“We have an altar”
Yesterday I
watched a 30 minute YouTube video narrated by Ryan Reeves, a professor at
Gordon Conwell seminary, on the history of Pentecostalism.[1]
The relatively unbiased and historical narrative on the rise of Pentecostalism
in the 20th century was spot on. Having lived in the Los Angeles
area since 1973, and being a student of the growth of Pentecostalism and the
charismatic movement in this hotbed of Christian heterodoxy, I learned nothing
new from this excellent video. Still, I was reminded of some things I had
previously unearthed.
Dr. Reeves
capably pointed out how much Pentecostalism and later the charismatic movement
has influenced every other part of Christendom, from Roman Catholicism on the
one hand to the Baptists on the other hand. Though Reeves did not explicitly
say it in his video presentation, I have observed the encroachment of
Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement upon the independent fundamental
Baptists for almost 50 years. Additionally, I am an avid reader of Baptist
history in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
The result
of my reading has left me very dissatisfied with the notion by so many of my
colleagues that they practice traditional Christianity and are committed
adherents to the “old paths.” Excuse me, but nothing that began in the 20th
century and was never before practiced routinely throughout Christian history
can possibly be an “old path.”
My
eschatology can be described as pre-millennial and pre-tribulational. My
evangelism can be characterized as Classical Baptist,[2]
since it is the approach that was not only used by George Whitfield, John and
Charles Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards, who were not Baptists, but also by the innumerable
men who came to Christ during the first great awakening and adopted Baptist
convictions and practices, men like Isaac Backus, the Marshalls, and J. L. Dagg.
The modern
missions movement began when Particular Baptists from England, who embraced a Covenant
Theology eschatology, started to engage in foreign missions church planting.
William Carey did not hold to the same eschatology that I embrace. Neither did
David Brainerd, a missionary to the Indians in New England. Neither did Adoniram
Judson, the American who went to Burma. Neither did Hudson Taylor, the famous
missionary to China and founder of the China Inland Mission.
I was always
told, and I have read in my first Bible school texts, that my view of
eschatology figured so prominently in my evangelistic motivation and concern
that no one who embraced a different eschatology could be as highly motivated
to reach the lost with the gospel as “our group.” I have not found that to be
the case in real life. The 19th-century missionaries who penetrated
so many continents and unreached ethnic groups were typically post-millennial
or amillennial in their eschatology. During my lifetime, I have become terrific
friends with two men, one from an African tribe in the Sahara and one from
Asia, both of whom are amillennial. Yet, they are the most committed and
energetic personal evangelists I have ever known.
Both men are
passionate to reach the lost, one in a 98% Muslim African nation and the other
in a country dominated by Hinduism and Buddhism while maintaining solid Baptist
convictions and practices without in any way being mealymouthed about their
identity as Baptists. May I also point out that I am not going wobbly concerning
my eschatology? I point out that it is not my experience from observation or
from reading Baptist history that one’s eschatology dramatically impacts his
passion for reaching the lost. The issue is far simpler than the complexities
of eschatology, in my opinion. It boils down to obedience to the Great Commission
and a Spirit-given love for the lost.
Allow me also
to circle back to this matter of “old paths.” Earlier I pointed out that no
practice that had its origin in the 19th century, and came into extensive
use in the 20th century, can be described as an “old path.” Yet
there are many uninformed and misinformed pastors and Baptist church people who
are convinced that referring to steps that lead from the auditorium floor to
the platform as an altar is somehow preserving an “old path.”
Recognizing
that centuries passed before Christians began meeting in buildings that were
built for and dedicated to assembled worship, and that many more centuries
passed before such buildings had more than dirt floors, the notion of steps at
one end of the auditorium that lead to a platform upon which the pastor speaks
as he is delivering his sermon is appropriately described as “an altar,” is
ludicrous in the extreme. Some church auditoriums do not refer to the steps
leading up to the platform as “an old-fashioned altar,” but have something akin
to a banister that they call “an altar,” or benches supplied with tissue boxes
for criers that they refer to as “an altar.”
Excuse me,
but this is nuts. And it is nuts for two reasons: First, it is nuts because
gospel preaching churches did not have any such thing for 1800 years that they
referred to as an “altar.” Only Roman Catholic churches had altars, and then
Greek Orthodox churches, and then Anglican churches, and then Protestant
churches. Baptist churches have never had altars throughout history! Therefore,
unless our Baptist forebears were wrong, there was no need to introduce in the
19th or the 20th century what was missing for 18 previous
centuries.
Additionally,
there is a biblical reason why Baptist churches never had an “old-fashioned
altar” until they began to diminish the importance of the Lord Jesus Christ in
the thinking of their people, replacing a consideration of the glorified Savior
with a piece of furniture. Blasphemous, if you ask me. Why so? Because the
writer of Hebrews tells us, in Hebrews 13.10, that “we have an altar.” The
venerable Baptist commentator James A. Haldane not only concisely but correctly
writes about this verse, “The Jewish sacrifices were offered upon the altar.
Now we have an altar, by which is evidently meant Christ. He is at once the
altar, the sacrifice, and the Priest.”[3]
I think it
is about time Baptist pastors display a willingness to rethink specific issues.
I am not suggesting the rethinking of my position on eschatology. As I read
through George N. H. Peters’ great work, “The Theocratic Kingdom,” my views
related to eschatology seem to be more firmly established. What I am thinking
about is a willingness to make claims that cannot be substantiated either by
history or by the Word of God.
On one hand,
I have never noticed in God’s Word, and have never read anything in Baptist
history, that would suggest a man’s eschatology influences his evangelistic
zeal. That, in my opinion, has more to do with one’s willingness to obey his
Savior.
The other
thing I think pastors ought to be willing to rethink is this notion of urging
repentant Christians and sinners to come to an “altar” which is a piece of
furniture when what we ought to be doing is calling sinners to come to the
altar we have, which is on prominent display in the Word of God, which is not a
piece of furniture, but which is the glorified, exalted, and enthroned Jesus
Christ, the Lord. Urging people to come to Him, you cannot go wrong.
[3] James A. Haldane, An
Exposition Of The Epistle To The Hebrews, (Springfield, Missouri:
Particular Baptist Press, Second Edition 2002), page 389.
