Tag: denomination

Quotes to Note 39: Alec Motyer on the Church

~ Bob Hayton

Alec Motyer has spent his life studying the riches of Isaiah, and I’m almost finished enjoying the fruits of his study so helpfully laid out in Isaiah By the Day: A New Devotional Translation (Christian Focus, 2011). In each of the daily readings in this book, Motyer presents his translation with commentary and offers a devotional in line with the text of that day’s passage. I came across a jewel of a quote about the Church, with special focus on denominations and how each local church is to be a picture of the whole Church. I thought it was a great way to look at things and offer it hear for your benefit as well.

The truth remains the same today: the Lord’s earthly people are themselves the temple in which he lives by his Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16), the locus and display of his holiness and beauty. Well may we mourn that our sinfulness, divisiveness, our failure in biblical distinctiveness, and our manifest lack of holiness have marred the image. Who, looking at today’s church–denominational or local–can see the likeness of Jesus? And this is not a matter only of denominational failure, though that is all too plain. The Bible knows nothing of our “denominationalism,” and if Isaiah’s wording promts us to put our hand to reform and renovation then its proper focus is the local church to which we each belong. When we look at the merest sliver of a crescent moon we don’t say, “Oh, there’s part of the moon.” We say “Look, there’s the moon.” In the same way each local church, however small–or in the eyes of onlookers, insignificant–is meant to be a mirror and image of the whole, an earthly replica of the heavenly reality where Christ is all. We should be able to look at the fellowships to which we belong and say, “There is The Church,” bearing the two oustanding marks of holiness and beauty: obeying the command, “Be holy because I am holy” (Lev. 19:2), and displaying the beauty of Jesus in all its gatherings, relationships and individual characters.

~ excerpted from p. 306, on Isaiah 63:15-64:12.

For a sample reading from this helpful book by Motyer, see this post.

Al Mohler, The Fundamentalist

~ Bob Hayton ~ 22 Comments

Christianity Today is out with a cover story on Al Mohler and how he lead the push to purge the SBC from liberal theology by reforming the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary. The article is entitled “The Reformer”, and certainly Mohler is that. It truly is an amazing story, even if the author of the CT story makes it very clear she doesn’t approve.

What struck me when reading this article was how similar Mohler’s battle for truth at Southern is to the battle that was waged at Princeton in the 1920s by the likes of J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til. The only difference is that Mohler won and turned back the tide of liberalism at Southern. He didn’t have to leave and found his own seminary, like Machen and Van Til did (when they founded Westminster).

“Fundamentalist” isn’t a popular label these days. And it’s meanings are many and varied. But by the truest, historic sense of the term, Al Mohler would have to be considered a fundamentalist. The question is, would today’s fundamentalists (of the independent Baptist variety) accept him?

Sadly, no. At least the vast majority would find some reason to distrust him or avoid allowing him entrance into the “seriously-devoted-to-God” club. Some would point to Mohler’s chairing of a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville as an act that belies Mohler’s true character (or at least points to something worthy of separation), while others would point to his more recent signing of the Manhattan Declaration. As an aside, that crusade carefully excluded the participation of Catholics, and Mohler’s explanation for why he signed the MD should be acceptable to any but the most die-hard of critics.

This is precisely the problem I have with most fundamentalists today. They refuse to get out of their box and see the world through non-sectarian lenses. Mohler is a convention man””not independent, like the fundamentalists. But the original fundamentalists were forced out of their conventions and denominations. Separation from doctrinal error, and militancy for truth have more than one manifestation. And from the fundamentalist side of the aisle, at a point several decades from the original conflicts with modernism which gave Fundamentalism its name, the thought that someone may be employing some form of separation from within a denomination doesn’t seem to register.

Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis recently explained how separation is a hallmark of what it means to be a fundamentalist:

…fundamentalism was always about more than belief in the fundamentals. It was about doing battle for the fundamentals, an attitude that came to be called militancy….

At first, the fundamentalists hoped that the liberals would leave the Christian denominations peacefully and quietly (a hope that, in retrospect, seems astonishingly naïve). Later, the fundamentalists attempted to purge liberal influences from their denominations by expelling the liberals. Failing in that, the fundamentalists themselves severed contact with the liberals by leaving the denominations. In all three forms, however, fundamentalism was about separation, i.e., ecclesiastical non-cooperation with apostasy.

If the original fundamentalists could have had their choice, they would likely have stayed in the denominations. They would have loved to see Al Mohler’s outcome in their own context. It didn’t work out that way for them. Unfortunately, many of the heirs of the fundamentalists can’t give Christian support and brotherly affirmation to their conservative brethren like Al Mohler who have so profoundly changed the SBC for the better. Instead, they find ways to maintain a skeptical distance.

I hope this attitude of distrust will diminish. I hope a greater striving for unity and a mutual welcoming of others as true brothers in the faith, will flourish. And I am happy to see signs of change in fundamentalism. A conference is scheduled at a fundamentalist seminary where Kevin Bauder and other fundamentalist leaders will be speaking alongside Mark Dever, a well-kown SBC leader. I trust this kind of thing will continue.

Fundamentalists have a lot to offer the wider church, and it’s a shame that they are so ignored and marginalized today. Sadly, this is due in large part to their own distrusting attitude toward even the best of evangelicalism””pastors and leaders who are often fundamentalists at heart, going by different names.

Deliberate Doctrinal Partnership: Why Denominations Can Be Helpful

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Denominations are often despised. Even many Christians outside of the independent Baptist movement frown upon such formal, concrete institutions. Indeed, mainline denominations have been trending left over the last hundred years and more, so some of these reactions are understandable.

But with the proliferation of non-denominational churches, and in Baptist circles, the mass exodus of independent churches from the denominations, a strange phenomenon has occurred. Rather than remaining aloof from any formal institutional organization, these churches have banded together in a vast array of associations, fellowships and networks. The problem with some of these new fellowships and organizations may be their newness. A forgetfulness of the past and a devotion to the pragmatic and the new, combine to make such fellowships especially prone to parochialism or doctrinal drift.

In all reality, looking back at the denominations we left, we find many of the same things that we have sought after today. Denominations have a built in missions organization. They have longstanding partnerships among like-minded churches. They offer help to church planters and pool resources for the training of men for the ministry. They also have a connection to the work of God in the past, and a wealth of experience from both the past and the present, with which to bring to bear on today’s challenges.

Certainly some denominations have totally capitulated to doctrinal error. I am not advocating the usefulness of that kind of partnership. Instead I am pointing out that many Baptist and Presbyterian denominations exist which can provide help to churches and a connection with an orthodox, confessional history. Other denominations are also vibrant and faithful, and deserve consideration especially if you plan to plant a church or go to the mission field.

Denominations in and of themselves are not necessarily hierarchical structures where all autonomy is lost when a church joins up with them. Nor is a partnership in this sense a full endorsement of all the activities under the tent that the denomination supports. The beauty of denominations is the doctrinal core that you must unite around to join, as well as the freedom and expansiveness to allow varieties of method and practice, and differences of opinion on lesser doctrinal matters. Denominations stand ready to allow churches to unite around the Gospel, and partner in the work of missions.

Every denomination is not created equal. But a good many doctrinally sound denominations could benefit by the presence of more member churches that are solid in faith and devoted to mission.

My thoughts along these lines were recently spurred on by reading a very helpful article by Ed Stetzer on the subject from this month’s Christianity Today. It is the cover article and is entitled, “Life in These Old Bones.” The subtitle explains, “If you’re interested in doing mission, there could hardly be a better tool than denominations.”

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s article and take some thought about the value of denominations. Don’t be ready to cast stones and praise your independence. Thank God for faithful denominations and the churches that founded them.