respondents believe either that humans evolved with God's guidance or that humans were created by God in their present form. The numbers alter only slightly among Americans with at least one college degree, 24 percent of whom believe in evolution. Young Americans are more likely to believe in evolution, possibly a result of a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that forbade public schools from teaching creationism as fact. Even so, large numbers of students on college campuses remain ill at ease with their professors' assertions that the world dates back to the Big Bang, not to the Garden of Eden.

Quite an article that is VERY non-P.C.

In other Evolution news. . .

The January 1, 2006 issue of The New York Times featured an opinion column by Olivia Judson, an evolutionary biologist at London's Imperial Hospital. In "Why I'm Happy I Evolved," she gushes about her pleasure in being the product of purely natural and material forces and processes.

She argues:

Some people want to think of humans as the product of a special creation, separate from other living things. I am not among them; I am glad it is not so. I am proud to be part of the riot of nature, to know that the same forces that produced me also produced bees, giant ferns and microbes that live at the bottom of the sea.

For me, the knowledge that we evolved is a source of solace and hope. I find it a relief that plagues and cancers and wasp larvae that eat caterpillars alive are the result of the impartial - and comprehensible - forces of evolution rather than the caprices of a deity.
More than that, I find that in viewing ourselves as one species out of hundreds of millions, we become more remarkable, not less so. No other animal that I have heard of can live so peaceably in such close quarters with so many individuals that are unrelated. No other animal routinely bothers to help the sick and the dying, or tries to save those hurt in an earthquake or flood. Which is not to say that we are all we might wish to be. But in putting ourselves into our place in nature, in comparing ourselves with other species, we have a real hope of reaching a better understanding, and appreciation, of ourselves.

She is glad to be part of the "riot of nature." She is relieved to believe "that plagues and cancers
and wasp larvae that eat caterpillars alive are the result of the impartial - and comprehensible -- forces of evolution rather than the caprices of a deity." But all she can then say about the wonder of humanity is that we "can live so peaceably in such close quarters with so many individuals that are unrelated." She also points to examples of human altruism. But that is it. What about war and violence? Like Thomas Hobbes, some observers would suggest that hatred and violence, oppression and bloodshed, murder and mayhem, would better describe the nature of our species.

The materialistic worldview cannot explain why humanity should be considered to be more worthy of concern or of respect than the rest of the natural world. Given this worldview, some would plausibly argue that humanity does more harm than good on the planet. Meanwhile, the Christian worldview explains why humanity matters, and why human beings are capable of committing both great deeds of altruism and awful deeds of mayhem.

All this aside, Olivia Judson is perfectly pleased to consider herself, and all the rest of us, to have evolved.