You may have missed it (like me), but yesterday was the anniversary of the Anabaptist Movement. This was a big deal for Dr. Paige Patterson and will be a perpetual observance at SWBTS. According to the school’s website:
President Paige Patterson proclaimed January 21 Radical Reformation Day at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary . . . “Today is a very significant day,” Patterson said, adding, “… a day that from this day forward in the life of Southwestern Seminary is going to be a day celebrated.”
Update: Baptist Press ran a story about this today.
If you need a refresher, you can read about the Anabaptist movement on wikipedia or the hall of church history. There were many groups that broke off during the Protestant Reformation. These were called “radical” when they would not wait for reforms to come slowly. Among these was a split from the Swiss church that led. The first Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and didn’t like the slow pace of Zwingli on other issues. The rest of the story doesn’t resonate so well with Southern Baptists and few maintain a direct link back to this group.
What Would A Radical Reformation Mean For The SBC?
Dr. Patterson’s words made me think about our current culture in the Southern Baptist Convention. Many people are calling for different reforms in the SBC. But I wonder if the Radical Reformation is a good model for the SBC. What would happen if we had some radical reformation in our own ranks?
1. 40,000 Church Splits
The radical reformers didn’t stop with Baptism. Soon, any doctrinal division led to another movement. The radical reformers were church-splitters, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. If SBC pastors followed their lead, then every local body would find good warrant to divide.
2. Protest Our Own Convention
Those pastors who were left would still be too radical to shout AMEN at our annual meetings. In fact, they would have to stand outside in protest this summer in Louisville. As a matter of conscience they could not participate in our corporate false witness regarding membership. Let’s not forget all the trouble these radicals would cause in the exhibit hall – every exhibit would be ransacked in the name of holiness.
3. Ban All Political Speakers At The SBC
Maybe this is not such a bad idea? The radical reformers were all about separation of church and state (after they failed to takeover a few cities). The idea of worldly leaders addressing our meetings would be an abomination. In fact, if we followed Grebel’s notions that Christians may not be magistrates, we’d need to remove several several Baptist congressmen from our churches.
4. Seek The Spirit’s Manifestations
Another shock to our SBC ways would be all the spiritual manifestations that come with the radical reformation. I would guess many Southern Baptists would become upset if “words of prophecy” started appearing as a regular feature in Baptist Press.
5. Bye Bye Baptist Faith & Message
The Anabaptists were not excited about confessions and typically rejected them altogether. So one might expect that a radical SBC reformation would greatly cut or eliminate our statement of faith.
6. The Ban Would Be Reported In Our ACP
One missing piece to our statistical records is the number of believers we have placed under the ban. This would change if we recovered the sense of holiness that accompanied the radical reformation. We might even have a goal to Ban 1 million members in 2009. At that rate, we could see real separation restored to our fellowships within 10 years.
What Do You Think?
I admit some of these thoughts were amusing to me and I dobut if we could really anticipate what radicals would do among us. But what do you think the Anabaptists might say if they could see us now? Is radical reformation the need of our day?
3 and 4 would be incredible!!
If 5 happened it would not be long before we stopped existing…
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Should Christians Support Torture?
Most Anabaptists believed in the Doctrines of Grace, as The Waldenses and the Paulicans.
3 AND 4 WOULD BE GOOD, BUT NOT 5, But not all Anabaptists believed that.
Dr. Paul W. Foltz
Funny post. You had me laughing at a a few of them. I think Patterson’s a nut if he thinks anybody is going to carry on that ridiculous tradition.
Good post, Tony. No, the need of our day is that we actually follow Jesus. We need Jesus desperately.
I studied the Anabaptists quite a bit in seminary. My theology professor at GGBTS was quite smitten with them. There were a lot of good things about the Anabaptists and they restored a lot to the church. They should be admired. But, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why SWBTS is making such a big deal about people from 400 years ago. History is important. I love it. It is a great teaching tool. But, if I walk into my church and say, “The Anabaptists say . . . ” Well, you know what will happen. But, if I walk in and say, “The Bible says . . .” people listen. Wasn’t the Conservative Resurgence about a return to inerrancy and Scripture? Why are we trying to force our interpretations of Scripture through the historical strainer of a movement that has LOTS of theological problems?
Alan Crosss last blog post..The God of Our Many Understandings? Robinson and Warren’s Prayers at the Inauguration
Tony, et al
I am glad Dr. Patterson’s proclamation is getting some digital ink. Though I am a wee-bit confused about whether you intend here a serious tone or a spoof. I honestly cannot tell (no I am not kidding!).
Alan apparently assumes it is serious. He writes:
If I may, who on God’s globe would think Dr. Patterson meant, by proclaiming a Radical Reformation Day, that Anabaptists trump Scripture? Such is almost too much to bear.
And, the stinging irony is, early Anabaptists made precisely Alan’s point in their dissent. That is, they insisted Scripture trumped tradition! Also, know they had no cultural luxury to proclaim this sola scriptura principle in the safe confines of a free America like Alan, I, and others do. Instead they signed their signatures with quills coated literally with their own blood.
Felix Manz was a darling disciple of Zwingli, a spiritual protege, who, through a study of the New Testament, came to a biblical conviction that faith precedes baptism. He was warned by both Zwingli and the Zurich magistrates to forsake such heretical atrocities.
Refusing, out of a biblically informed conscience to do so, a deputized posse tracked Manz down and took him to trial. And just as Saul stood at Stephen’s trial, “consenting unto his death,” so did the great Reformer consent to his disciple, Felix Manz’s death.
The verdict was guilty and the sentence was death by drowning, known then as the “third baptism.”
Manz was the first of many martyrs of the free church tradition or “believers’ church” or, more importantly for us, local church autonomy. George Blaurock, and later, Balthasar Hubmaier were both burned at the stake. Incidentally, one of the reasons some historians cite why Anabaptists wrote few confessions, etc. was because the most capable leaders (like Hubmaier) had very short life spans. They had no time to write, being on the run–and from fellow reformers at that!
Why such a magnificent spirit of biblical conviction cannot be applauded and honored among us, I struggle to understand. Nor can the objection be seriously maintained which wonders why are we “trying to force our interpretations of Scripture through the historical strainer of a movement that has LOTS of theological problems?” Among other things, this question sorely ignores the entire reformation culture–still shackled to rabid Constantinianism–not to mention wrongly presumes that the beginnings of a religious awakening and/or reformation ought to be born “full grown.”
There’s plenty other grain here to gnaw. But, I’ve probably already over-stayed my welcome.
Grace, Tony, et al.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter Lumpkinss last blog post.."The Cussing Pastor" Continues Influence Among Southern Baptists
Peter,
I agree with the Anabaptists in their dissent against tradition. Actually, I admire them greatly and their theology influenced mine a great deal where it was Biblical. My point is just that the appeal to Anabaptist theology from SWBTS is growing stronger and stronger it seems. If we are not careful, it can easily become the tradition of the Anabaptists that we appeal to and not Scripture. In doing that, we will end up disavowing their witness while holding them up as examples. Ironic.
I think that a better approach would be to compare these movements with the Word of God and discuss how they came to their conclusions. What was right? What was wrong? What was influenced by their culture? How did they react against their culture and the events of their day? What can we learn from them? No theology develops in a vacuum. At the end of the day, it is the Word that stands. It is good to admire the courage and conviction of Christian leaders of the past, but if we are not careful, we can exalt them beyond their merit. They were men as we are. The Anabaptists DID have some theological problems that cannot be overlooked. Baptists throughout history have understood this and have often distanced themselves somewhat from the Anabaptists because of these problems. Now, it seems that they are being glorified beyond what is appropriate for some reason that I am not sure of.
As for the best in Anabaptist theology and practice, is there anything there that does not also exist in Baptist theology and practice? If not, then why the strong recent appeal by Dr. Patterson and Co. to Anabaptists? Admire them when they are correct? Yes. Appeal to them repeatedly as the example to emulate? I’m still trying to figure out why that is happening at the level that it is. Anabaptists have descendents here in this country. They are called the Amish and the Mennonites.
Alan Crosss last blog post..The God of Our Many Understandings? Robinson and Warren’s Prayers at the Inauguration
Hmmm…. Let’s apply your logic to the idea of the SBC run by Magisterial Reformers. (Of course, following your lead, we will hold up only the most heinous examples of their behavior as normative)
1. State church of baptized non-believers—the only splitting this church does is splitting wood. I don’t know how this will mesh with the idea of regenerate church membership, but we’ll leave that for Tom Ascol and Malcolm Yarnell to humbly bring before the magistrate / SBC President.
2. Heretic burning at our own convention—it’s difficult to hear the AMEN over the roaring fire. Maybe the exhibit hall would have to be moved outside so as to capitalize on the crowds gathered to participate in the fun of persecution. Plus, it would make books from Southwestern and Liberty quickly available if fuel needed to be added to the fire.
3. Community planning, tax imposition, civic legislation and judicial rulings handed down at SBC—Of course there would be no need for ERLC since the church is the state. And we know from history that when the church takes over the state, ethics and religious liberty are no longer considered important.
4. Practicing two kinds of baptism—Infant baptism and the Third Baptism for those pesky Anabaptists who keep insisting on seeking the Bible as the source of their ecclesiology.
5. Bye-bye Baptist Faith & Message—hello catechisms, creeds and confessions. We might not guarantee what you believe, but we’ll guarantee what you say you believe (see points 2-4).
6. Our ACP would be jointly conducted by the US Census Bureau and LifeWay Research—this shouldn’t be a problem since both would fall under the prevue of the magistrate / SBC President.
While I’m sure (I hope) your post was meant as satire, it does play on misrepresentation and misperception concerning our Anabaptist heritage. It is no more accurate to mockingly deny our Anabaptist heritage than it is to deny our Reformed heritage.
Since Calvinists are understandably sensitive to those who mischaracterize their history and doctrine, I would think they would be especially hesitant to use the same tactics with regards to Anabaptist history.
When we as Southern Baptists recognize both our Anabaptist and Reformed heritage we can begin to draw from the best and reject the worst of each of them. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses—including Calvin and Zwingli AND Grebel and Manz. Each was the best of men, yet at the same time, each was a man at best. Rather than continually pit each against the other, may we learn the best from them and reject the worst.
Pastor Jims last blog post..Friday with the Fathers
@ Jim: Thanks for the great reply, there are two sides to every coin. Your satire demonstrates the point of mine, the past is gone and God has given us different challenges in our day. I enjoy church history and pray that God would help me love these brothers across time. But (like so many are saying here) – we need to recognize our heritage as a mixed blessing. Like some other commentators have said, let’s hold all of this up to the Bible and learn what we can.
If an uncritical following of the Anabaptists is your worry, then you need not worry much. Tony’s own post is evidence of that. It seems to me that Tony’s point is precisely that the appeal to the Anabaptists is being made inconsistently. What is the basis of this inconsistency? Have the good folks over at SWBTS not bothered to study the Anabaptists as carefully as Tony has?
Maybe—just perhaps—out of all those people over in Fort Worth, we have one or two just almost as wise and devout as Alan. Perhaps it has occurred to someone to examine Anabaptist belief and practice according to the Bible, to take the good, to discard the bad, and to be humble enough to see that we could learn some things from our Anabaptist predecessors.
Alan,
Thanks for the exchange, brother. Once again, you sense the need to caution that “If we are not careful, it can easily become the tradition of the Anabaptists that we appeal to and not Scripture.”
From my vantage point, this is nothing less than complete overkill, skewing a simple proclamation for celebration of our reformation roots given by one of our seminary presidents. To follow your curious logic to its end would decimate any acknowledgment of our heritage whatsoever.
In addition, thinking it better to “compare these movements with the Word of God,” because “Anabaptists DID have some theological problems that cannot be overlooked” assumes that a world class seminary like SWBTS evidently has shown no theo-biblical discernment in historical theology–or at least, has shown an inferior one concerning our reformational roots. I would be interested in some specifics here.
For example, since you state the appeal to Anabaptist theology from SWBTS apparently grows “stronger and stronger,” there must be evidence indicative of this other than our present topic. Is there, for example, a growing pacifist presence at SWBTS? Or, how about a strange, rising focus on “the ban”? Which professors are embracing either?
And, since many here seem to agree with Tony’s #4–the Radical Reformers seeking strange Spiritual manifestations–could you point to evidence indicative of that in Texas? I am not attempting to be cute. I am dead serious. I’d like to know.
Finally, you query if there is anything stellar in Anabaptist theology and practice that does not also exist in Baptist theology and practice. More than you realized, Alan, this goes to the heart of the confusion and assists me understanding more the objections you’ve raised.
The way I understand it, you’re fallaciously making a sharp separation between Anabaptist theology and practice on the one hand and Baptist theology and practice on the other. For me, such a separation can be maintained, if maintained at all, only by the grossest neglect of the historical record.
While distinguishing Anabaptist theology and practice from Baptist theology and practice is both proper and valid, severing these twin movements commits a serious injustice to our historical roots. The first is the theological trajectory for the second. Indeed, were it not for the first, the second would make no historiographical sense–a sort of theological rabbit pulled out of the historical hat.
Nor do today’s Amish and Mennonites as heirs to the more consistently developed Anabaptist movement validate the radical dichotomy you drew between Anabaptist and Baptist, any more than those Baptists today who appeal to the magisterial reformers as spiritual kinsmen–Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Cranmer–necessitate viewing them as joined at the spiritual hip with the magisterium. We simple must learn to make valid distinctions.
Barring such proper distinctions, my failure to understand the dots you’re connecting continues.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter Lumpkinss last blog post.."The Cussing Pastor" Continues Influence Among Southern Baptists
Alan, you said: But, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why SWBTS is making such a big deal about people from 400 years ago. History is important. I love it. It is a great teaching tool. But, if I walk into my church and say, “The Anabaptists say . . . ” people listen.
Isn’t this exactly what Calvinists do? As in, “Calvin said…”
I like Bart’s idea.. in general look at the whole lot of them and compare to the Bible and try and live your life by what Jesus said and did!
God bless,
Sallie
Bart,
Maybe I am being overly sensitive about this, but I don’t think I am. I’ve been in more than my share of disagreements in the blogosphere and tend to ignore snarky comments. But, it has been appeared to me for some time that you have little respect for me or my opinions/comments. Your sarcasm and condescending tone toward me has been apparent for some time, at least to me. I have ignored it and tried to discuss issues with you. I’ll be honest with you now, though, this comment was offensive and uncalled for, in my opinion: “Maybe—just perhaps—out of all those people over in Fort Worth, we have one or two just almost as wise and devout as Alan.” I am sure that there are professors and leaders at SWBTS wiser and far more devout than I am. I am sure that Dr. Patterson is one of them. I never claimed to be wiser or more devout than anyone. That is your judgment, not my perspective. I was just offering an opinion on an issue and I don’t see why you had to be personally insulting. Should I assume that everytime you offer a crtiquing opinion on an issue that you think that you are wiser and more devout than the people whose decisions you are commenting on? Or, should I give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you are just offering your opinion without spiritually comparing yourself to the other? Please tell me how I should read your comments so I don’t develop a false view.
Peter,
Thank you for disagreeing with me in a civil way. I don’t mind discussing things and learn a lot when I am not being insulted. As I said, I appreciate the Anabaptists a lot. Maybe I am wrong here. I am not trying to draw a sharp distinction between all of Anabaptist theology and Baptist heritage. Clearly there are direct links. Actually, when I was studying this in seminary, I was fairly convinced of a stronger link between the Continental Anabaptists and the English Baptists of the 1600’s than my professors and the Baptist historians I studied. I have no problem with that link or the many contributions that Anabaptists have given us.
What I am saying is that a focus on Anabaptist heritage at this point in this way is for a reason and I really don’t know what it is. The best parts of Anabaptist theology also exist throughout Baptist theology (using the same distinction that Baptist historians and theologians have used in separating us SOMEWHAT from the Anabaptists). I am not trying to completely sever or make sharp separations between Anabaptist and Baptist history and theology. If I gave that impression, I apologize. That was not my intent. I was trying to distinguish between the two because there are areas of Anabaptist theology that Baptists have not held to. I know that Dr. Patterson and those at SWBTS have done that, but once that is done, doesn’t that basically leave us with Baptist theology? Whether we like it or not, when you say “Anabaptist”, there are those who think of Munster and off the wall prophecies at the same time that they think of believer’s baptism. If I have a wrong opinion on this, I am happy to be corrected as long as you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not engaging in some kind of sinister scheme to undermine all of Baptist history.
I was at the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University in 2007 when Dr. Patterson delivered his paper on the Anabaptists. I thought that it was good in many respects, but I was left wondering what differentiated what he was saying about Anabaptists from the basics of historical Baptist theology. While it is interesting and helpful to point back to the Anabaptists, doing so creates perception problems like the ones Tony alluded to. Why not make the same points by appealing to English and American Baptists from the 1600’s and 1700’s? You will accomplish the same thing without the controversy.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. I find it kind of ironic because I’ve always been a big fan of the Anabaptists for their courage and conviction and their reclamation of believer’s baptism. I am in no way trying to disparage them. In a conversation, we would have immediately cleared any confusion up, but on a blog, preconceived ideas tend to color what we think of one another, I guess. Again, thanks for the dialogue.
Alan,
Just wrapping up one itsy-bitsy loose thread and, if you desire, you may have the last word.
In praising Dr. Patterson’s lecture on Anabaptists at Union, you ask, “Why not make the same points [that Dr. Patterson did in appealing to Anabaptists] by appealing to English and American Baptists from the 1600’s and 1700’s? You will accomplish the same thing without the controversy.”
Again, Alan, I must press this point: Post 1610 English Baptists were not spontaneously generated out of nothing. Though you obviously know this since you explicitly asserted “Clearly there are direct links” (emphasis added), the question above assumes an absence of links.
Two full generations before the earliest Baptists appeared on the scene, Anabaptists were rounded up in herds and, with tied hands, hurled into the Limmit River which ran through the middle of the Zurich village. Why? Because they insisted the New Testament clearly revealed repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus were conditions necessarily preceding water baptism. Or, in our terms, regenerate church membership and believers’ baptism.
Granted to skip this significant foundational stone–decidedly one of your “direct links,” if you will–curiously fast forwarding to 17th C England, without a moment’s hesitation, may eliminate some of the duly objectionable traits of our radical reformation kinsmen. Nonetheless, doing so makes our Baptist heritage grossly incomplete and un-understandable, not to mention such absence plants the feet of the Baptist movement squarely in mid-air.
She’s all yours, now, Alan. Grace.
Thanks, again Tony.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter Lumpkinss last blog post.."The Cussing Pastor" Continues Influence Among Southern Baptists
Alan,
Perhaps not every time I offer an opposing viewpoint, but whenever I make the argument that I’m following the Bible and the opposing view is following unbiblical historical tradition, you may indeed infer that my statement has deliberate implications upon the wisdom and/or piety of those whom I am critiquing.
Peter,
You might note that the same points are indeed simultaneously being advanced by reference to 17th century Baptists, 18th century Baptists, 19th century Baptists, and Anabaptists where appropriate. Yet the prediction that these other avenues of argumentation would not yield controversy has not borne out in experience. If the argument is not an attack upon the Anabaptists, it is an assault against the Landmarkers or the schismatics or whomever.
The ideas of regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and the like are controversial in-and-of-themselves and have been since the sixteenth century and before. They are controversial not only among the denominations, but also among those Baptists who have abandoned them or would gladly do so.
Bart,
That would make sense if that was the argument that I made. But, it was not. I don’t think that I claimed that anyone was advocating anything unbiblical. Please show me where I said that. Actually, I know that SWBTS is taking what IS Biblical from the Anabaptists and are highlighting that. I have said that again and again. My question involves why they feel the need to celebrate the Anabaptists in this the way that they are when there are many attendent problems with other aspects of Anabaptist history. It was a question that apparently has no answer. It was not meant to denigrate the Anabaptists. This might seem impossible to you, but I admire them greatly for their stance.
If you think that my questions mean that I do not value believer’s baptism and regenerate church membership, you would be wrong on that count as well.
Peter,
We are basically agreeing on the importance of the Anabaptists, yet you still feel you must argue. Let me be clear: I agree with the link between the Anabaptists and the English Baptists. I believe that it must have existed. Some say that the Calvinism of the English Baptists came from trips to Europe in the time preceding this. Why would they not have been influenced by the Anabaptists. All that was needed was to hear that they were being drowned because they believed in believer’s baptism to spark the thinking of people who were looking for truth. I am not wanting to skip over anything. I have addressed your concerns and told you that is not what I meant. I even apologized for giving that impression. Yet, you continue to think that I am trying to discard the Anabaptists. Not so. I just don’t understand why I am hearing more and more from SWBTS about them, when the case could so easily be made from all of Baptist history and most clearly from Scripture. By the way, that means that I think that their position WAS Biblical on the things that are being highlighted.
Anyway, it was just a question, not a statement of theological position made in opposition to the Anabaptists on the points being affirmed. Is this happening because of the Reformed veneration for Calvin? Do the non-Calvinists feel the need to go back into history and pour over the writings of Calvin’s contemporaries? Does that make people feel more secure in their position? I am a non-Calvinist, by the way. My soteriology is likely more in line with yours and Bart’s. I am just wondering about the recent emphasis from SWBTS (Patterson and Yarnell, to be specific) over the Anabaptists.
Alan Crosss last blog post..The God of Our Many Understandings? Robinson and Warren’s Prayers at the Inauguration
Alan,
Re-reading your comments, you are right that you did not explicitly assert that SWBTS was actually promulgating the unbiblical errors of the Anabaptists, and I was wrong for reading that into your anti-SWBTS criticisms. My apologies.
And among my regrets in jumping the gun is the fact that my snarkiness has completely overshadowed the points that I have decisively made:
1. SWBTS obviously is doing precisely what you have suggested that they should do: They have taken only the best and most biblical portion of the Anabaptist legacy and are drawing attention to it.
2. The constant attacks against SWBTS as being “Landmarkist” demonstrate that (a) SWBTS is highlighting not Anabaptists alone but is drawing our attention to all of those who have championed biblical ecclesiology, and (b) there is no safeguard against controversy in restricting oneself to Baptist historical sources while showing precedent for biblical ecclesiology.
great satire believer’s baptism gets you wet. The baptism of the Spirit 9I Corinthians 12;13] puts you into the body.
Terry T 01.23.09 at 10:46 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Okay folks am I just missing it or what?
I find this topic to be both important and inconsequential. It is important since the historic reality is that far more in the Anabaptist / Radical Reformation is undesirable than anyone has mentioned. Are we going to go ahead and adopt the idea of multiple wives as several of the Anabaptists did? Of course not, but the point is that theologically we have more in common with the Reformers (Calvin, Luther, et al) than we do the Anabaptists. Yes they did bring “regenerate church membership and believers baptism” to the table. For that we are thankful, but not much more.
I find this topic inconsequential when seen against the current state of affairs in our convention. We as Southern Baptists are becoming increasingly “Biblically Illiterate” as a denomination, in fact I have noticed in several of our larger churches a very large increase in those who don’t think it necessary to bring Bibles to church with them. We may have won the “Battle for the Bible” while losing the war. It is shocking to see the number of Senior High School students, most brought up in church all their lives, who lack the most basic of Bible knowledge. I teach 12th grade boys, a few years ago we did a survey of our youth and leaders were shocked to find that over 70% of our youth did accept that the Bible is “absolute truth, applicable to all people in all places through out all time”. 65% held that “God helps those who help themselves” was a verse in the Bible, they just didn’t know which book. Less than 20% could pick out a definition of the Gospel among four alternatives which included “We are saved by Grace through Faith in Christ Jesus”, the most common answer was “I am saved by asking Jesus in my heart”. Oh did I mention that 85% affirmed that man is “Basically good a heart” ? Well you get the picture.
Some of these arguments about our heritage are useless when the most basic of biblical truths have been lost. Maybe if we (as a denomination) put a priority back on the Gospel, of teaching our classes and congregations the “whole counsel of God”, building them up for “works of ministry” we would more easily understand and identify the positive influences that have shaped us from both the Anabaptist/Radical Reformers and the Magisterial Reformers while rejecting the negative influences.
Sadly, I see our convention wanting to continue to move either toward a “Purpose Driven” model which may bring great crowds to therapeutic /success-motivation talks or towards a “Missional” model which spends more time trying to ” look like, speak like, act like, drink like, cuss like the culture at large” rather than being Christ’s ambassadors with a message of reconciliation for the culture but both are increasingly a demonstration of “Christless Christianity” to borrow from Mike Horton’s new book.
Church discipline is a matter that needs to be restored as the bible teaches it. However, the restoration needs to be done with great care. I know of two churches which ceased the practice of church discipline due to miscarriages. Some one got disciplined, while the real culprit escaped. The Charleston Assn. published a manual of discipline. Dr. James Leo Garrett brought out an edition of the Charleston Discipline back in the 60s or 50s. I have a copy. Discipline is more than just excluding some errant member; it is an attempt to train believers in Godly living. The real purpose is to empower believers to live for the Glory of Christ. Due to the fact that various members in the church can have views on the subject that differ and due to the fact that it has often been done with a heavy hand, the practice has largely died out. Although I also suspect that it was a planned affair. Someone wanted an end to church discipline so they could do wht they wanted in the church. But then I am a conspiracist in historical matters to a very great degree. Still I draw comfort from C. S. Lewis’ view that the conspiracists pull down deep heaven upon their heads. Add the right theology to Lewis’ deep heaven and you have a very good description of a Great Awakening which is what we really want. Broken hearts will desire to do the Lord’s will with tenderness as well as firmness.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation