New Nick?

A Baptist Press article dated Feb. 24 announces an upcoming vote at the June 2012 convention on whether Southern Baptists will change their name...sort of. The actual task force recommendation which the Executive Committee approved would not change the legal name, but instead would permit using a non-legal descriptor. A nickname, if you will. Furthermore, its use would be entirely voluntary (sometimes it is amazing how many rules we SBC folk have amassed when you consider how much of it is "voluntary"). Therefore if your church wants to stick with the descriptor "Southern Baptist" (or "Southren Babdist" as they say in some parts), you can go for it.

Why the prospective name change? Well, it seems it's a little more challenging to do church plants in, say, New York or Greenland, with a geographical reference like Southern in your name. The thought is people may tend to regard your denomination as being limited to a certain area of the country. Not sure why that is. After all, in a country where the Dallas Cowboys can be in the NFC East division and Texas A&M, a former Southwest Conference team (back when the Southwest Conference still existed) can join another former Southwest Conference team, the Arkansas Razorbacks, in the Southeast Conference, it would appear that at least in the football world directional cues are not such a big deal. Maybe it's different in the Protestant denominational world.

Whatever the reason, it looks like the SBC may soon be called something else. The task force which recommended the change had asked for suggestions and received 1151 suggested new names according to the Baptist Press. Many of these, such as the top suggestion (Global Baptist Convention), appear sensitive to avoiding limiting the denomination name to a particular geographical area. The International Baptist Convention, at number two on the list, World Baptist Convention at number nine, Worldwide Baptist Convention at number ten, and Global Baptist Convention at number fourteen all seem geared toward recognizing that the SBC does church all over the world. I did not see that the suggestion Heavens and the Earth Baptist Convention made the list, perhaps that would be thought a little grandiloquent. However, Universal Baptist Convention did come in number twenty, according to the Baptist Press.

Some suggestions did maintain a little geography, with North American Baptist Convention coming in at number six and American Baptist Convention and Baptist Convention of America coming in at numbers eight and twelve, respectively. Perhaps those voters figured the Anglicans put churches all over the world but held on to a national reference in their name, so why not?

And you gotta appreciate the simplicity of numbers seven and eleven: The Baptist Convention and Baptist Convention. Amazing that a simple definite article can account for a four-place jump in the rankings.

Looks like most are agreed we want to keep the name Baptist in our name, and that's probably good, because, well, we are Baptists. John the Baptist was one, you know. Well, okay, he was a baptist, not a Baptist, but it sure impressed me when I was a little kid, before I was a Baptist.

Oh, and the name that was picked by the task force? Great Commission Baptists. Yeah, it's a couple more syllables, but I think we might get used to it.

Decisions decisions

This post by Bobby Jamieson presents some interesting propositions about the issue of voluntary resignation from a church. While I agree with a lot of things the 9Marks organization promotes, and even see a few valid points in this particular article, I also have to take issue with some of Mr. Jamieson's conclusions.

Yes, it is good for the pastor and the leadership of a church to perform some due diligence when a member resigns. It is good to see if the resigning member is actually asking for help or for a listening ear, or if something in the church needs correction or modification. Every case is different, but certainly there can be those times when the leadership might urge the resigning member to reconsider.

But ultimately, if a member decides to leave that church, they can do so. Jamieson writes,

A member cannot unilaterally resign.

It would be a scary statement if it were true. This is not 16th-century Europe after all. Heck, it's not even 17th-century Massachusetts. A member can, in fact, unilaterally resign. He can even resign without giving the church a reason for doing so. Continuing to serve with a particular local church body is a voluntary decision on the part of the individual member.

Jamieson also quotes from the constitution of his own church:

"The church shall have authority to refuse a member's voluntary resignation or transfer of membership...for any...reason the church deems necessary or prudent."

Well, that is a very bold claim, but you can't just name it and claim it. The focus of Jamieson's article, that of drawing the attention of church leaders and pastors to the issue of losing members through the proverbial back door, is something to be concerned about. But the solution is not authoritarian overreach or unrealistic assertions of power. It is a humble servant-attitude, sound teaching and a loving, edifying environment. Even then, some members will choose to resign.

They can.

Just Sayin'

Here's another review of Dan Phillip's book, The World-Tilting Gospel. This one is by blogger Fred Butler. Looks like we had a similar take on the book.

The Tilting Truth

A recently released book by Dan Phillips explores how the gospel turned the first-century world upside -down (Acts 17: 6) and how modern evangelicalism too often constructs barriers against its having the same effect today. The World-Tilting Gospel, published by Kregel Publications, is what Phillips refers to as a "whole-Bible" approach to the gospel, beginning not in John 3: 16 (as important as this verse is) but in Genesis 1: 1.

If you've ever visited Phillips' blog or the Pyromaniacs blog where he is one of the team-bloggers, then you probably already know he is an excellent wordsmith with a technical scribal talent that enables the reader to glide through his prose with remarkable facility. In The World-Tilting Gospel, he combines his considerable skill in the mechanics of the written word with a propensity for direct and unambiguous communication, tosses in the occasional proverb and the intermittent dash of wry humor, and sets forth his case for a whole-Bible, world-tilting worldview.


The book has more theology than you likely realize while you're reading it, even a few brief word-studies in Hebrew and Greek, and is instructive, doctrinal, evangelical, exhortative. It ministers to the curious seeker, the new convert, and the mature believer alike. It makes you a little uncomfortable. Sometimes a lot uncomfortable. Lots of the teaching comes straight at you but some of it has a little more nuance (he gets some predestination and unconditional election in there without being overt about it. He even makes a brief but compelling argument that regeneration precedes faith). It is a book that can be handed out as a tool for evangelism or taught chapter-by-chapter in a Bible Study group.


He starts with a definition of who man is and who God is. He exegetes from the first three chapters of Genesis with some insights from this text that you may not have considered before. He defines sin, and expounds on the doctrine of original sin. He sets forth a very complete Christology and detailed straightforward teaching on substitutionary atonement. He explains imputed forensic righteousness and salvation by grace alone through faith alone. He does these things in understandable language, and many readers probably won't realize how much doctrine and theology they're actually getting. He discusses sanctification, and deals effectively with three widespread errors in the Christian growth paradigm-- categories which he labels "Gutless Gracers" (easy-believism), "Crisis Upgraders"("carnal" vs. "spiritual" Christians) and "Muzzy Mysticism" (Inward rest/victorious walk). He provides one of the better definitions of the "flesh" I recall seeing, even in more formal works.

He talks about Gospel obedience, and exhorts the believer to "get on with" living and telling it. He doesn't attempt to finesse or sidestep on key doctrinal issues, and this will no doubt disturb the postmodern crowd. He takes a world-tilting approach to a world-tilting subject.

Out of Perspective

In the previous three posts I have discussed the issue of legalism in response to an article by Timothy Gombis in Christianity Today titled, "The Paul We Think We Know." Gombis endorses a New Perspectives view that seeks to minimize the pervasiveness of legalism in first-century Judaism and reinterpret Biblical passages that are clearly dealing with the issue of legalism.

Because of this effort to downplay the effect of the erroneous view that one could establish a works-based righteousness by works of the law, Gombis asserts, "First-century Judaism didn't have a legalism problem; it had an ethnocentrism problem." Gombis holds that Jewish believers in Paul's day wanted to convert Gentiles professing faith in Christ to Judaism because they viewed Christianity as being inherently Jewish. Thus, Gombis refers to Romans 3: 20, which says,

"because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight;for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (NASB)

This, says Gombis, is not to refute Jewish legalism, but refers to the fact that "God does not justify a person merely because he is ethnically Jewish." If this is his New Perspective on Romans 3: 20 then he needs a New New Perspective. Paul does often address the fact that the gospel is offered to both Jews and Gentiles, but in Romans 3: 20 he is making two points:

1) By the works of the law (Greek: ergown nomou) no flesh (sarch) will be justified, or declared righteous, before God;

2) through the law is the real knowledge (epignowsis) of sin.

The first point establishes that no human will be judged righteous because he earned his righteousness by keeping the law. It is a clear repudiation of legalism. The second point clarifies that, rather than having the achievement of a meritorious righteousness as its goal, the purpose of the law is to reveal to the sinner his sinful condition. This too refutes the legalistic notion that the purpose of the law is to earn a righteous standing. In Romans 3: 20 Paul emphasizes that the law does not justify and the law is not intended to justify, but rather to reveal sin. In Romans 3: 21-28 Paul explains that justification is a gift, by grace through faith, concluding in verse 28,

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works ofthe Law." (NASB)

The idea that Paul is not making a carefully developed case against legalism, or the false notion of works-based righteousness, cannot be sustained by a close reading of the text. The apostle makes very clear in the first three chapters of Romans the manifold ways both Jews and Gentiles have transgressed the Law, concluding in Romans 3: 9-19 that all humanity is under sin, then begins in Romans 3:21 and following to explain that righteousness is not earned but is a gift through faith in Jesus Christ. Note the summary of his case in verses 23-24 of Romans 3 (NASB):

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;".

It is, no doubt, a direct doctrinal challenge for the legalists of Paul's day and also through the centuries since. We should be careful not to detract from Paul's clear teaching about the righteousness of Christ credited to the believer by grace through faith. In declaring the believer righteous, God did what the law could not do. That is the truth Paul preached.

What It Is

My previous two posts discuss legalism in the first century, both among the Pharisees and as a threat to the early church. I pointed out that it manifested itself in two forms: as an attempt to establish a works-based meritoriously achieved righteousness, and as a system of extrabiblical man-made rules and regulations which are used in addition to, in place of, or even in some cases, in contradiction to scriptural commands.

It may be helpful here to clarify what legalism is not. It is popular in some circles to respond to every exhortation to obey scriptural commandments with the misplaced accusation of legalism (sometimes the term "Pharisee" is even used). But legalism is not obedience to biblical standards of conduct. It is not moral behavior or holy living. These are requirements on the Christian, not as a means of earning salvation, but as a servant-heart response to the lorship of Christ. A new creation is expected to live like a new creation and a repentant sinner should behave like they are repentant. Obedience to God is not legalism and Christ said "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments."

Freedom from legalism is not an excuse to sin, as Paul makes emphatic and unambiguous:

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!" --Romans 6:15 (NASB)

The New Testament is filled with exhortations for obedience to God's commandments, thus it is not legalistic to enourage others to obey these commandments. So Paul tells the Galatians "For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another (Gal. 5: 13)." The apostle James exhorts, "but be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves (James 1:22)." The apostle Peter commands, "But like as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living (1 Peter 1: 16)." John says "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 5: 3)." The writer of the letter to the Hebrews instructs, "Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen (Heb 13: 21)."

In fact, chapters 6-8 of the book of Romans make clear that it is precisely because believers are free from the law of sin and of death that we are also free to obey God. While the Christian will not achieve perfect obedience until meeting Christ and being made perfect, there should still be a pattern of sanctification, maturing, and growing obedience in the life of the Christian. There should be a desire to obey and an increasing fruit of obedience.

And that is not legalism.

Legalism Part II

In my previous post I discuss an article by Timothy Gombis in Christianity Today titled "The Paul We Think We Know". Specifically, I address Gombis' New Perspectives notion that Paul would not have considered Judaism legalistic and that the early church was not tempted toward legalistic works--based righteousness. In that post I covered some examples from Luke's and Matthew's gospels showing the grip legalism had on the Pharisees, who in turn were regarded as experts and teachers (John 3: 10) of the people of Israel.

In this post I want to discuss examples of the first-century church's struggle against legalism. While Paul's letter to the Galatians provides one prominent indication of this struggle, his letter to the Colossians is also instructive in this area. It highlights the syncretized nature of the legalistic attack on that particular church which came not only from a background of pharisaical law, but also mystical pre-gnostic ideas and attempts to achieve righteousness through a rigid asceticism. Paul deals with all these legalistic forms in his letter to the church there.

So he warns, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day (2: 16)." Then, "If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, handle not, nor taste, nor touch...(2: 20,21)" He describes these things in verse 23 as having only a show, or appearance of wisdom and religiosity. Earlier in verse 8 he commanded the believers to "see to it" that they not be taken captive according to human tradition, human wisdom, and worldly tenets. It shows a concern on the apostle's part that there was danger and he wanted them on guard against legalistic tendencies.

It is interesting to note that at the end of the letter Paul sends greetings from Luke, who was obviously with him at the time. The emphasis in Luke's gospel on Christ's adamant rebuke of the legalism of the scribes and Pharisees shows that Paul's perspective was shaped by Christ.