I went to a pastor’s fellowship in another county several weeks ago. On
my way there, I met and began conversing with two 50-year-old lesbians. One of
them had grown up in Malibu, the daughter of a 93-year-old engineer who likely
worked on the same covert satellite design project I worked on almost 50 years
ago.
During our conversation, one of them asked if I had led our Church to
discontinue services during the pandemic lockdown. I informed them that we had
not suspended our services because I was not persuaded that, as the pastor of
the Church, I had the authority to tell Church members not to gather for
worship. They were delighted to hear that and informed me that they had begun
attending church services during the pandemic lockdown to support pastors and
congregations who have read and understood the Constitution. What an
experience! Two lesbian artists told me they began attending Church because
they understood how unconstitutional government lockdown mandates were and wanted
to support pastors and Churches doing the right thing!
While eating lunch at the pastor’s fellowship, I was asked about
fellowship meetings in my area. I commented that not many pastors have a desire
to interact with me at fellowship meetings. One of the wives asked, “You know
why most preachers don’t want to interact with you at fellowship meetings, don’t
you brother John?” I asked her. “What do you think is the reason?” She said, “it’s
because you ask hard questions.” She meant that as a compliment, and I took it because
I am convinced hard questions must be asked. It is unlikely that correct
answers will be found unless correct questions are asked.
The conversation with the two artists and the remark by the pastor’s
wife got me thinking about something. I will not relate to you the entire
process but will skip to this thought. Have you ever noticed what a pastor says
when asked to justify a decision he has made or a position he has embraced that
is scripturally indefensible? Likely as not, the pastor will say, “Well, that’s
our stand.” The phrase “That’s our stand” is designed to end the discussion, shut
down the conversation, and escape any responsibility to defend a scripturally
indefensible position or stance.
From time to time, I observe Baptist pastors engaging in very
non-Baptistic approaches to ministry. Allow me to cite three examples:
Some pastors staked out their turf as strong fundamentalists by tilting
at the windmills of dress codes for women. They establish rules forbidding
females to come to the Church facilities unless they wear dresses, skirts, or
culottes. They decry trousers as immodest indications of ungodliness. Methinks
they had forgotten that the New Testament was written during the days when
trousers, dresses, skirts, and certainly culottes did not exist. Back in the
day, people wore togas, with the togas men wore differing only in degree from
the togas women wore. Yet some guys make it a rule that a mom is not allowed to
drive the Church campus to pick her children up from the Christian school
wearing slacks! Really? Sadly, Church members put up with that nonsense,
deacons tolerate such unscriptural lunacy, and pastors who do not engage in
that brand of idiocy are nevertheless silent around other pastors who do. Such
a dress code is not only unscriptural but also anti-Baptist. Keep reading, and
you’ll see why.
A 2nd example has to do with Bible translations. I have been
in the gospel ministry for almost 50 years and have chosen to employ only and
always the King James version of the Bible. I use that translation for reasons
of textual criticism. I also use that translation despite the advocacy of a
Seventh-Day Adventist and a thrice-married brilliant man who was not biblically
qualified to comment or even attempt to lead others in spiritual matters. Quite
aside from the case of the King James Version of the Bible is the erroneous
notion that any spiritual leader
has been granted authority from God to insist that a child of God use one
translation of the Bible and not another. A bit of history will convince anyone
with the eyes to see that the first on the scene to insist on an inspired
translation of the Bible was the Roman Catholic Church demanding that only the
Latin Vulgate translation be used. Our Baptist forebears were martyred for
their stand on the principle that no one has the right to demand that a
Christian use a version of the Bible but that individual. So, more than a
thousand years later, we have Baptist preachers demanding and commanding their
church members to use a version of the Bible while denying them the Christian
liberty to make their own choice. It does not matter to me that the version
pushed by such spiritual dictators is the same version that I use. What matters
is that no one has been granted the spiritual authority to demand and command
another child of God what translation of the Bible they must use. I am appalled
at the number of men in the gospel ministry who do not recognize this gross
violation of biblical principles and Christian liberty.
The final example in this iteration of Ministerial Musings is related
to the lockdown. I mentioned my conversation with two women who recognized the
incongruity of pastors and Churches locking down because of an illegal,
unjustified, unscientific, and unconstitutional government mandate. Yet all
over the United States of America, gospel ministers were willing to knuckle
under government edicts issued unconstitutionally and complied with by pastors
unscripturally. Regardless of whether or not I agreed that a lockdown was
scientifically and medically appropriate, a gospel minister has not been given
scriptural authority to tell Church members not to gather for worship. Even
more aggravating to me, videos are airing on the Internet showing Baptist
pastors who purport to be leaders, who conduct leadership seminars, but who
demonstrate no leadership during a time of crisis. And when you finally see
them stick their heads up above the bushes, they are playing 2nd
fiddle to charismatics. This is intolerable to me.
Whether it is a dress code, the insistence that Church members use a specific
translation of the Bible (even if it’s the only translation I use), or
compliance with illegal and unconstitutional government mandates, I grow weary
of pastors adopting scripturally indefensible positions.
Rather than engage in an in-depth study of God’s Word at this point,
allow me to reproduce the work product of my friend, Dr. W. R. Downing (followed
by concluding remarks):
Baptist Distinctives
There are several great Baptist
distinctives which characterize the biblical and historic Baptist position.
These major distinctives include:
First, the Scriptures
as the only and all-sufficient rule of both faith and practice. This stands
in contrast to other historic criteria such as religious tradition,
ecclesiastical authority, creeds, church councils, rationalism and modern
religious irrationalism which stresses subjective experience and emotionalism.
Second, salvation
by grace alone. Salvation by grace implies: that salvation must be
scripturally viewed in the context of the eternal, infallible redemptive
purpose of God (Rom. 8:28-31; Eph. 1:3-14) and that grace is unmerited favor in
the place or stead of merited wrath. Grace and works or human ability cannot be
commingled (Rom. 9:6-24; 11:5-6; Eph. 2:4-5, 8-10). Grace is more than a
principle. It is at once a principle-as opposed to works or human
ability, a prerogative--God freely and sovereignly bestows this grace on
whom he will, according to his eternal, infallible purpose; and a
power-which enables· the sinner to freely and effectively lay hold of
Christ by faith (Phil. 1:29); Regeneration or the "new birth"
precedes faith and repentance (Jn. 3:3, 5-8; Acts 16:14; Jas. 1:18); Gospel
holiness and righteousness are necessary characteristics of experimental
salvation and Christian experience (Rom. 6:1-23; Eph. 1:3-6; 4:22-24; Col.
3:9-10; 1 Thess. 1:3-5).
Third, believer’s
baptism by immersion. This Baptist distinctive derives from the truth of
the New Testament as to both mode of-immersion, and subjects--believers. There
is no record of the immersion or sprinkling of infants, or the intentional
baptism of unbelievers in the New Testament. On this New Testament distinctive,
the Baptists stand in opposition to both Western and Eastern Catholicism, and
traditional Protestantism. We can change neither the mode nor the subjects
without altogether changing the significance of the ordinance.
Fourth, a regenerate
church membership. This is distinctive of a true New Testament or Gospel
church, and necessarily implies:
·
That church
membership is voluntary. A church that practices the immersion or sprinkling of
infants and considers the Church to be composed of both believers and their
children is largely involuntary in membership and alien to the New Testament.
·
That the
membership is bound by a common personal faith and saving interest in the Lord
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (Acts 2:41-42, 47).
Fifth, the priesthood of the individual believer. In
the context of the New Covenant and New Testament, there is no priest-cult or
sacerdotal mediator between the individual believer and his Lord. Every
believer is a “king-priest,” and has immediate access to God through the Lord
Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1-3; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:13-10:18; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev.
1:6).1 The priesthood of the individual believer stands in the
closest relationship to soul-liberty or freedom of conscience.
Sixth, the autonomy of the local assembly under the
Lordship of Jesus Christ. The autonomy, or self-governing nature of each
local body of Christ, presupposes four realities:
·
The
terms Pastor, Elder, and Bishop all designate the same office in
the local assembly. There is no ecclesiastical hierarchy, or church office that
exists apart from or beyond that of the local assembly.
·
The
New Testament does not teach an “Apostolic Succession,” therefore Baptists do
not recognize any authority above the local assembly, except that of the
Lordship of Jesus Christ and his inscripturated Word. Matthias replaced Judas
to fulfill the prophetic Scripture (Acts 1:15-26), but no one ever succeeded
the original Apostles of the New Testament era into that office.
·
There
is no extra-biblical authority that rules beyond the local assembly, such as
presbyteries, councils, synods, denominational conventions, national churches
or associations.
·
The
so-called “First Church Council” held at Jerusalem in Acts 15, although
attended by the inspired Apostles, was actually a conference between two
local churches and possessed no authority beyond the agreement of the Apostles
who attended.
Seventh, soul Liberty or freedom of conscience. Only
the Word of God can command the conscience of the Believer. It is foreign to
the teaching of the New Testament to bind the conscience by religious
tradition, ecclesiastical decree, denominational standards; or attempt to
enforce religious convictions by means of the civil authorities. Church
discipline, or exclusion from membership and its privileges, is the extremity of
church action. Further, this is not done by degrees, but by a definitive act of
the membership.
All Baptist distinctives derive from the
Scriptures, predominantly the New Testament. Any given church is therefore a
New Testament or Gospel church to the extent that it conforms to the New
Testament; conversely, to the extent that any given church departs from the New
Testament, to that extent it ceases to be a New Testament or Gospel church.2
1 Cf. Heb.
5:5-6; 6:20; 7:1-25 for the perpetuity or everlasting nature of the priesthood
of the Lord Jesus Christ. Cf. esp. 7:23-25. “unchangeable” is ἀparάbaton, lit: “inviolable, untrespassable.” No Romish, Mormon,
Jewish or Protestant priest can trespass upon the priesthood which our Lord
holds.
2 Appendix
III, W. R. Downing, The New Testament Church, (Morgan Hill, CA:
PIRS Publications, Revised 2006), pages 274-275.
Notice especially the 7th of the Baptist distinctives, soul
liberty or freedom of conscience. Is a Church pastor granted scriptural
authority to tell people what clothes to wear? Is a Church pastor granted
scriptural authority to tell people what version of the Bible to use? Is a Church
pastor granted scriptural authority to tell people not to gather for worship in compliance with an unconstitutional
government mandate?
As I understand God’s Word, not only is the answer to each of these three
questions a resounding “No!” but leaders of congregations who violate these
principles, despite how they might self identify, are clearly not Baptists in
the classical sense of the term. There is nothing wrong with respectfully
challenging and querying spiritual leaders about their positions and practices.
However, as soon as possible fellow tells you, “Well, that’s our stand,” you
know you are speaking to a man who is not really a Baptist at all.
