A Sad And Unsought Memory

"A Sad And Unsought Memory"

          I have served in my present ministry for almost 35 years. I was recently reminded, by the compromise of a long-time pastor, of a tragic sequence of events that occurred some 30 years ago.

There was a time when a certain the Baptist group I was formerly associated with was a vibrant nationwide loose assembly of independent Baptist pastors who met regularly for fellowship, supported several Bible colleges, and engaged in worldwide church planting missionary endeavors. At the local level in Southern California, that Baptist group was also active, with monthly meetings of pastors. Most of the time, the meetings featured sermons delivered by several attending preachers on a Monday evening, and the next Tuesday morning, ending with a Tuesday lunch.

I remember a particular meeting with sadness. It was held in what was at the time a Baptist church, with the Southern California group led by an experienced Baptist pastor. If I recall, he was originally from Texas, had been trained in Missouri, then pastored in Illinois, and finally settled in San Diego County. He seemed to have been quite conservative in his theology, in his personal manner and deportment, and in his philosophy of ministry. I also recall that insofar as his Baptist roots and acquaintances permitted, he had been favorably inclined to the late Jack Hyles’ approach to ministry.

Then his son went off to college and was trained to be a champion for Christ. His son did not go to the same school his dad had attended but enrolled in a school much farther away. After his son’s graduation, he worked for a time with his dad. He embraced an entirely different philosophy of ministry than his dad's, reflected by radically different personal standards and appearance, with a countenance that frequently indicated how off-put he was with old-fashioned pastors who attended fellowship meetings dressed in suits and ties.

Though I liked him and seemed to get along with both him and his wife, it seemed evident to me that his philosophy of ministry was far more reflective of Southern California evangelicalism than the independent Baptist movement that he had been born into and raised in, until he went off to school to become a champion.

My mild concern for him was confirmed when he became the senior pastor of a long-established Baptist Church, several counties removed from his father’s ministry where he had served after graduating from college. As his father led the Southern California fellowship of Baptist pastors, it was apparent to me that dad was very concerned that his son continued to fellowship with dad's group. However, the son seemed to express little inclination to continue doing so.

It was at a fellowship meeting in one of the Orange County beach city Baptist churches (that is no longer a Baptist church) that two things occurred, which stuck in my memory. First, the host pastor welcomed us to the church house only to inform us that the Baptist church where we gathered for our preachers’ meeting had, two days before, merged with another church. The other was not a Baptist church. He was no longer the senior pastor. The new resulting church was no longer a Baptist church. And our host made it very clear to us that our opinions regarding those developments should be kept to ourselves. Okay.

The second thing that occurred had to do with the pastor dad presiding over the meeting. He was concerned about the direction of his son’s life as a new senior pastor. His concern was expressed when the meeting came to order. The worried father presiding over the meeting expressed his hope that our Baptist fellowship would morph into the kind of group that his increasingly less and less Baptistic son would feel comfortable meeting with. His surprising words were on that occasion burned into my memory: “Can’t we all just be Unitarians? Guys? Can’t we all just be Unitarians?”

On reflection, I did not believe my older and far more experienced Baptist pastor friend and dad was suggesting that the gathered Baptist preachers abandon Trinitarianism. He was not a latent Socinian. He was not well-read enough to reach such a conclusion. He was frustrated with the realization that his son would not continue to fellowship with the group he presided over as long as we continued to be obviously and distinctively Baptists. He was desperate to hold on to his son in this respect.

Time has borne out my conclusion about his desperation. The pastor dad continued down the path of his attempts to influence his son and to lead him. He soon led his Baptist congregation to merge with a much larger charismatic super church, with the charismatic church acquiring his congregation’s valuable property and he securing for his old age a senior citizens ministry in the charismatic congregation. So, his pay check would continue, at least.

Thus, for several years of following his son, philosophically, doctrinally, and ministerially, he ended up utterly abandoning Baptist convictions and practices.

Of course, to pull this off, he had to resort to some skulduggery with his Baptist congregation, most of whom had far stronger Baptist convictions than he had. To accomplish this, he met with the Anglo church members without the knowledge of the Hispanic church members (somewhat more in number than the English speakers) and voted to do the dirty deed without the Spanish speaking church members knowing about it until after it was a done deal. A Filipino Baptist congregation was embroiled in and enraged by all this, but that is another posting.

I am sure that those involved in making the merger decision will deny that it was a merger between a Baptist church and a charismatic church. However, to verify what I feared had happened I called the church office of the super church that came to possess the independent Baptist church property and asked, “Is this a charismatic congregation? Are speaking in tongues permitted during worship?” The receptionist who answered the phone answered my questions with effusive affirmation. As well, the denominational website of the super church indicated that it was a charismatic denomination.

It is none of my business as a Baptist pastor to involve myself in the affairs of another, autonomous Baptist church. They can do what they want. However, I am saddened by the whole thing, specifically by two things. First, I am saddened that a long time and experienced Baptist pastor would surrender his Baptist convictions, doctrines, and philosophy of ministry in a failed attempt to influence his son. A spiritual leader, a Christian dad, does not influence his son by following him. A leader affects by leading. Sadly that did not occur with his father in his dealings with his son. Second, I am saddened that a Spanish pastor and congregation were dealt with so unethically and so deceptively by their pastor and by the Anglo members of the congregation they had joined and were serving in.

What brought up this sad memory from so long ago? At the center of all these sad details was a father who was so concerned about the direction his son was going that instead of providing godly and wise leadership for his son, he followed his son, dragged a fellowship of pastors with him in following his son, and obliterated an autonomous Baptist church as a result. It was a bit like David with Absalom.

We have an altar

“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 20^th 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 17^th, 18^th, and 19^th 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 20^th 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 19^th-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 19^th century, and came into extensive use in the 20^th 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 19^th or the 20^th 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.

---

[1] https://youtu.be/LzT3pRu2FkY

[2] https://classicalbaptist.press/

[3] James A. Haldane, An Exposition Of The Epistle To The Hebrews, (Springfield, Missouri: Particular Baptist Press, Second Edition 2002), page 389.

Working Out At The Gym

I was excited to receive notification last week that my gym had developed a smart phone app for me to download. I downloaded the app and discovered that my gym was not yet open for business, but planned to open on July 5. Imagine how excited I was to use the app to make an appointment to work out with a select few today at 11:00 AM.

As I stood in line, maintaining social distancing from others also in line, it was apparent that the front door was locked, prohibiting entrance into the facility before 11:00 o’clock sharp. I stood in line with my mask on and noticed the sign on the front door insisting that those working out wear both mask and latex gloves while exercising inside. I imagined that this was for the purpose of maintaining a rather sterile environment for the protection of others. I had no latex gloves with me and expected, correctly it turned out, that my gym would provide the latex gloves.

The door was then opened, and entrance was allowed for each person who could display on a cell phone the proper “no contact app display” proving my identity and my reservation to work out. I passed through the door and stood at the welcome desk, asking for latex gloves. The attendant ran to the back office and brought out a box of latex gloves that fit the hands of every woman who wanted to work out and that fit the hands of the men with great difficulty.

As I put on my latex gloves while walking upstairs to the weight room it dawned on me that the very act of putting on the latex gloves rendered the latex gloves no longer sterile. It is impossible to put on latex gloves without touching the latex gloves on the outside. Wearing latex gloves benefits the wearer but no one else. Thus, when one works out by touching the barbells, the kettle balls, the dumbbells, and the various exercise machines, every surface a customer touches is immediately contaminated. The next time I come into the gym, reusing the latex gloves they gave me, my gloves will be even more contaminated. Of course, they know that. It doesn’t matter. The whole point of gloves and mask to exercise is to calm the fears of the uninformed, the misinformed, and the frightened.

As I began to work out, I noticed especially the young men in the facility. The big guys, the muscular guys, the fit fellows, immediately took their masks off and mostly took their latex gloves off. They ignored the warning over the loudspeaker. Thus, the guys who were serious weightlifters were not about to encumber themselves with stupid and ineffective masks or latex gloves that interfered with a good grip. They did not care about any Karens who might be in the room. I laughed as I observed it all, and was particularly amused by the very conscientious (and not very muscular) mask wearers and latex glove wearers.

Notice my picture with masks on and latex gloves on. Don’t I look positively ridiculous? What a stupid way to approach vigorous exercise, by interfering with your breathing and encumbering a good grip.

The owner of this facility cannot be a moron. He cannot be an idiot. There is no possible way he would have reopened this facility without consulting sterilization experts and, more importantly, attorneys. This whole exercise in sterilization futility is not for the purpose of minimizing the likelihood of CCP Virus spreading, but to minimize the gym’s liability exposure when someone who has recently been to the gym catches the CCP Virus from an immediate family member. You can’t sue family, but you can blame the fitness center. That is what this is all about.

It’s the same with restaurants and churches. You cannot go into a restaurant without having a mask on. The establishment will not allow any patron to enter without a mask of any kind. Methinks a cheesecloth mask would be acceptable to most eateries. However, once you go in and sit down at your table, removing the mask is not only optional, it is necessary. Who can drink a beverage or eat food while wearing a mask? So why is a mask required to enter the restaurant? Purely for the purpose of reassuring the uninformed, the misinformed, and the timid.

This causes me to reflect upon church services yesterday. Our church has been conducting services throughout the pandemic lockdown because I am a Baptist pastor and we are a Baptist church. Baptists believe (or claim to believe) in soul liberty. Soul liberty prohibits me from denying other Christians the right to exercise their God-given liberty to gather for worship. Thus, Baptist pastors who close their auditoriums because of a government edict and deny their individual congregants the opportunity to exercise their God-given liberties as free moral agents, are not really acting much like Baptists at all.

I am also reminded of the thoughts that frequently ran through my mind throughout this pandemic lockdown, which affected most churches but which did not affect the church I pastor at all. Where were the leaders among the Baptists during the mandatory lockdown? Where were those with the courage of a lion, who annually conduct leadership seminars that young and gullible Baptist preachers pay money to attend, when the government was demanding that they shutter their auditoriums, and they meekly and timidly complied with those unscriptural, illegal, and obviously unconstitutional demands?

Where in the Bible does it say that someone wearing a white smock, with a stethoscope draped around his neck, is an authority figure whose demands and commands must be obeyed? Where in the Bible does it say that someone occupying a position of authority in government, whether he wears a uniform or not, is an authority figure whose demands and commands must be obeyed even when he directly violates the U.S. Constitution? And where did the legacy of Baptist civil disobedience in the face of outrageous infringements upon our God-given duties and privileges to worship and serve God fly off to when this CCP Virus pandemic came along?

Someone might express a concern that going to church during a pandemic might be dangerous. However, throughout most of Christian history over these last 2000 years it has been dangerous for God’s people to gather for worship, with the danger being far more violent than a sub microscopic virus. Courage is required to live the Christian life. Liberty is granted by God to His children so that we might individually exercise wisdom and caution in proportion to the danger, to our age, and to our individual susceptibilities to illness. But this notion of an entire nation’s population being locked down before we get sick is positively ludicrous.

I know a few Baptist pastors who have exercised wisdom by not calling attention to themselves, while continuing to conduct their church services. I applaud them. I say bravo. Those men remind me of the Baptist pastors of days gone by, the kinds of men that Patrick Henry used to defend in courts of law in the Commonwealth of Virginia for their defiance of government mandates that they restrict the exercise of their religious liberties.

I have no problem with the privately owned business requiring masks and latex gloves. I know that masks and latex gloves accomplish virtually nothing, besides calming the misinformed, the uninformed, and the timid. But, for God’s sake, and for Christ’s sake, I call upon Baptist pastors everywhere to ignore the leadership advice of those big boys who have been silent for the last 90 days, and start paying more attention to the conduct of men like the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter.

Racism or Sin? by Dr. William R. Downing

Racism or Sin?

A plea to pray for revival in our churches and a spiritual awakening in our society, by Dr. William R. Downing, pastor of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley, Morgan Hill, CA

     Our nation and society are being torn apart, we are told, because of racism, prejudice and police brutality. The protestors and rioters, allegedly protesting against the failures, actions and personalities of the past are themselves breaking existing laws and ordinances, and even deifying persons who were despicable in their lives and lawlessness. They believe that they can do so because their cause is just. They have torn down statues, defaced and destroyed buildings and looted businesses, demonstrated their violent actions, and vented their energies and hatred against the standing social order. Protestors and rioters have even torn down or defaced statues of abolitionists and such leaders as Lincoln, who allegedly emancipated the slaves! But all they have done or can do is destroy—they have not and cannot build.

     At the same time, our nation is celebrating fifty years of Gay Pride this week. Cosmetic companies are changing “whitening” creams to more acceptable terms. Universities are changing the names of their respective schools. Some cities are in the process of disbanding or defunding their police departments. This is “Political Correctness” and “Social Justice” run amuck in the extreme. We are a nation without morality.

     Is there something deeper than the Marxist–led mob in their desire to erase the past and establish a new world order? Yes. There is one single underlying factor and awful reality which permeates all this destructive violence—SIN. Mankind is fallen and sinful. It is easier to destroy than to build; easier to erase than to spell, draw or paint; easier to riot than to establish true equity. Man as a sinner has always wanted the “quick fix.” Like a spoiled child, he wants his own way and does not consider the consequences. He wants to take, but not give; to destroy, but not build; to curse, but not bless; to stand arrogantly, but not bow…

     What is most needful at this point in our national history and survival is Divine intervention. Law and order begin with a cooperative determination to have the best and safest for society. And even before this, there is a need for a moral base. Without a sufficient moral base any society is doomed. Historically, morality has derived from the religion of the society. This has been true of both pagan and so–called “Christian” societies. Any attempt at morality without a religious base is completely arbitrary and often unjust and inequitable.

     God has ordained the family and the church. Human government among fallen, sinful mankind is a necessary evil without a morality which derives from the Word of God. The uniqueness of America stems from its base in the Bible. Although never a truly “Christian” Nation, the influence of the Bible gave us the greatest nation in the history of the world. It influenced that “group of old white men” who gave us the Constitution and its Amendments.

     Apart from the Bible, morality, society and government are all arbitrary, as are its laws. The State becomes both “Parent” and “God.” Totalitarianism becomes a necessity as fallen, sinful man cannot rule himself or others equitably. All, then, must submit to arbitrarily a totalitarian government enforced by the use of arms—a police state.

     The Lord God has graciously given to our nation and society time after time of revival and spiritual awakening: the first occurred c. 1734–1750 under Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and others. This mighty work of God gave the Thirteen Colonies the moral impetus for a new nation. And this new nation reflected much of this biblically–based morality in its foundation.

     This new nation then experienced several spiritual revivals and spiritual awakenings from 1793 to 1840, delivering it from the baneful influences of English Deism, French Skepticism and German Rationalism. Even during the great financial crash of 1857, revival came (c. 1857–1859), and its force spread to the Britain, bringing revival to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. There was a great revival among the Southern Armies during the War between the States (1861–1865). There were spasmodic revivals during the last part of the 19^th century. At the beginning of the 20^th Century, the Welsh Revival reached our shores about 1905 and made a deep impression on our country.

     It has been 115 years since the Lord poured out His Spirit upon our land and people. We have sunk lower than ever before religiously, morally, ethically and socially. What now? Where are those who truly see that the root cause of our present unrest, violence and attempts to overturn our social order is SIN—and our hope is in Divine intervention. Can our past speak to us of hope in this time? Are we a praying people? Do we realize that we need God to “rend the heavens and come down…to make Thy name known to Thy adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Thy presence.”? (Isaiah 64:1–2).

MRI Meditation

MRI Meditation

Over the last couple of weeks, I have become frequently reminded of my mortality. Let me briefly recount the ways:

·         Two Saturdays ago, I had the privilege, the honor, of conducting the memorial service for a preacher friend that I've known for 25 years. His name was David, and he pastored a church in Redondo Beach was a fine man.

·         Last Tuesday, I had the privilege of taking my wife to Vada’s birthday party, celebrating her 100th birthday with her daughter and son-in-law and the many friends at the facility she lives at. Several church members also went there and I very much enjoyed myself with her.

·         On Saturday last, my wife and I attended the birthday party of a fine Christian woman who was a member of the first church I served as pastor thirty-five years ago. She celebrated her 80th birthday.

So, I have been reminded and reminded and reminded of mortality and the advance of age.

Now a separate line of thought. Several months ago, I began noticing certain sensations on the soles of my feet. I made an appointment with a neurologist who checked me for diabetic neuropathy. He concluded that the sensations on the bottoms of my feet (which are not painful) were not diabetic neuropathy. Whew!

The neurologist wondered whether or not the sensations in my feet were a consequence of a long-ago back surgery that I had, when my L5 lumbar vertebrae was fused to my sacrum in January 1969. I was a 19-year-old kid who had a weightlifting accident several years earlier, was subsequently discharged from the United States Air Force Academy because of it when it was discovered I was no longer ejection seat qualified or even flight qualified. That diagnosis resulted in me taking a discharge.

I decided to get the extreme back pain taken care of once and for all by checking into St. Vincent's Hospital in Portland, Oregon for the fusion surgery. From then to now, it has been what 51 years and the neurologist wondered if perhaps there was a connection between the back surgery and the sensations now occurring in the bottoms of my feet in my 69th year since neuropathy was ruled out as a cause of the symptom.

So today I went to get an MRI. When the narrow bed that I was on was pushed into the MRI machine, I experienced the very close quarters for the first time in my life. “Ah,” I thought to myself. “This is why they asked me so many different times if I was claustrophobic.” Of course, some people are so claustrophobic they can't take the confinement of an MRI machine. Additionally, I had not before been aware of how loud the noises are when an MRI machine is operating.

While lying still (hard for an itcher and scratcher like me to do), it suddenly dawned on me that sometimes people are diagnosed with stage IV cancer as the result of an MRI scan, having had no pain or any other noticeable symptoms. Imagine. Inside an MRI machine for about 20 minutes pondering the possibility that the doctor might diagnose me with cancer. Is that what is causing the weird sensations in my feet, cancer destroying that part of my lower spine that no longer has sensations due to the surgery fifty-one years ago?

At the time, the surgeon informed me that two very long scars would remind me of the back surgery, but that the incisions were unnecessary for the fusion. Rather, it was the protocol in 1969 to kill nerves to alleviate pain following the surgery. Hence, the long incisions. It ran through my mind that addressing a potential pain issue then might leave me without symptoms of something far worse now. The mind does wander.

I won't know anything for two or three days. The neurologist has to get the MRI results, and I have to make an appointment to see him. But in those few minutes in the MRI machine, I was reflecting on how much closer I might be to eternity than I imagined myself to be at the age of 69 without cancer.

Understand, I don't know whether I have cancer or not. I don't know whether there's anything there. The doctor is just taking a shot in the dark about something going on in my lower back as a result of my surgery long ago that might now affect the soles of my feet.

But the entire experience was orchestrated by my gracious Father to cause me to think about eternity. It is always good to ponder eternity. And what thoughts ran through my mind as I pondered those things, I would like to share with you. I was overwhelmed with peace. I was overwhelmed with gratitude. I was overwhelmed with contentment. I was thankful to the Lord for the opportunity that He has given me to serve Him for many, many years.

For a long time, I have had the privilege of ministering to people I love and care about, and I want to reflect in this Musings of a Gospel Minister what kind of feelings run through the mind of an old preacher who ponders how close he is to eternity, by the grace of God, and the comfort of God, and the blessedness of the indwelling Spirit of God. It's not a bad feeling. It's a comfortable feeling. And it's a confident feeling knowing that to be absent from the body is to be present with my glorious Lord.

I surely hope that should some occasion come into your life shortly where you ponder your mortality as I did this afternoon, that God gives you the comfort of mind and soul that He gave to me.

Bless you, preacher.

Our job this late in life is to finish well.

By the grace of God, I hope you finish well.

My friend David finished well.

I want to finish well.

Pastors Treating Pastors As Adults

PASTORS TREATING PASTORS AS ADULTS

A colleague recently invited me to speak at a preacher’s meeting. Being invited to speak at such meetings is an infrequent occurrence for me. Perhaps these musings will provide you with an idea of why I am not frequently invited to speak to pastors more often, though I have served in my present field of service for thirty-five years.

At the beginning of my time in ministry, I went to a very large gathering of pastors in the upper midwestern part of the United States. It was there that I first noticed the reluctance of the host pastor to treat invited pastors as adults. We (and there were thousands of us) were treated like children, and quite intentionally deprived of the information adults might expect to receive to make pertinent decisions. This happened every time I attended that annual event. I did not appreciate being treated that way, but I guess that most of the others in attendance didn’t mind at all. I stopped attended and most of them continued to attend every year and put up with being treated like children.

I read. I read a great deal. And my selection of material to read is quite wide if discussions with others who read are any guide absent a scientific study. As a result of my reading, I have come to appreciate what was believed in the past and what was practiced in the past. My reading has cultivated my appreciation for Baptist history, Baptist doctrine, and Baptist practice in days gone by. My reading has also led me to cherish Baptist distinctives, with my thoughts while writing this article settling on the Baptist practice of Baptist preachers treating other Baptist preachers as peers, as equals, with respect, and appreciation of our high and holy calling. None of this Protestant denominational hierarchy nonsense for Baptists … in days gone by. Would that it was still so.

Appreciation for past Baptist practices makes me sensitive to those who, in my day, withhold respect and appreciation from others who are similarly called to the Gospel ministry. Therefore, it is with regret that I reflect on the practice of some Baptists (in name, at least) who have the notoriety and resources to cultivate large followings and host large gatherings that allow them to treat grown men, God-called preachers of the Gospel, as anything but peers.

Allow me to illustrate. Decades ago, I was planning a trip related to family matters that I realized would coincide with a large gathering of pastors in the western United States close to my planned destination. Reflecting on the situation at hand, it became apparent to me that I had time to attend a portion of the preachers meeting, but that I would be unable to attend a full day’s schedule. It was necessary for me to make an adult decision about the wisest use of my time.

I called the church where the meeting was scheduled to begin in a couple of days and found myself talking to someone who had access to the information I needed, who would be preaching, and when. I needed this information so I could make the best use of my time. However, when I asked for that information, the person I spoke to refused to inform me who was preaching when following explicit orders from the pastor.

I was stunned. I verified that the schedule had been arranged. I verified that there was no inherent confusion about who was speaking when and on what topic. Yet this information was denied me. When I asked the reason for withholding that information, I was told that it was “pastor’s policy.” Such information was not to be provided for any of the preachers attending the conference. Did the person I was speaking to know the schedule? The answer was yes. Yet the information was a closely guarded secret of such sensitivity that visiting pastors who could not attend an entire day were not allowed the information they might need to exercise wisdom they needed to redeem their time.

It has been more than two decades since that exchange took place, and I still have not yet figured out why certain men of prominence withhold such information — no one in the business world functions in that manner. My own life experience provided me with no insight into the logic employed to establish and maintain such a policy. I used to work on a National Security Agency deep black program, so I have been read in on the need for compartmentalization of classified information. But who preaches at 10:00 AM and who preaches at 11:00 AM is a closely held secret at a Baptist church conference? Really?

I am left to wonder. I have never treated preachers that way. I have never figured out why preachers would be treated that way. Are others as committed to treating Gospel ministers as if they were children like I experienced forty years ago? Is it an ego trip? Is it a demonstration of ecclesiastical superiority?

I am a Baptist pastor. I have read enough history and conducted enough research in preparing to write two of the books that I know how Baptists used to conduct their ministries.[1] I can tell you that there was a day when Baptists not only held to the conviction of local church autonomy and the trustworthiness of the Bible but something commonly referred to as soul liberty, as well.

When Baptist pastors embrace the concept of soul liberty, they stop this nonsense of treating other preachers as children who are incapable of making their own decisions and exercising wisdom concerning the best use of their time.

What think you, pastor? Am I being overly sensitive about this? Or is this symptomatic of a more serious matter, a slide toward some form of Protestant hierarchical conduct that reflects an abandoning of core Baptist convictions?

---

[1] John S. Waldrip, The Church of Jesus Christ: 28 Truths Every Christian Ought To Learn, (Monrovia, CA: Classical Baptist Press, 2019), John S. Waldrip, The Blight Of Islam - Revised, (Monrovia, CA: Classical Baptist Press, 2018), John S. Waldrip, Suffer The Children (The tragic legacies of Finney & Bushnell), (Monrovia, CA: Classical Baptist Press, 2018)

Travesty Invitations

     There are two ways a Gospel minister can conduct an invitation for the sinner to trust Christ. He can either imbed his invitation into the body of his Gospel sermon (which is how Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Asahel Nettleton, and Charles Spurgeon did it), or he can tack it on at the end (which is how Billy Graham and John R. Rice did it). This ministerial musing has nothing to do with where in the Gospel sermon the invitation to trust Christ is found.

     Feel free to preach the Gospel and invite sinners to trust Christ. Never hesitate to engage in that high and holy calling. As you do that, however, recognise that among those who actually preach the Gospel (and most don't) there are a great many whose invitations to trust Christ are diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Gospel they purport to preach.

     Who initiated God's interaction with Adam? God. Who initiated God's interaction with Noah? God. Who initated God's interaction with Abram? God. Who initiated God's interaction with Isaac? God. Who initiated God's interaction with Jacob/Israel? God.

     Whose idea was it to send God's Son to seek and to save sinners? God. Whose idea was it to bring the Church into existence to carry out the Great Commission of the Lord Jesus Christ? Would you like to answer that it was the Lord Jesus Christ? Great. Would you like to point out that the phrase "church of God" is found eight times in the New Testament, suggesting that it was God's idea? Also great. The point that I seek to make is that there is nothing about the church or the church's mission that would suggest any initiating activity with respect to the salvation of the lost is to be found in the thoughts or conduct of anyone who is lost.

     From Pentecost when the church was empowered onward the initiative is always found with the Spirit-empowered and Spirit-led Christians in the Biblical record. There is not a single instance in the New Testament of the initiative in a conversion transaction by an unsaved person. On the contrary, it is always God, the Spirit of God, the glorified Son of God, or the empowered child of God who initiates the conversion transaction.

     And how about the comments made by the Savior?  Did He not claim that He came to seek and to save that which was lost? Of course, He did.

     That being true, why are Gospel ministers and well-intentioned Christians so determined to reverse the dynamic the Bible so convincingly and unerringly pictures without fail? This is done when the sinner is told, taught, encouraged, exhorted, and otherwise misled to "invite Jesus into your life." What! From where comes this notion that the sinner is responsible to invite the Savior?

     Such an approach to evangelism suggests by action if not openly declaring by instruction that the Lord of glory is waiting for the sinner's word, the sinner's permission, the sinner's go-ahead before He dares to make a move. Such suggests the Savior is passive when the Bible shows Him to always and only be the instigator of the sinner's salvation.

     Just as I have no desire to engage anyone in an argument about when to invite sinner's to Christ, be it during or after a Gospel sermon, so also do I have no desire to engage in soteriological wranglings. I only seek to point out to men who are convinced the Gospel and its presentation are so clearly shown in Scripture that at no time should a sinner be led to conclude that he is the active party and the Savior is the passive party.

     Quite the other way around, John 1.12 shows the sinner to passively receive Christ. Matthew 11.28 shows the sinner to be responsive to Christ's command to come to Him. I leave it to you to search the New Testament for verification and validation of what I bring to your attention. It is a violation of New Testament pattern and protocol to teach a sinner, to suggest to a sinner, to encourage a sinner, and (if I may be so bold) to allow a sinner to invite Christ into his life.

     No, sir! To be saved you are to respond to Christ. You are not to initiate anything with Him. Those who are dead in trespasses and sins are incapable of initiating anything with Him. He left heaven's glory, was born of a virgin, died a substitutionary death on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended to glory, and saves to the uttermost those who come to God by Him ... doing so by responding, reacting, repenting, and believing in response to Him (and those who represent Him) via the Gospel.

     Only when this dynamic is appreciated and honored by the Gospel minister or the witnessing Christian is Jonah's declaration reflected: "Salvation is of the LORD." Am I suggesting that those who invite Jesus into their lives are not saved? No, I am not.

     I am suggesting that Gospel ministers and witnessing Christians conscientiously emulate and imitate as much as humanly possible the approach used to bring people to Christ found in the New Testament. It is better to urge the sinner to receive Christ, to believe in Christ, to believe on Christ, or to trust Christ than it is to suggest the sinner invite Jesus into his life. Why so? The Scriptural approach more implicitly acknowledges Christ as the initiatior and the instigator than does inviting Him into your life.

     The travesty invitation seems to invite Christ to do something He already purposed to do, came to do, and has declared He does. The proper invitation is an invitation to the sinner to respond to Christ, rather than the sinner inviting Christ to do something.