Theology Central
Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.
The Man in the Shadows
During the Christmas season, two figures stand rightfully in the spotlight. One is Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem. The other is Mary His mother. A third figure generally remains somewhere in the shadows: he is known to have been present but hardly seems to matter. That man is Joseph.
Many Christians treat Joseph as a placeholder. Since they know that Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin, they assume that Joseph was present only as Mary’s husband. They take it as incidental and almost accidental that he was in the story at all. After all, what did Joseph contribute? He was a husband to Mary. He provided a male parental figure for Jesus. Perhaps he trained Jesus in the trade of construction. The story, however, would be substantially the same had Joseph never lived. Another man—or no man at all—might have done as well.
The Gospels challenge these assumptions about Joseph. They provide reasons for saying that he played a unique role in the nativity of our Lord. Without Joseph, the mission of Jesus Christ could never have succeeded. He was a remarkable man for several reasons.
At the least, Joseph is important because of his character. Matthew calls him a just or righteous man (Luke 1:19). Only about ten individuals in the Bible get called just or righteous. This designation already places Joseph among the elite.
His righteousness, however, was not of the priggish sort. It clearly included an element of compassion or mercy. Joseph was unwilling to subject Mary to shame, even before he knew that her pregnancy was caused by the Holy Spirit. Instead, he settled on a private divorce to end their marriage.
Joseph was more than Mary’s fiancé. He was legally her husband and she was legally his wife. Even though they had not yet consummated their marriage, and even though they were not yet living together, a divorce was necessary to dissolve their relationship. This was what Joseph planned to do, but he did not rush into it. Joseph must have been a temperate and deliberate man, because he was still pondering the situation when he dozed off and was confronted in a dream by an angel.
The angel assured Joseph that Mary was faithful to him. Her pregnancy was miraculous, something that was wrought by the Holy Spirit. The angel told Joseph to complete the marriage with Mary and to bring her into his home. This was a significant act, one that would be widely understood to mean that Joseph acknowledged the child. When Joseph took the final steps to complete his marriage with Mary, he was extending public acceptance to Jesus as his own offspring.
The angel gave further instructions about the child. He told Joseph, “You shall call his name Jesus,” a name that means savior or deliverer. The point is that Joseph was told to do the naming. Of course, this does not exclude Mary from being involved in the naming, but a child’s father had naming rights that could override the mother’s wishes (see the example of Zacharias, Elisabeth, and John in Luke 1:59–63). By exercising this right, Joseph was underlining his acceptance of the child Jesus as his own.
This point is critical: even though Jesus was not the biological descendant of Joseph, he was more than a stranger who was fostered in Joseph’s home. He was even more than adopted. From a legal point of view, Jesus was the son of Joseph, with all the rights, honors, and privileges pertaining thereto. And being the son of Joseph did come with rights, honors, and privileges.
Joseph stood in the direct line of descent from King David through King Solomon. By right of primogeniture, under the terms of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 7:12–16) Joseph held the title to the throne of David. He could not claim that title because of the curse placed on King Coniah (Jer 22:24, 30). By affirming Jesus as his legal son, however, Joseph passed the right of succession on to Jesus.
As the legal son of Joseph, Jesus headed the dynasty of Solomon. He held the title to occupy the throne of David. Because He was not Joseph’s biological son, however, He was not under the curse of Coniah. Since Mary was also a descendant of David through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:23–31; 2 Sam 5:13–14), Jesus’ virgin birth fulfilled God’s promise that a descendant of David would rule Israel.
Was Joseph’s fatherhood of Jesus recognized? Luke indicates that Jesus was believed or thought to be the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Years later, he was still referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Matt 13:55–57). He was called “the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know (John 6:42). Indeed, Mary, talking to Jesus, could refer to Joseph as “your father” (Luke 2:48). The suggestion that the circumstances of Jesus’ birth might have temporarily slipped from Mary’s mind is simply ludicrous. More than once, Luke’s gospel names both Mary and Joseph together as Jesus’ parents (Luke 2:27, 41).
Joseph fulfilled the role of human father to Jesus. When Herod’s paranoia threatened the child, the angel warned Joseph to move the family to Egypt. When the threat had passed, the angel again appeared to Joseph, permitting him to take Mary and Jesus home to Nazareth. Then every year Joseph would take his family to Jerusalem for Passover (Luke 2:41). Since Jesus was increasing in favor with God and man (Luke 2:52), Joseph must have played a significant role in His spiritual upbringing.
The last glimpse we get of Joseph is when the twelve-year-old Jesus was disputing with the doctors in the temple. Probably Joseph was older than Mary, and he may have died shortly after that event. He was certainly gone before Jesus began His public ministry. The years during which Joseph parented Jesus were brief but crucial.
Much of Joseph’s life is hidden from us, but the little that we do know is vital. He was a just man, a good man, a devout man. His royal fathers can rightly be proud of him. He opened their dynasty to Mary’s son, the Savior. He gave the Savior a name, a title, a throne, and a home. Joseph is truly a hero of Christmas.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Beside Thy Manger Here I Stand
Paul Gerhardt (1607–1676); tr. William Martin Czamanske (1873–1964)
Beside Thy manger here I stand,
Dear Jesus, Lord and Savior,
A gift of love within my hand
To thank Thee for Thy favor.
O take my humble offering;
My heart, my soul, yea, everything
Is Thine to keep forever.
With joy I gaze upon Thy face;
Thy glory and Thy splendor
Are greater than my heart can praise,
And songs can fitly render.
O that my mind might truly be
As boundless as the deepest sea—
’Twould still be lost in wonder.
O grant me this abundant grace,
And let it be Thy pleasure
That I may be Thy dwelling place,
Dear Savior, sweetest treasure!
O let me be Thy manger bed,
Then shall I lift my lowly head
With joy beyond all measure.
Until the Lord Shouts
It is my sad duty to report that Caleb Counterman, a Doctor of Ministry student at Central Seminary, died suddenly on Sunday morning. He was driving his wife Jessica to church when his car hit a patch of ice. In the ensuing crash, Jessica’s life was preserved, but Caleb was thrown out of the car and into the arms of Jesus.
A graduate of Maranatha Baptist University, Caleb received his seminary training at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. After years of pastoring, he enrolled in the D.Min. program at Central Seminary. He was a straight-ahead kind of guy. He knew what he thought and was convinced of what was right. He set clear goals for himself. He rarely deviated from these guiding lights.
While Caleb was a thinker, he was even more of a “doer.” He was a hard charger. His ministry could not be confined to a church building. He was active in his public school system, where he stood as a consistent Christian witness. He was elected to serve on the county board for Grundy County, Illinois. While working on his D.Min. at Central Seminary, he also completed a master’s degree in apologetics from another institution. These are not the actions of an idle man.
Guided by his principles, Caleb was a man to make difficult decisions and to lead in unpopular directions. Some years back, I attended a meeting of a national association of fundamentalist churches where he was present. Attendees were buzzing about a decision that the organization’s executive body had recently made. Many people opposed the decision, but nobody seemed willing to confront it. Even though it was his first meeting, Caleb stood up in the business session and moved that the decision be rescinded. After considerable debate, his motion was adopted. Some who opposed the motion saw Caleb as a troublemaker. I saw him as a man of conviction who had the courage to do what he (and I) thought was the right thing.
Most of what I saw of Caleb was either his public persona or his classroom presence. I knew him as a student who loved to explore and debate ideas. I do not recall, however, that I ever saw him in action as a pastor or a family man. Others are better suited to address those parts of his life, and I am sure that many will.
In addition to his wife Jessica, Caleb is survived by two sons, Levi and Jared. His two brothers, Luke and Simeon, are also pastors. His father and mother, Andrew and Jo Ellen, are also still active. Andrew, who is also a Central Seminary alumnus, serves as associate pastor alongside Simeon.
Caleb’s death is one of those events in which we are forced to recognize that a wise, benevolent, and gracious Providence may also be severe. Caleb would not have chosen the events of last Sunday morning. Neither would his wife, his sons, his brothers, or his parents. Yet these events surely fall under the purview of an infinitely wise, loving, and powerful God. Difficult as Caleb’s death is for his friends and loved ones, it was planned and permitted by a God who is both fully sovereign and infinitely good.
The truth is that sometimes God’s love allows us to be hurt—particularly since we still live in a world that endures the effects of sin. Our very mortality is the result of sin. Death is an intruder and an enemy, never a friend. Those who pass through the valley of the shadow of death (as Caleb’s loved ones are now doing) do really feel the bitter sting of that enemy. But even in that dark valley we remember that the sting of death has been pulled. Death will not be allowed the final or decisive word. Death’s victory is only a fading mirage. It has already been nullified by the resurrection of our Lord (1 Cor 15), who Himself passed through the gates of death and came forth again. Thus, those who are in the valley of the shadow of death need fear no evil. The God who permitted this calamity intends it all for good, and one day the weight of crushing sorrow will be transmuted into the exuberance of joy bursting into exultation. Every tear will be replaced with a far more exceeding weight of glory.
Meanwhile, we still sorrow, though not as those who have no hope. We recognize that God claims us as His own, and He uses us as He will. Sometimes He uses us up, as He did with Caleb last Sunday morning. Even so, He knows what He is doing, and insists that we must trust Him.
Caleb surely did trust himself to the Living God and to Christ Jesus the Lord. Here is something that he wrote a couple of years ago.
We need to emphasize what it means to find identity in Christ. He created us for a purpose. He loved and will always love us. We find our affirmation and value in Him. He will provide strength through this life as we follow Him. We can have victory over temptation because of His promised help and work. There is a promise of a glorified body and spirit because of Christ.
Caleb Counterman found his confidence and his identity in Christ. Because of Christ, because of Christ’s cross-work, and because of Christ’s resurrection, we also have confidence that all will be well. When the Lord returns, when He shouts that cry of command, then our sadness will forever end. For now, we cling to hope in the midst of our tears, but we hope with confidence, because Christ is our life. We shall hold fast to our confidence until the Lord shouts.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Courage in Death and Hope in Resurrection
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
When God is nigh, my faith is strong,
His arm is my almighty prop:
Be glad my heart; rejoice my tongue,
My dying flesh shall rest in hope.
Though in the dust I lay my head,
Yet, gracious God, thou wilt not leave
My soul forever with the dead,
Nor lose thy children in the grave.
My flesh shall thy first call obey,
Shake off the dust, and rise on high;
Then shalt thou lead the wond’rous way
Up to thy throne above the sky.
There streams of endless pleasure flow;
And full discoveries of thy grace
(Which we but tasted here below)
Spread heav’nly joys through all the place.
About Pardon
News reports this week are buzzing with President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter. Convicted on firearms and tax charges, the younger Biden was awaiting sentencing as his father neared the end of his presidential term. The president had insisted repeatedly that he would let justice run its course, and that he would not pardon his son. In spite of these assurances, President Biden announced that he was pardoning Hunter not only for the convictions over tax evasion and lying to a licensed firearms dealer, but also for any other federal crimes that he may have committed or taken part in from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.
Interestingly, the termination hour of the pardon was still future at the time it was announced. The president may not have realized what he was doing, but he effectively granted his son impunity to commit any sort of federal crime over the next several hours. Whether Hunter took advantage of this permission is not known. What is known is that the pardon covered all crimes, actual or potential, acknowledged or unacknowledged, during the specified period.
Even some pundits on the Left have expressed perplexity over the pardon, and those on the Right have voiced outrage. One commentator even titled his report, “The Biden Crime Family Gets Away with It.” Some have attributed a cynical motive to the pardon: by protecting his son, President Biden puts a stop to any potential investigation that might explore his own wrongdoing.
We need not suggest such a sinister impetus to explain the president’s action. Normal paternal affection is a sufficient rationale. All other things being equal, what father would not wish to keep his child from spending years in prison? If we had the power, which of us would not be tempted by love to cancel our son’s penalties for wrongdoing, even if those penalties are deserved?
But all other things are not equal. Assuming the best of motivations for President Biden—love for his son—he still cannot rightly act without heeding other concerns. Chief among those is a concern for justice. The charges against Hunter Biden were not trumped up. His prosecution was not some form of vengeful lawfare. Hunter broke just laws, and those laws had just penalties attached to them.
Injustice disturbs moral balance. Moral balance can only be restored through judgment and retribution. Justice is not about rehabilitating wrongdoers, recompensing victims, reducing recidivism, or restraining crime. Those are good and useful things, but they are not justice. No, justice is about judgment and retribution. There is no justice without judgment, and there is no judgment without retribution.
Therein lies the problem with Hunter Biden’s pardon. In this case, parental mercy comes at the cost of public justice. No one seems to be suggesting that Hunter was wrongfully convicted. He himself pled guilty to three felony charges of tax evasion. To some extent, every taxpayer was harmed by his conduct. More seriously, he held a just law up to contempt. There were no mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the presidential pardon has thwarted justice.
The contest in this case is between love and justice. The president was caught on the horns of a dilemma: he could show love, or he could uphold justice, but he could not do both. What he chose to do was to seize one horn of the dilemma. He chose in favor of love. While we might sympathize with him, we cannot justify him. He has betrayed his office.
Justice does not allow judges the option of ignoring the law, and the point of law is to assign penalties to infractions. If this principle applies to human judges and other sworn to uphold the law—and it does—then how much more does it apply to the Judge of all? The Judge to whom we must all render account?
We know that we are lawbreakers. We have sinned and come short of the just requirements of God’s standard (Rom 3:23). Furthermore, God’s law attaches a penalty to our misdeeds: “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Much as He loves us, God is not free simply to overlook our lawbreaking. If He failed to inflict the penalty, He would be untrue to His law, which would make Him untrue to Himself. He would not be God.
So how can God as Judge issue pardons to sinners? Indeed, how can He pronounce sinners righteous in His sight (which is what justification means)? Would not such a pardon and such a verdict be as inconsistent with justice as Hunter Biden’s pardon is?
No, it would not. The reason that God’s forgiveness does not violate justice is because the full penalty of the law was inflicted upon Christ on the cross. In the moment of His passion, Jesus became our substitute, took our place, and died our death. In other words, the full penalty of the law has already been paid, so that when we believe on Christ, God can rightly cancel our guilt.
There is no justice without judgment, and there is no judgment without retribution. The retribution for our sins—our lawbreaking—was laid on Jesus, and He paid it fully. He endured all that God’s just law demanded.
If we have believed upon Christ, then we, too, have been pardoned. In fact, we have received more than pardon. We have received a verdict of righteous for Jesus’ sake. God has charged our guilt against Jesus, and He credits Jesus’ righteousness to us.
God is infinitely just. God is also infinitely loving. In His wisdom, God found a way to be true both to His love and to His justice. He is “just, and the justifier of him which believeth on Jesus” (Rom 3:26).
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
A Pardoning God
Samuel Davies (1723–1761)
Great God of wonders, all thy ways,
Are matchless, Godlike, and divine;
But thy fair glories of thy grace,
More Godlike and unrival’d shine,
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
Crimes of such horror to forgive,
Such guilty daring worms to spare,
This is thy grand prerogative,
And none shall in the honour share.
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
Angels and men, resign your claim,
To pity, mercy, love, and grace;
These glories crown Jehovah’s name,
With an incomparable blaze.
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
In wonder lost with trembling joy,
We take the pardon of our God,
Pardon for crimes of deepest dye,
A pardon bought with Jesus’ blood.
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
O may this strange, this matchless grace,
This Godlike miracle of love,
Fill the wide earth with grateful praise,
And all the Angelic Hosts above,
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
Dr. Pratt’s Visit to India
Dr. Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academic Affairs and New Testament Professor at Central Seminary, and his wife Elaine recently returned from their third trip to visit Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary in Kerala, India.
A Growing Ministry
Dr. Sambhu De and his wife Molly minister in the southern region of India. Since Sambhu’s graduation from Central Seminary with a ThD degree, Fourth Baptist Church (Plymouth, MN) has served as the sending church for their ministry. They began by planting Emmanual Baptist Church out of their home. On the Pratts’ first visit to India in 2004, the church family was gathering in their home with plans for a church property. When the Pratts returned in 2016, they worshipped together with the church family at their completed property in Cochin city. Sam has also planted the Faith Baptist Church on the college campus in Kerala, about 40km north of Cochin. The pictures below are from the current church property in Cochin.
Emmanuel Baptist Church offers regular worship services in English and Malayalam, as well as a monthly combined bilingual service. Below is a picture of Dr. Pratt preaching through an interpreter and a picture of the congregation in Cochin.
Enriching Minds and Hearts
A significant part of Dr. Pratt’s visit was to deliver the opening messages for the college and seminary’s Spiritual Life Conference that begins each semester. Dr. Pratt spoke first on “Jesus is the Focus” with a message on the testimony of John the Baptist from John 3:22-26 and continued with sermons on assurance, perseverance, and sanctification.
Encouraging the Faculty
Additionally, Dr. Pratt met with the 19 faculty and staff members of FBBC&S for in-service and shared lessons from the life of Paul, emphasizing the importance of loving students through effective teaching. Dr. Pratt also had opportunities to speak in chapel and share devotionals to begin the days of classes.
Celebrating Achievements
During his visit, Dr. Pratt had the honor of personally delivering a Master of Arts in Theology diploma to Rajesh, a Central Seminary graduate who was unable to travel to the U.S. for his graduation ceremony in May. Rajesh is now pursuing his Master of Divinity through Central and is currently serving as Business Manager at FBBC&S while he continues his education. Dr. Pratt expressed Central Seminary’s gratitude for the support of generous donors who enable students like Rajesh to continue their education while serving in their local communities.
Further Missionary Connections
The Pratts’ travels extended beyond Kerala. Following their visit with Sam and Molly, they traveled north of India to Nepal to visit missionaries supported by their local church in Minnesota. God’s grace was evident throughout the trip, and the Pratts expressed their thankfulness for the many prayers and gifts that made this trip possible to see the impact of the gospel on the other side of the world.
Dr. Pratt on the Ministry in India
Reflecting on the trip to India, Dr. Pratt shared:
“It’s a great privilege to work with one of our alumni who has been faithfully serving for over 30 years. It’s a blessing to see the development of the campus and the ongoing ministry focused on training ministers and Christian workers for the gospel in India. The way is paved for that to continue into the future!”
“Just to witness God’s grace in using Sambhu over these many years and his faithful ministry in training young people for ministry is remarkable. It’s a privilege to be partners in the gospel with servants like Sam and Molly.” – Dr. Jon Pratt
Learn More:
- To learn more about the Faith Baptist Bible College & Seminary in Kerala, India, visit their website: https://fbbcindia.org/
- This fall, Dr. Sambhu De joined us on The Central Seminary Podcast to share about ministry in India. Listen here.
Faith Baptist Bible College & Seminary in Kerala, India
Faith Baptist Bible College was established on July 1, 1997 under the leadership of the present president, Dr. Sambhu Nath De. It was felt that there was a great need for such a Bible college in central Kerala.
Faith Baptist Bible College intends to produce God-fearing and Christ-honoring Christian leaders. They should be able to carry out the Great Commission of Christ boldly and defend the historic Christian faith effectively.
Bible classes are conducted in Assamese, English, Malayalam, Manipuri, Oriya, and Tamil languages.
Songs from the College & Seminary Choir
Central Seminary’s Global Initiative
Central Seminary’s relationship with Faith Baptist Bible College & Seminary is part of our Global Initiative to assist New Testament churches in equipping spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting biblical ministry worldwide. To learn how you can help encourage students worldwide, visit our Global Initiative page.
Central Seminary to Host ATS Accreditation Reaffirmation Visit in February 2025
Central Baptist Theological Seminary is hosting a comprehensive evaluation visit for reaffirmation of accreditation by the ATS Commission on Accrediting on February 17–20, 2025. The purpose of this visit is to verify that the school meets all applicable Commission Standards of Accreditation. Comments regarding how well the school meets those standards and/or generally demonstrates educational quality may be sent to accrediting@ats.edu at least two weeks before the visit. Comments may also or instead be sent in writing to Brett Williams, Provost, at bwilliams@centralseminary.edu. All comments will be shared with the onsite evaluation committee.
Almost Ready
My latest writing project is now in the final stages of proofreading and review. It should be in the hands of Central Seminary Press by next week, ready for typesetting and publication. The timeline for its release will, I hope, be measured in weeks rather than months.
This release will also include another title. It will be the second edition of my little book on Finding God’s Will. For the first edition we published only a couple thousand volumes, and they disappeared more quickly than we could have imagined. Because we were a bit unhappy with the cover design, we chose not to reprint it as it stood. Furthermore, since we were doing a redesign, I took advantage of the opportunity to update the book and to include a new chapter.
Finding God’s Will tries to chart a middle course between those who believe that God offers no individual direction for believers and those who follow their latest emotional burp as if it were God’s will for their life. The book maps out a procedure to discover how God is leading in one’s life, particularly when it comes to making big choices. I take the position that God does have an individual direction for the believer, and that He does lead believers, but that His leading never rises to the level of new revelation and that it is not a matter of subjectively listening for God’s voice. I insist that God leads His children through wisdom, and He does this providentially.
I begin by trying to dissuade readers from seeking God’s will through signs and “fleeces,” through listening for God’s voice (whether inner or outer), or through taking Bible verses out of context. Instead, I encourage believers to begin by submitting to all of God’s will that they find revealed in Scripture, by doing all to the glory of God, by fulfilling their duties, by bathing their decisions in prayer, by informing themselves about their choices, by seeking godly counsel, by considering their circumstances, by accounting for their inclinations, by developing a sense of vocation, and by understanding what role the peace of God plays. I also caution brothers and sisters about “buyer’s blues,” and I provide counsel about what to do when they know they’ve made a bad decision. In an appendix I summarize these steps in the form of a worksheet, and in a separate appendix I address the question of what a call to ministry looks like.
The goal in Finding God’s Will is to provide ordinary Christians with a manual that will walk them through the process of making decisions well. The book is easy to read and to understand. A pastor should be able to hand this book to any church member who is struggling with a decision. Working through the book will help that brother or sister. The book is also structured for use in Sunday School classes or home Bible studies, and it includes questions for reflection and discussion.
The other book—the new one—is entitled Communion and Disunion. It is a discussion of ecclesiastical fellowship and separation. These are not areas that every believer thinks about every day, but they are important areas that Christians and churches must address periodically.
Over the past thirty years, separation has been the topic that I have been asked to address most frequently. I have published journal articles and book chapters on the subject. I have written papers in formal and informal settings. I have delivered lecture series and preached sermons. What this book does is to gather several of those papers and addresses in one place.
Perhaps I should clarify one thing: when I say that the book is about ecclesiastical fellowship and separation, I do not mean that it is only about what churches do. What I mean is that our understanding of fellowship and separation must be grounded in a right understanding of the church if it is going to be biblical. Crucial to all decisions about Christian fellowship and separation is a correct vision of what the church is and who is included in it.
Communion and Disunion is also written for ordinary readers. No seminary training is necessary to follow the argument. It is also written with two readerships in view. On the one hand, I hope to help fundamentalists think through their doctrine of separation, which I believe is substantially correct but often poorly understood and sometimes badly applied. On the other hand, I hope to encourage non-fundamentalist evangelicals to adopt a more robust understanding of church unity and fellowship, an understanding that would result in a conscious appropriation of separatist categories. In short, if you are a separatist, I want to help you become more thoughtful. If you are thoughtful, I would like to help you become more of a separatist.
The likely result, of course, is that I shall encounter disagreement from both sides, and that is fine. I do not pretend to speak the final or authoritative word on this topic. The book is not a rigorous, scholarly treatment of fellowship and separation (such a treatment does not yet exist). Possibly, somebody may even convince me that I am wrong in important ways. But I think this is a conversation that needs to be advanced. Both fundamentalists and other evangelicals need to devote serious attention to the biblical and theological categories in which they talk about fellowship and separation. I will be pleased if the book stimulates conversation. I will be doubly pleased if it gets fundamentalists and other evangelicals to talk to each other about the subject.
Central Seminary Press is a function of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis. An in-house press of this sort always raises the possibility of less-than-rigorous standards when publishing materials from our own faculty. We try to mitigate that danger by seeking competent outside readers to review our materials before they go to press. Finding God’s Will has cleared that hurdle and is now awaiting typesetting. Communion and Disunion is in the hands of final reviewers and awaits their comments. The process should be complete by the end of Thanksgiving week, and both books will be going into typesetting soon.
So keep your ears open. You will probably hear more about these books before the end of the year.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
While Yet the Morn Is Breaking
Johannes Mühlmann (1573–1613); tr. Catherine Winkworth (1827–1878)
While yet the morn is breaking,
I thank my God once more,
Beneath whose care awakening,
I find the night is o’er;
I thank Him that He calls me
To life and health anew;
I know whate’er befalls me,
His care will still be true.
O gracious Lord, direct us,
Thy doctrine pure defend,
From heresies protect us,
And for Thy Word contend,
That we may praise Thee ever,
O God, with one accord,
Saying: The Lord our Savior
Be evermore adored!
O grant us peace and gladness,
Give us our daily bread,
Shield us from grief and sadness,
On us Thy blessings shed;
Grant that our whole behavior
In truth and righteousness
May praise Thee, Lord our Savior,
Whose holy name we bless.
And gently grant Thy blessing,
That we may do Thy will,
No more Thy ways transgressing,
Our proper task fulfill;
With Peter’s full affiance
Let down our nets again;
If Thou art our Reliance,
Our toil will not be vain.
Give to the Max 2024
Give to the Max 2024 is happening now through November 21. It is a major event sponsored by GiveMN, an independent agency that coordinates this special giving event for all kinds of Minnesota charitable organizations. The event aims for a “statewide outpouring of support for thousands of nonprofits and schools across Minnesota.” All gifts given during November count toward Give to the Max.
Central Seminary has been participating in Give to the Max for nearly two decades. This one event often provides a big part of our support every year. We rely on gifts from donors like you because students cannot pay the cost of seminary education. If pastors and missionaries are going to be trained, the bill must be paid by the people who will benefit from their ministries.
Consider Peter and his wife, Allie. They have two sons, Jonathan and Daniel. Peter grew up in a Christian home where God challenged him with the need for Christian laborers. Peter graduated from Appalachian Bible College and took an associate pastorate in Pennsylvania. Still actively engaged in pastoral ministry, he is also pursuing seminary training online at Central Seminary. During Peter’s studies, he and Allie continue to invest themselves in discipling new believers.
Another of our students, Mark, is married to Dannielle. Located in western New York, Mark was struggling to pastor part-time while simultaneously working an outside job and taking courses at Central Seminary. Then his employer eliminated his position without notice. The church stepped up and took Mark on full-time, and he is continuing his studies. They are grateful that Central Seminary’s online programs allow them to remain in New York. Mark is specifically grateful for encouragement from Central Seminary’s faculty, for reinforcement of his biblical convictions, and for the challenge to refine and expand his understanding of God’s Word.
Josh lives in California with his wife, Christy. He grew up in a mainline Protestant church that did not preach the gospel. He was saved when a friend invited him to a Wednesday night children’s program. Not long after he was saved, he started to feel a pull toward pastoral ministry. He attended Maranatha Baptist University, where he met and married Christy. Josh’s father initially opposed his desire to pastor but eventually changed his mind. Josh now serves part-time under a senior pastor in a local church and part-time at a Christian camp. Central Seminary’s distance-friendly educational model allows him to receive quality seminary education while he continues to serve in church ministry and to enjoy the mentoring of his senior pastor. He is excited to receive his degree and to transition into full-time pastoral ministry.
Taigen is a doctoral student at Central Seminary. He grew up near Seattle and was saved at the age of 15. He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Bob Jones University, and he has pastored in Maryland and New Hampshire for over twenty years. He and his wife, Crystal, have twins who are seniors in college. New England is a difficult place to minister, but God is granting conversions and baptisms to Taigen’s ministry. He can work on his Doctor of Ministry at Central Seminary because Central Seminary’s accreditor authorized distance education for this program in the wake of COVID.
Théo Kabongo is one of three pastors at a church in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo. He is husband to Agneau and father to Aletheia. Théo is passionate about spreading the gospel and seeing people’s lives being transformed by the power of God’s Word. The church hopes to start a Bible institute that will be supported by a church farm. In the meanwhile, Théo is one of many students in the Third World who are receiving their training from Central Seminary nearly free of charge.
Of course, Central Seminary still has students who move to Minneapolis. Joseph is one of our M.Div. students. Joseph grew up going to church, and from an early age he wanted to learn more about the Bible. He felt God’s call to ministry between his junior and senior years in college. Joseph plans to marry this coming May. In the meanwhile, he takes courses to prepare for pastoral ministry. He says that his education at Central Seminary is “super beneficial” as he anticipates full-time pastoral ministry.
Some of our students live in impoverished countries and live on subsistence wages. They can pay almost nothing for seminary training. Others of our students live in North America and have good jobs, but even they would go broke if they had to pay the full cost of their education. All of our students rely on donors like you. They trust the Lord to use people who will invest in their future ministries to cover the cost of their education.
Central Seminary is a great value for our students. It is also a great value for donors. As Doug McLachlan used to say, “We’re not fat cats.” We are careful with your money. We plan and budget deliberately to live within the Lord’s provision.
One donor is so convinced of the value of Central Seminary that he has put up $50,000 as a matching gift. If you give to Central Seminary for Give to the Max, your gift will automatically be doubled. Together, we can turn $50,000 into $100,000. This matching gift is a tremendous opportunity to help students who are preparing to serve the Lord in ministry for the rest of their lives.
Will you help us train future pastors and missionaries? We have made it convenient for you to donate in three ways. First, you can “Give to the Max” securely any time this month by following the link here. You can also give toward WCTS AM-1030 at wctsradio.com/give. Second, if you prefer to give by phone, you can reach Central Seminary on weekdays at (763) 417-8250. Third, you can mail a gift to Central Seminary at 900 Forestview Ln N, Plymouth, MN 55441. Thank you for helping us in God’s work of preparing pastors and missionaries.
What Shall We Offer Our Good Lord?
August Gottlieb Spangenberg (1704–1792); tr. John Wesley (1703–1791)
What shall we offer our good Lord,
Poor nothings! for His boundless grace!
Fain would we His great name record,
And worthily set forth His praise.
Great object of our growing love,
To whom our more than all we owe,
Open the fountain from above,
And let it our full souls o’erflow.
So shall our lives Thy power proclaim,
Thy grace for every sinner free;
Till all mankind shall learn Thy name,
Shall all stretch out their hands to Thee.
Open a door which earth and hell
May strive to shut, but strive in vain;
Let Thy Word richly in us dwell,
And let our gracious fruit remain.
O multiply the sower’s seed!
And fruit we every hour shall bear,
Throughout the world Thy Gospel spread,
Thy everlasting truth declare.
We all, in perfect love renewed,
Shall know the greatness of Thy power;
Stand in the temple of our God,
As pillars, and go out no more.
What a Trump Win Means
Conservative Christians throughout the United States are breathing a collective sigh of relief at the re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency. The reason is not that we are inveterate Trump supporters—far from it. Our expectations of his presidency are low. He is not the man to restore the moral fiber of our civilization. He will not return us to civility or bring an advance in reasoned discourse.
But then, we did not choose Trump primarily for what he is. We chose him for what he is not. In most elections of the past, we would not have voted for him. So why did we now?
One reason is that four years of incompetence, corruption, and radical ideology are enough. Biden, Harris, and their cronies gave us galloping inflation, military chaos, a porous border, rampant crime, divisive identity politics, and a weaponized legal system. Trump is not a paragon of order but compared to the past four years he looks positively OCD.
Another reason is that we have seen what the Left has tried to do to Trump. With the legacy media providing cover, they have reviled him at every opportunity. They have raided his home. They have engineered selective criminal prosecutions out of whole cloth. They have depicted him as such a threat to the country that multiple attempts have been made on his life. We watched as these things happened. We saw the unfairness of it all, and we could not escape the sense that anything the Left could do to Trump, they would eventually do to us.
Putting Tim Walz on the ballot only reinforced that perception. Walz is the guy who tried to promote gender confusion in the schools, even placing tampons in the boys’ restrooms. He told teachers to hide students’ gender confusion from their parents. He made it illegal for parents to refuse gender mutilation for their children. He weaponized Minnesota’s social services to pull kids out of homes where parents discouraged gender mutilation. He has made Minnesota into a state where normal parents have to live in fear. No wonder Harris and Walz received fewer votes from Minnesotans in 2024 than Harris and Biden got in 2020, while Trump received more.
Walz also enshrined abortion in Minnesota. With control of both houses of the legislature, he and his cronies passed laws to allow abortion up to the moment of birth. He has made Minnesota a destination for women who want abortions, and he has also turned Minnesota into a sanctuary for abortion seekers.
What Walz did in Minnesota, Harris and Walz were going to try to do at the national level. If they had been elected, they would also have tried to eliminate religious exemptions on these and similar issues. The Left is all about forcing people at gunpoint (every governmental ordinance and law is enforced at gunpoint). Harris and Walz wanted to force us to pretend. We would be made to pretend that a fetus is not a child, that two people of the same sex can marry each other, and that a man can be a woman and vice versa.
In some cases, Trump will also force us to pretend. He is the first president to be elected (in 2016) while publicly endorsing same-sex marriage. With Trump, however, there is at least some possibility that religious protections might remain in place. Under his administration, for example, Christian organizations might not be forced to pay for their employee’s abortions. Christian adoption agencies might not be put out of business for refusing to place children with same-sex couples. Artists of different sorts might not be prosecuted for refusing to celebrate events that are contrary to their consciences.
We also had other reasons for choosing Trump over Harris. Trump is less likely to interfere with our right to self-defense. He is more likely to uphold our property rights against radical ecotopians and predatory regulatory agencies. He is more likely to crack down on crime, and he is far more likely to defend the country from foreign invasion (whether armed or not). He has shown himself to be a friend of Israel. He has demonstrated his willingness to appoint judges who respect what the Constitution says, rather than what they wish it might say. Furthermore, as we learned from his first administration, Trump does not make promises that he does not intend to keep.
President Trump does not have the ability to fix our country. He is not the Messiah, and he will not lead us in either a civic or religious revival. Things may get worse rather than better under his presidency. But they should get worse at a slower rate than they would have under a Harris-Walz administration. President Trump cannot cure the disease, but he can temporarily ease some of the symptoms.
Curing the disease must begin with us. A Trump administration gives us a short reprieve, nothing more. We need to remember that the problems in our civilization cannot be addressed by mere legislation and enforcement. Law that is not felt in the heart does not hold power. Our job—not Trump’s—is to address the hearts of our friends and neighbors.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
When All Thy Mercies, O My God
Joseph Addison (1672–1719)
When all Thy mercies, O my God,
My rising soul surveys,
Transported with the view, I’m lost
In wonder, love, and praise.
Unnumber’d comforts on my soul
Thy tender care bestow’d,
Before my infant heart conceived
From whom those comforts flow’d.
When in the slippery paths of youth
With heedless steps I ran,
Thine arm, unseen, convey’d me safe,
And led me up to man.
Ten thousand thousand precious gifts
My daily thanks employ;
Nor is the least a cheerful heart,
That tastes those gifts with joy.
Through ev’ry period of my life
Thy goodness I’ll pursue;
And after death, in distant worlds,
The glorious theme renew.
Through all eternity, to Thee
A grateful song I’ll raise;
But oh, eternity’s too short
To utter all Thy praise.
Why That Name?
A respected colleague writes to ask why this electronic bulletin is named In the Nick of Time, or, to give its proper name, ΤΩ ΧΡΟΝΟU KAIΡΩ. He claims that he has often wondered about this question. Furthermore, he is sure that others would like to hear the answer.
Of course, a publication has to be named something. Whoever went to the library and asked to see an untitled book or periodical? If someone did publish such a document, it would be indistinguishable from other untitled books or periodicals. Readers would be forced to resort to some sort of ad hoc titling, such as “I’d like to see the untitled blue book,” or “Where can I find the untitled magazine from the National Forum?” Titles, whether formal or informal, are unavoidable.
The Nick (which is the—ahem—nickname we use) is one in a series of publications that I have produced in successive ministries. Long ago, when I was still in college, I was learning under a pastor in a small-town church that was located on that city’s Wall Street. The church needed a periodic informational mailing for upcoming events, and we called it the Wall Street Eternal. Later, as a pastor, I published a monthly paper printed on gold-colored paper. In a nod to Archer Weniger’s Blu Print, I called my publication the Gold Leaf.
While pursuing PhD studies I edited a bimonthly publication that was sent out by the Iowa Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Bob Humrickhouse was the association representative in those days, and we called the paper Ruminations. It included a hint of pungency that not everyone appreciated. I’m told that those who didn’t like it referred to the publication as Bauder’s Barf. The IARBC stopped printing it shortly after I made a comment about being an “unregistered” regular Baptist, then opining that it was not only possible but perfectly acceptable to be a regular Baptist without joining a fellowship like the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Incidentally, I stand by that thesis.
In the Nick of Time had its origins about twenty years ago. I was the relatively new president of Central Seminary, and I hoped to achieve a couple of goals through the new publication. First, I thought that we needed increased exposure among potential constituents, particularly students and pastors. Second, I wanted to experiment with a digital publication that could be distributed widely for minimal cost. Third, I wanted something more than a blog: I wanted a piece that would go directly to readers’ inboxes, and I wanted something that would be reviewed by the Central Seminary faculty before it went out. Fourth, I wanted a publication that would not be mine alone, but that other professors and friends of Central Seminary could write for.
Beneath all these goals, however, lay a deeper concern. I sensed that certain great ideas that had once been widely accepted within my circles were losing their hold on the imagination of the coming generation. Fundamentalism, with its emphasis on primary and secondary separation, was one of those ideas. Cessationism—the insistence that God is not granting miraculous gifts today—was another. Dispensationalism and its implied eschatology was another. Conservatism (both religious and political) rightly understood was still another. Liberal learning was another of the great ideas that I hoped to foster. Surrounding all these concerns was yet another great idea: the commitment to reasoned discourse.
By 2005, I suspected that all these ideas were poorly understood, even among the most Rightward evangelicals. The time was ripe for them to be re-articulated and defended. I wanted the new publication to do just that.
Because the hour was late and the ideas were slipping away, I felt a sense of urgency about the new publication. Barely enough time remained to make the case for these ideas, to reassure the wavering, and perhaps even to retrieve some who had already given up on the ideas. That was when my reading brought me across the happy expression, ΤΩ ΧΡΟΝΟU KAIΡΩ.
Literally, the translation would be “In the of time time.” The phrase, however, uses two different words for time. The word kairos views time as opportunity, while the word chronos views time as measurable. The first involves the quality of time, while the second measures its quantity. Thirty minutes is always thirty minutes: that is chronos. But thirty minutes spent getting a root canal does not feel the same as thirty minutes watching the Super Bowl. That is kairos. (In fairness I should note that my wife might view the root canal and the Super Bowl as nearly equivalent.)
So, what does ΤΩ ΧΡΟΝΟU KAIΡΩ mean? It means doing something at the most opportune (kairos) moment (chronos). The equivalent English idiom is in the nick of time, and it describes exactly what I wanted the new publication to be. ΤΩ ΧΡΟΝΟU KAIΡΩ is a last-moment plea to cling to or return to the great ideas.
If the situation seemed dire in 2005, it appears almost desperate now. The last vestiges of civil discourse are waning. Conservatism has been invaded by demagogues who despise genuinely conservative principles. Liberal learning has been canceled, to be displaced by indoctrination and bullying in the very centers that were supposed to maintain a commitment to education. Fundamentalism, cessationism, and dispensationalism have become nearly insignificant within the evangelical world. Allegiance to these and other great ideas continues to dwindle.
So, is it time to stop publishing In the Nick of Time? Or is it time to modify its stance and approach? Quite the contrary. In his essay on “Francis Herbert Bradley” in Selected Essays, T. S. Eliot writes that we sometimes defend lost causes, not because we can win, but because we are trying to keep something alive. If the great ideas are true—and I believe they are—then it is time to explain them, model them, and defend them better than ever before, so that they will remain available when a future generation again takes interest in them.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Life Is the Time to Serve the Lord
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
Life is the Time to serve the Lord,
The Time t’insure the great Reward;
And while the Lamp holds out to burn,
The vilest Sinner may return.
Life is the Hour that God has giv’n
To ‘scape from Hell, and fly to Heav’n;
The Day of Grace, and Mortals may
Secure the Blessings of the Day.
The Living know that they must die,
But all the Dead forgotten lie;
Their Mem’ry and their Sense is gone,
Alike unknowing and unknown.
Their Hatred and their Love is lost,
Their Envy buried in the Dust;
They have no Share in all that’s done
Beneath the Circuit of the Sun.
Then what my Thoughts design to do,
My Hands, with all your Might pursue;
Since no Device, nor Work is found,
Nor Faith, nor Hope, beneath the Ground.
There are no Acts of Pardon pass’d
In the cold Grave, to which we haste;
But Darkness, Death, and long Despair,
Reign in eternal Silence there.
How to Vote 2024
The church’s place is not to address political questions. Rather, its work is to proclaim the whole counsel of God. Christian individuals, however, are responsible to act upon moral and spiritual concerns before they address merely temporal ones. Matters of principle should take precedence over matters of preference. Therefore, part of the church’s responsibility is to instruct the people of God in every moral principle that applies to their political decisions. In other words, while churches should not tell their members whom to vote for, they should teach them how to vote.
Political contests raise many issues that are not directly moral. Christians can certainly weigh these issues, but non-moral concerns should never take priority over moral ones. For example, candidates’ religious beliefs and affiliation do not usually determine how well they will govern. Christians might better vote for an unbeliever with just policies than to vote for a fellow saint whose policies are naïve or misguided.
Furthermore, governments have no moral responsibility to manage the economy, and when they try, the result is usually destructive. Governments have no moral duty to create jobs, to increase the wealth of their nations, or to supply the financial or medical needs of their citizens. Governments do not even have a moral duty to educate children.
Citizens may wish that their governments would do some of these things, but since they are not matters of conscience, they must not become the main issues that Christians consider when they are deciding which candidate to support. Rather, such issues must take a very distant second place to genuinely biblical and moral concerns. I here suggest ten biblical concerns that Christian people must weigh as they consider their voting choices.
Right to Life. From the time that government was established (probably Gen 9:6), its most important duty has been to protect the lives of the innocent. Civil authorities must use their power to defend those who are too weak to defend themselves. No one is more innocent than the unborn, who are clearly presented as human persons in Scripture (Psalm 51:5). Christians should reserve their votes for candidates who will work against the holocaust of abortion on demand.
Rule of Law. The clear teaching of the Bible is that law binds civil authorities. Any law that contradicts God’s law is, of course, unjust (Acts 5:29). More than that, rulers are bound by the law of the land that they rule (Ezra 5:13; 6:1-7; Acts 16:36-38). In the United States, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. But a Constitution that can mean whatever five justices want it to mean is exactly the same as no Constitution at all. Christians should support candidates who will only appoint or confirm judges who will abide by the meaning of the Constitution itself.
Restraint of Evil. A key function of government is to restrain evil (Rom 13:3-4). Externally, this means that the government must maintain a strong defense against national enemies and control the country’s borders against intrusion. Internally, it means governments must maintain the peace through effective policing. They must also enforce retributive justice against criminals through a just judiciary, remembering that “lawfare” is an attack upon the rule of law itself.
Respect for Property. The right to private property is protected by God (Exod 20:15). Few rights are more critical than this one. Great wealth rightfully gained is not a wrong but a blessing. Governments act immorally when they disintegrate the accumulation of wealth, whether through confiscation or through “progressive” taxes on income, estates, and capital. Christians should support candidates who refuse to make the government an expression of envy and an agent of economic redistribution.
Recovery of Moral Responsibility. God makes able-bodied people responsible for their own welfare (2 Thess 3:10). He has mandated that we should live by working. He expects mature people of every station to earn their living and to prepare for times when they cannot. For those who are overcome by circumstances beyond their control, God has ordained institutions such as family and church as agencies of support. Such institutions can provide help while holding individuals accountable. Casting government in the role of provider inevitably uncouples assistance from accountability and is deeply immoral. It is especially dangerous when the government’s activity supersedes the role of the family and negates its responsibility.
Recognition of Israel. God has not canceled His blessing for those who bless Israel, nor His curse for those who do not (Gen 12:3). While the modern state of Israel is not equivalent to the biblical Israel, it is related. Christian respect for and friendship to Jewish people ought to include support for the existence, autonomy, and liberty of Israel.
Responsible Use of Nature. God has given humans dominion over nature (Gen 1:26-28). Pristine preservation of nature is not God’s intention. We must recognize that the earth has been created for human use. Contemporary “environmentalism” often thwarts this divine design, and it must not be advanced by governmental regulation or policy.
Reputation for Integrity. When the wicked rule, the people mourn (Prov 29:2). The personal character of political candidates affects their ability to serve in office. A candidate whose word cannot be trusted is one who cannot govern well. Integrity is particularly important when it comes to a candidate’s sworn word. A candidate who violates the marriage oath is the kind of person who will violate an oath of office. Yet a candidate who has erred in the past may show a change of heart by consistent promise-keeping in the present.
Rightness of Personal Defense. God forbids murder (Exod 20:13), and no one must submit to being murdered. Furthermore, God assigns a duty to deliver those who are about to be murdered (Prov 24:11–12). The right to personal defense is given by God. Governments have no authority to deprive citizens either of this right or of the necessary means of exercising it. Christians should support candidates who will not limit access to the means of personal defense.
Reality of Marriage, Sex, and Gender. There are only two natural sexes, and only two natural genders that are inextricably linked to them (Gen 1:27). Natural marriage always involves a union of one partner from each sex (Gen 2:24). Legal requirements to recognize other arrangements are not only contradictory and wicked, but tyrannical. Christians must support candidates who will not undermine these realities.
The last three election cycles have failed to give Christians any presidential candidate who meets all these criteria, and candidates for other offices are usually not much better. Even so, some candidates are worse than others. Given that government is ordained by God for good (Rom 13:4), Christians faced with imperfect choices should choose the greater good. They should make their choice, at minimum, by the criteria that I have listed above.
They must also resist being driven by material concerns. Their primary interests are not economic. Their duty is to seek first the kingdom of God. Biblical principles should take priority over personal preferences at the polls, just as they should in every area of life.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Our Nation Seemed to Ruin Doomed
Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)
Our nation seemed to ruin doomed,
Just like a burning brand;
Till snatched from fierce surrounding flames
By God’s indulgent hand.
“Once more,” He says, “I will suppress
The wrath that sin would wake,
Once more My patience shall attend,
And call this nation back.”
But who this clemency reveres?
Or feels this melting grace?
Who stirs his languid spirit up
To seek Thine awful face?
On days like these we pour our cries,
And at Thy feet we mourn;
Then rise to tempt Thy wrath again,
And to our sins return.
Our nation far from God remains,
Far, as in distant years;
And that small remnant which is left,
A dying aspect wears.
Now chastened, rescued thus in vain,
Thy righteous Hand severe
Into the flames might hurl us back,
And quite consume us there.
So by the light our burning gives
Might neighboring nations read.
How terrible Thy judgments are,
And learn our guilt to dread.
Yet, ‘midst the cry of sins like ours,
Incline Thy gracious ear;
And Thine own children’s feeble cry
With soft compassion hear.
O by Thy sacred Spirit’s breath
Ignite a holy flame;
Refine the land that Thou has spared,
And magnify Thy name.
Central Seminary Torah Scroll on Permanent Display
Central Seminary is thrilled to announce the acquisition of an ancient Old Testament scroll, generously donated by God’s Ancient Library. The scroll was recently showcased at the seminary’s Fall Conference and is permanently housed in a decorative display case, made possible by contributions from the alumni association.
The scroll is a gift from the Ken and Barb Larson family, founders of Slumberland Furniture, a leading home furnishings retailer that started in Richfield, Minnesota. The Larson family founded God’s Ancient Library to celebrate God’s Word by preserving and gifting beautiful Torah scrolls to schools that prepare Bible teachers for the future.
This particular scroll dates back to the early 19th century and features an Amsterdam script called Ôtiyyôt Amsterdam, coming out of the Dutch tradition. The scroll is 145 feet long and contains 62 panels with 247 columns.
More about the Ôtiyyôt Amsterdam script:
“The script used in the manuscript is a unique script form from the convergence of an established Sephardic community in Amsterdam with a large influx of Ashkenazi refugees in the 1640s and 1650s. As the Amsterdam script was only used in Torah scrolls from the 1600s to the 1820s, the present manuscript can be dated to the first few decades of the 19th century with a reasonable degree of certainty.”
In February 2023, Drs. Morrell, Mayes, and Odens received the scroll from God’s Ancient Library and spent time with a group of experts to learn special instructions for handling and care. Since that time, the Torah Scroll has been available for temporary display while a permanent case was being built. In the pictures below, Dr. Preston Mayes, Old Testament Professor, is seen unrolling the scroll and sharing the history and background of the Torah with students from a local Christian school.
Following Central’s 2023 Fall Conference, the alumni association focused their annual project on gathering funds for a permanent display for the Torah Scroll. With gifts that came in through this effort, the case was built and shipped from Georgia. The scroll and display are now on exhibit in the seminary library. Call the office at (763) 417-8250 or send a note to info@centralseminary.edu if you or your group would like to schedule a visit.
Central Seminary extends a word of appreciation to the Larson family and God’s Ancient Library for the gift of the Torah Scroll and to our faithful alumni serving worldwide for continuing to share in the education of spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting biblical ministry.
Pictures from the delivery of the display case:
On Becoming a Writer
Now and then, somebody will ask me what he has to do to become a writer (the he here is deliberate: I don’t recall ever receiving this query from a female). The question always seems odd since I do not consider myself to be one. Granted, I write, and some of what I write gets published. This small success is due more to circumstances than to my being a writer. I happen to live at an intellectual crossroad where an ecclesiastical community intersects an academic discipline, and neither of them is renowned for producing wordsmiths. When it comes to polished writing, I live in the kingdom of the profoundly myopic, so if I have only one eye with only partial sight, then I may be permitted to indulge an inclination to string words together.
I love to read the work of good writers. I learn from them. In the sea of writers, William F. Buckley is like waves reflecting sunshine, P. J. O’Rourke is like a nor’easter, and H. L. Mencken is a force five hurricane. In my reading I have guffawed with Clemens, harumphed with Chesterton, and nodded assent with Lewis. I know what good writers do. That is how I know that I am not among them.
I wish that I could do what they do, even if at a lower level. The masters guide their readers safely through the forest of ideas. They illuminate the path and sweep it clean for clarity, and the illumination both decorates the way and draws their readers forward. The best writers are sometimes elegant, sometimes donnish, sometimes flamboyant, and sometimes brutal, but they are always interesting. They have accumulated such large stores of words that they can pluck out the exact term to communicate a precise meaning. Their mastery of the language enables them to craft sentences of vigor or languor as occasion dictates. Their works bubble with metaphor, and they serve up similes that entice readers like popcorn draws movie goers. They avoid vagueness, ambiguity, and distraction while they make even complicated ideas seem simple.
The point of reading good writers is not to agree with them. Sometimes their views are disagreeable or even repulsive. The point is to understand why they think what they think. If they are genuinely skilled and thoughtful, then their readers can discover why an opinion that first seems implausible nevertheless makes sense to at least one intelligent, clear-minded person. Writers who perform that task offer a valuable service. They are worth reading even when we decide that they are wrong.
Great ideas need good writers to communicate them. Lesser writers litter the way with muddy language, jargon, affectation, bluster, or even abuse. Their works are strewn with unexamined assumptions, unpersuasive definitions, anecdotal evidence, half-truths, unsubstantiated claims, and illicit appeals to emotion, authority, popularity, or even force. At their worst, bad writers stoop to mere heckling, name calling, and threats. Choked with such debris, even the best ideas will fail to persuade thoughtful people.
I wish that I were a good writer, or even a mediocre one. Certain great ideas need fresh presentation to make them clear and persuasive. Baptist distinctives are a great idea. Dispensationalism is a great idea. Cessationism is a great idea. Fundamentalism (a right view of ecclesiastical fellowship and separation) is a great idea. Conservatism is a great idea. These ideas are true. They are good. They are powerful. They are even beautiful (as truth and goodness always are).
Many of these ideas lack recent advocates to present them in clear, simple language. I would like to do that job. To accomplish the task, however, I will have to become a better writer than I am now.
That doesn’t mean that I plan to stop writing. Indeed, one cannot improve one’s writing without continuing to write. But more is necessary. As I write, I am doing several things to develop. One is to put my writing in front of peers for review. At the very least, they can help to catch the bone-headed mistakes of grammar and spelling, the mistaken Bible references, and the cliches and mixed metaphors that occasionally creep into my writing. I am genuinely grateful for peers who help to keep me from embarrassing myself.
Another way I try to improve is by continuing to master English usage. I have a shelf of tools immediately above my reading desk. Strunk and White (Elements of Style) sits on that shelf, and I re-read it every couple of years. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage sits beside it and now also resides on my computer. Basic tools like dictionaries and thesauri also occupy that shelf, and they are used almost daily.
Another way of improving is to read good writers discussing their craft. Rudolf Flesch (The Art of Readable Writing)was probably the first author from whom I deliberately learned. Richard Mitchell (Less Than Words Can Say) delivered a good verbal kick in the pants. Others who have helped me have included William F. Buckley, Kurt Vonnegut, and William Zinsser. Most recent has been James J. Kilpatrick, The Writer’s Art. These books not only offer good counsel for writers, but they are themselves excellent examples of the writer’s craft.
When I was in seminary, one of my professors offered a word of advice: “Read less Francis Schaeffer and more C. S. Lewis.” He wasn’t wrong. Besides the writers I’ve already mentioned, authors like Lewis, F. Scott Fitzgerald, E. B. White, Jacques Barzun, Tom Wolfe, George Will, Neil Postman, and Jonah Goldberg model good written style. They are enjoyable to read, and as one gets comfortable with their work, they help readers develop an ear and eye for what makes good writing. The only problem is that they make it look easy, as if good writing were a matter of mere nature or even accident rather than a matter of craft.
I doubt that I can ever become a genuinely good writer. Still, I can become a better writer than I am now, and that is what I want to do. I want to improve because the ideas that I find compelling deserve the best exposition and defense. I know that I will never be great or even good, but I can at least aspire to a higher level of incompetence.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Sitting in an Arbour
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
Sweet Muse descend and bless the Shade,
And bless the Evening Grove;
Business and Noise and Day are fled,
And every Care but Love.
Jesus has all my Powers possessed,
My Hopes, my Fears, my Joys:
He the dear Sovereign of my Breast
Shall still command my Voice.
Some of the fairest Choirs above
Shall flock around my Song,
With Joy to hear the Name they Love
Sound from a Mortal Tongue.
His Charms shall make my Numbers flow,
And hold the falling Floods,
While Silence sits on every Bough
And bends the List’ning Woods.
I’ll carve our Passion on the Bark,
And every wounded Tree
Shall drop and bear some Mystick Mark
That Jesus died for me.
The Swains shall wonder when they read
Inscribed on all the Grove,
That Heaven itself came down, and bled
To win a Mortal’s Love.
God, Creation, and Humanity, Part 10: Prudential Choices
Buying a HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) home can be a great money saver at the time of purchase, but it comes with a cost in labor. I bought one in 1998, and among its other problems it had a bathroom that sorely needed attention. The fixtures were old and worn. The plumbing was leaking. The walls were decaying. What once had been a useful room had slowly sunk into disorder. Something needed to be done.
In the end, I chose to replace everything. I took the walls right down to the studs. I pried out the old cast-iron tub. I removed the aging WC. The only thing that I left in place was the tiled floor.
As I worked, the room was a mess, heaped with rubble. I nearly despaired of getting the heavy old tub out the door. My wife, who had never witnessed remodeling, experienced moments of discouragement in which she wondered whether she would ever have a truly functional bathroom.
In the process of remodeling, I threw away some items that could still have been used. The old ceramic sink that hung on the wall could have stayed there, but it left no room for a vanity. To make improvements, some of the older things had to go, not because they weren’t useful, but because they weren’t as useful or as beautiful as something else could be.
Only when the room had been gutted did I begin to improve it. I ran new plumbing and wiring. I hung new drywall, installed new fixtures, taped, bedded, and painted the walls, and added new cabinetry. In the end we had a useful and appealing room.
When our home was built, our bathroom enjoyed a significant level of order. Over time, that order diminished until it had to be restored to order. But before I could bring the room back to order, I had to destroy what was there, resulting in temporary disorder.
My bathroom remodeling project is a metaphor for human dominion over creation. Left to itself, the natural world tends toward disorder. The created world does not sustain itself permanently, especially since the introduction of sin into the world. Human management is required to maintain or enhance the order and beauty of creation. Often, however, humans who are managing creation discover that they must temporarily decrease order at specific times and places before they can increase the order.
When and where to do this is not usually a moral choice, but a prudential one. In fact, most of the choices that people make in their use of the natural world are prudential rather than moral. Shall we tear down one thing so that we might enjoy another? Shall we decrease beauty to increase utility? May we ever choose to displace some other part of creation, perhaps another species? While some broad moral principles do affect such choices (and we have discussed several of those principles in the preceding essays), the choices are most often matters of prudence.
What makes prudential choices difficult is that often they are not choices between clear goods and clear evils but choices between goods. We must decide which good or goods should be pursued at the expense of others. We also consider how to mitigate the costs of choosing any particular good.
Suppose that we have a tree, and the tree is a thing of beauty. Should we keep the tree to enjoy its beauty? Should we turn the tree into building materials? Should we use the tree for fuel to heat our homes and cook our food? Each of these is a legitimate use of the tree, and a good choice depends upon our circumstances. If we have already built everything we want, and if our homes are already warm and our food is already cooked, then we might wish to conserve the tree. We can continue to enjoy it, and we may find it useful in the future. If we lack shelter, however, then using the tree for building becomes more important. If we have no fuel and a Minnesota winter is on its way, then turning the tree into firewood may be the best choice.
This is not a moral choice. It is a prudential choice, and still other factors may also enter in. Perhaps the tree is large enough that it blocks the growth of smaller vegetation. Perhaps its roots are clogging a watercourse. Maybe the tree already has some infestation that is slowly killing it. Prudence takes account of as many factors as possible.
For prudential reasons, humans may even choose to displace entire species. For example, the highly contagious variola virus used to kill three out of every ten people who contracted it. Those who survived were often scarred for life. Severe outbreaks of the virus could devastate entire human populations (at one time the mortality rate among Native Americans was higher than ninety percent). Beginning in the 1950s, people determined to drive the variola virus into extinction. This goal was accomplished by 1980, with some samples being preserved in laboratories for study. Variola was inconsistent with human flourishing, and humans chose to displace it. No one misses it.
We do not know what useful purpose the variola virus may have served in an unfallen world, but in a world changed by sin it brought great disorder and destruction. Right human ordering of the world led to the extinction of this virus. Greater wholeness, order, and flourishing resulted from its destruction. The decision to destroy it was a good and prudent decision.
Exerting dominion within the natural world is not a zero-sum game, as if the world provided only so many resources. Rather, the created order is packed with untried and untapped resources. Often, we can take advantage of resources only by using up other resources in the process. For example, whales were hunted nearly to extinction for their oil, which was used for lubrication and light. As industrialization developed, mineral and vegetable oils replaced whale oils, and pressure on whales was reduced. Nevertheless, these later developments would not have been possible without the advances permitted by using whale oil.
Newer resources typically prove to be cleaner and more efficient than the old. We may not like the pollution that comes from internal combustion engines and we will surely develop other kinds of engines to replace them. But imagine the pollution we would have if all of us were still using horses and oxen for transportation and power.
Sometimes people must destroy before they can build. Sometimes the process of destruction is a necessary part of building. Sometimes one resource must be consumed in developing another and better resource. Sometimes humans may wish to displace a part of the created order. When faced with such choices, we should remember two things. First, the right use of nature is production, not preservation. Second, these decisions are matters of prudence, not morality.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
O Lord, Our Heavenly King
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
O Lord, our heavenly King,
Thy name is all divine;
Thy glories round the earth are spread,
And o’er the heavens they shine.
Lord, what is worthless man,
That thou shouldst love him so?
Next to thine angels he is placed,
And lord of all below.
Now rich thy bounties are,
And wondrous are thy ways!
In us O let thy power frame
A monument of praise!
God, Creation, and Humanity, Part 9: Natural Revelation
In spite of the fall, humans still have the responsibility to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it. Sadly, none of us has ever seen unfallen people exerting dominion over an unfallen world. Nobody knows exactly what that would have looked like. Instead, we find ourselves fighting both the chaotic element that has been introduced into nature and the predatory element that is now part of us.
Yet we have no choice. We have no other world in which to live. We must eat and drink. We require shelter and clothing. We must devise these goods and whatever else we need from the natural materials that are available to us. To survive, we must bend nature to our wills. The only question is how best we can do that.
Answering that question is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. For an answer to be true and useful, multiple considerations must be reckoned upon. These considerations are like the pieces of the puzzle. They must be fitted together, hopefully without forcing any of the pieces. As they fit together, a picture will begin to emerge.
Several important pieces are already on the table. Let me review a few of them. The world is created, and therefore the Creator and not the world is ultimate. The created order is fundamentally good in the sense of being useful or beneficial. Humans are part of the created order, but unlike the rest of creation, they are made in the Creator’s image and given dominion over other things. This dominion includes the responsibility to “subdue” creation: that is, to advance its order and utility. Because humans sinned, an element of disorder and evil was introduced into both creation and human dominion. Consequently, human oversight of creation has been weakened and twisted, but not eliminated.
Each of these pieces is vital to the puzzle. If any is neglected, the picture will be distorted or incomplete. Now, two more pieces of the puzzle need to be placed on the table. The first is that the created order gains its value from more than just its utility to human beings. It is also valuable as a partial but important revelation of God’s character.
The Scriptures teach that “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handywork” (Psalm 19:1). God reveals Himself so clearly in the things He has made that those who reject Him are without excuse (Rom 1:19–20). According to these texts, what God has revealed through nature includes His glory, His eternal power, and His divine nature. Natural revelation is not sufficient to lead someone to salvation, but it presents God so clearly that people who reject Him will rightly be held accountable.
God is a maker, and makers leave the marks of their personhood upon the things they make. Carpenters and plumbers reveal how skillful and careful they are by the work they do. Beethoven’s symphonies have a different character than Tchaikovsky’s. Breughel the Younger paints in a very different mood from Rembrandt, though the two are near in space and time. Makers stamp their character into the things they make. So it is with God and the creation He has made.
King David was able to perceive God’s activity even in the brokenness of the world. In Psalm 29 he traces the path of a devastating thunderstorm as it rolls in off the Mediterranean and assaults the forests and hills. Such storms are part of the disorder that has troubled creation since the fall. Yet David persistently names the thunder as “the voice of Jehovah,” and he sees in this storm the marks of God’s power and majesty. He calls upon his readers to
Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty,
give unto the LORD glory and strength.
Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name;
worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.
For the biblical writers, nature was enchanted. It was, in a sense, haunted. Creation is not God, but it displays His handiwork. While sin has brought genuine disorder and calamity into the world, the eternal power and divine nature of God still shine through. Even in its fallen state, creation should move people to shout glory to God.
This is my Father’s world,
He shines in all that’s fair,
In the rustling grass I hear Him pass,
He speaks to me everywhere.
When Christians approach the natural order, they should never treat it as God. They should, however, treat it with tender care, because it is a medium through which God has seen fit to make Himself known. They should be reluctant to damage the created world in ways that would permanently reduce its beauty and majesty. In fact, beauty and majesty are among the good things that humans should try to advance as they promote increased order and utility within the world.
Beauty and majesty do not require pristine preservation. Yes, an unplowed prairie is beautiful, but so are green fields of corn and beans alternated with pastures of clover dotted with red cattle. Wildflowers are beautiful, but so are the gardens of Schloss Schönbrunn or Château de Fontainebleau. There ought to be room on the planet for both natural and cultivated beauties. Christians who hold a right view of creation will try to ensure that there is.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Psalm 29
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
Give to the LORD, ye sons of fame,
give to the LORD renown and pow’r;
ascribe due honors to His name,
and His eternal might adore.
The LORD proclaims His pow’r aloud
o’er the vast ocean and the land;
His voice divides the wat’ry cloud,
and lightnings blaze at His command.
He speaks, and howling tempests rise,
and lay the forest bare around:
the fiercest beast, with piteous cries,
confess the terror of the sound.
His thunders rend the vaulted skies,
and palaces and temples shake.
The mountains tremble at the noise,
the valleys roar, the deserts quake.
The LORD sits sov’reign o’er the flood;
the Thund’rer reigns forever King;
but makes His temple His abode,
where we His awful glories sing.
We see no terrors in His name,
but in our God a Father find.
The voice that shakes all nature’s frame,
speaks comfort to the pious mind.
Moral Injury: Central Seminary’s 2024 Fall Conference
Lee was a platoon sergeant serving in Afghanistan. He was an older non-com who had been an E-7 for a while, but he took seriously his responsibility to train and care for the soldiers in his unit. Most of them were young enough to be his sons. He was also committed to helping his lieutenant achieve excellence in command, offering both advice and support as necessary. When Lee received word that a close family member had died in the States, he was offered compassionate leave. He struggled with the decision to go home, but eventually took two weeks to return for the funeral and to help his family. While he was absent from his unit, the platoon came under a rocket barrage. Three of Lee’s soldiers were killed. Lee felt as if these deaths were his fault: if he had been present, he might have been able to protect his soldiers. The sense of having failed in his duty cut to the core of Lee’s identity. Not only did he feel overwhelming guilt and shame, but he also saw himself as less of a soldier and less of a man. Assurances from his chaplain and even from the families of the deceased did nothing to diminish these feelings.
Sarah was an emergency physician practicing in a remote rural hospital. She was the only ER doc on staff. While she usually had a nurse available, Sarah had to do triage herself. It was rarely a problem until COVID struck. Suddenly, the hospital was overwhelmed. Sarah found herself working long days with little sleep. She felt as if she was barely able to manage. Then one night four patients were rushed in simultaneously from a multi-car crash. One had sprains and a broken arm. The other three were all much more seriously injured. While any of the three could be saved, Sarah knew that she didn’t have the resources to save them all. The patient with the worst injuries was going to consume so much time that the other two would be neglected and might die. Sarah made the choice to focus on the other two, and her choice resulted in the death of the one. Rationally, Sarah knew that she had made the right choice, but the patient who died was the mother of the two who survived. Sarah began to see the woman in her dreams, always with an accusing expression. She felt acute guilt at a choice that had allowed the woman to die. She wondered whether there was any point in becoming a doctor if she was not going at least to try to save all her patients.
Eddie was a Marine sniper, and he was very good at his job. With his finely tuned rifle, he could consistently deliver precision shots to targets over a mile away. One shot, however, lingered in his memory. Eddie was occupying an overwatch position to cover troop movements. From a nearby building emerged a child carrying a grenade. The child walked purposefully in a direction to intercept a fire team. The marines could not see the child from their position. Under the rules of engagement, this child was armed and presenting an imminent threat to the troops. Eddie watched the child through his scope, and at the last possible moment he took the shot and eliminated the threat. Eddie’s first, visceral reaction was to think, “I’ve killed a child.” That thought haunted him afterward. He kept replaying the situation in his mind, wondering whether he could have done something else. While he could think of no good alternative, his sense of guilt and shame continued to grow until it was overwhelming. He saw himself taking that shot over and over again in his nightmares. When he woke up from those dreams, he could barely breathe. When his enlistment was up, Eddie left the Marines, but he could not find peace.
While their situations differed, Lee, Sarah, and Eddie had much in common. All made choices that seemed justifiable under the circumstances. Afterward, however, all felt that the results of their choices were morally unacceptable. No amount of reasoning or justification removed the sense of having done wrong, of having violated some fundamental moral obligation. All felt themselves to be diminished as persons: each suffered some loss of identity. All of them became less able to function as professionals and as humans because of the guilt and shame that they carried.
What these people experienced is now being described under the label Moral Injury. This is a relatively new label that tries to distinguish a particular combination of responses from the older category of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The current consensus seems to be that these are overlapping but not identical problems. The effects of Moral Injury are often experienced among people who work in the military, in emergency services, and in health care, but they can occur as the result of any circumstance in which people make choices that they feel are contrary to their moral commitments.
Moral Injury is an old problem with a new label—so new that it is not even listed in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the authoritative work for mental health professionals. Nor has it been much described or discussed within the biblical counseling movement. It is a topic that most pastors know very little about. That is unfortunate, because almost every church has at least one Lee, Sarah, or Eddie.
We at Central Seminary want to provide our students and our pastor friends with an introduction to the category and an initial look at one possible Christian response. We have invited Chaplain (Col) Chris Melvin, State Chaplain for the Arizona National Guard, to lecture on this topic. Chaplain Melvin has the academic qualifications: his doctoral studies focused on Moral Injury. He also has the practical experience, with two tours in Afghanistan and one in the Horn of Africa, besides his ongoing ministry in the National Guard.
You can hear Chaplain Melvin at Central Seminary’s Fall Conference on Tuesday, October 15. The first session begins at 0830. There is a small charge if you attend in person, but breaks and lunch are included. You can register for the conference here. We would love to welcome you to this event.
For a Soldier in a Camp
Anonymous
Be thou my safeguard, O my God!
My refuge, tow’r and shield;
The tents of war are my abode,
Set in this martial field.
Am I protected by the Lord,
Amidst the loud alarm;
And wreathings of the bloody sword,
My life is kept from harm.
Should thousands drop on ev’ry side,
And strangle in their gore;
Yet thou my God canst still provide,
That I may be secure.
Make thine almighty arm my trust,
Let me on thee depend,
Whilst I’m in duty bound and must:
My country’s cause defend.
Make me resign’d unto my fate,
And patiently to bear,
With all the trials, I may meet,
And hardships of a war.
For Jesus’s sake my sins forgive:
Cause me thy love to know;
Teach me a Christian life to live,
As Christian soldiers do.
I trust unto thy providence,
Thy promises I plead;
My life is safe in thy defense,
In ev’ry time of need.
And should it be my lot and fate,
Here to resign my breath;
May I be in that happy state:
To die with living faith.
Civility
[This essay was originally published on January 21, 2011.]
Civility is in vogue again, at least for a few moments. The nation has been traumatized by another mass murder. A psychopath in Arizona cut down half-a-dozen innocent people, including a federal judge. A congressional lawmaker and others were left injured.
Everyone agrees that the murders were evil and even monstrous. It goes without saying that these acts violated the canons of civility—murders always do, whether they are one or many, whether the victims are federal officials or innocents in the womb.
The surprising thing is that someone has now speculated that uncivil political speech played a significant role in provoking the murders. The public—by which I mean the masses who are always eager for a facile explanation, particularly if it shifts the blame to someone else—has decided to treat this suggestion as a genuine insight. The result is that pundits and politicians are tripping over themselves to eschew rudeness. Civility is nouveau chic.
Certainly incivility can provoke violence. Rudeness provokes reactions, and those reactions sometimes escalate into physical altercation. If you are rude enough often enough to the wrong people, one of them is likely to take a poke at your nose.
That is a different matter than suggesting that incivility incites violence. Is an unhinged person more likely to commit murder simply because a politician or pundit was not nice to a public figure? Little or no evidence supports this thesis.
In fact, American politics draws from a robust tradition of incivility. Thomas Paine accused George Washington of being either an apostate or an imposter, treacherous in private friendship and hypocritical in public life. Thomas Jefferson hired pamphleteer James T. Callendar to hound John Adams for presidential corruption. The Federalists later used Callendar to pillory Jefferson, propagating the charge that he was the father of Sally Hemings’s biracial children. Decades later, cartoonist Thomas Nast (inventor of the modern Santa Claus) depicted Abraham Lincoln as a hairy ape or baboon. Harper’s Weekly famously listed epithets that were hurled at Lincoln: “Filthy Story- Teller, Despot, Liar, Thief, Braggart, Buffoon, Usurper, Monster, Ignoramus Abe, Old Scoundrel, Perjurer, Robber, Swindler, Tyrant, Field-Butcher, Land-Pirate.”
American political rhetoric has always been bumptious, though exceptions have existed. One of the exceptions, and one of the most civil presidents in American history, was George W. Bush. He was also one of the most maligned. His political opponents tagged him as stupid, a draft-dodger, a liar, a murderer, and a monkey. They picketed his public appearances, tried to shout him down, and threw things at his home. None of this led any crazed Leftist to begin shooting Republican lawmakers.
In view of the mauling that President Bush had to take, the current calls for civility come across as hypocritical and self-serving. By choosing this moment to furrow their brows and to wring their hands, the ones doing the calling leave the impression that they are manipulating a tragedy for political gain. That may seem hypocritical, but it is actually the smaller part of the problem.
The hypocrisy runs far deeper. Incivility is not limited to the sphere of politics, but has become a dominant mode of public behavior. Athletes, talk show hosts, celebrities, and other public figures are expected to act like jerks.
Hollywood cannot seem to market a movie without turning the protagonist into a bad boy. If he is young, then he has to be a punk. If he is a police officer, then he has to be a rogue. If he is a soldier, then he has to be a rebel. If he is Peter Jackson’s Aragorn, then he has to violate the morality of truce-making in order to behead the toothy Mouth of Sauron. Whoever he is, he has to display a measure of contempt for whatever legitimate authorities exist in his life.
For more than a generation, American civilization has been prepossessed with the notion that one is entitled to have one’s own way simply because one demands it. The more public one’s demands are, the more obnoxiously made, and the more they are seen to inconvenience the object of those demands, the more likely they are to succeed. Dogged, shrill insistence has proven to be the best way to wear down one’s opposition. Consequently, civil disruption has become a normal political process.
Marx and Engels provided the rationale for incivility. People who hold power are in the grip of ideology, they said. Such people are blind to the injustices that they commit. Their consciousness needs to be raised, and that happens only when they are forcibly confronted. Entrenched authority cannot be reasoned with: it responds only to demands backed up by threats.
In Marx and Engels, the threat entailed physical violence. In the case of a deprived teenager, the threat might involve a mere, whining annoyance. In between lies a range of incivilities, many of which are being practiced in present-day culture. The idea is simple: if you can’t make your case well enough to persuade, then assert your demands more and more forcibly until your opposition concedes.
This tactic has been embraced today by both Left and Right. Therein lies the problem. Incivility can prove to be extremely effective among those whose primary motivations stem from the appetites. A conservative, however, values both careful thought and ordinate affection, and these are undermined by every appeal to appetite. Conservatives above all people ought to value civility.
By definition, conservatives are supposed to be conserving something. Appetites such as rage, envy, panic, greed, and ambition, however, necessarily produce destruction. By invoking such demons, conservatives effectively cut the moral framework from under those things that they should most wish to conserve.
Conservatives believe in a transcendent moral order. That order includes places for the various stations, roles, ranks, and classes that human beings occupy. Among other things, the transcendent moral order requires a sharp distinction between licit authority and the illegitimate applications of power. Conservatives in general, and conservative Christians in particular, must conduct themselves so that they do no damage to lawful structures and licit authorities. Consequently, words like respect, restraint, and deference ought to characterize a conservative demeanor.
Christians bear a yet greater obligation. They must remember the doctrine of Providence, the notion that God is working in and through all worldly events. Christians believe that history is a story told by God in which they themselves occupy a place. For them to respond to providential events with rage or panic is effectively to disavow a part of their faith.
Calling for civility changes nothing. Like all fads, the current interest in civility will soon fade. What just might change something, however, is a determination on the part of conservatives—especially Christians—to demonstrate genuine civility over the long haul.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Though Every Grace My Speech Adorned
Scottish paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 13:1–3
Though every grace my speech adorned
That flow from every tongue;
Though I could rise to loftier strains
Than ever angels sung—
Though with prophetic lore inspired,
I made all mysteries plain;
Yet, were I void of Christian love,
These gifts were all in vain.
Though I dispense with liberal hand,
My goods to feed the poor;
Or, firm to conscience and to truth,
A martyr’s fate endure:—
Nay, though my faith, with boundless power,
Ev’n mountains could remove;
‘Twere all in vain, should I be found
A stranger still to love.
God, Creation, and Humanity, Part 8: The Future of Human Dominion
God has entrusted humans with the responsibility of managing the created order. He made it and brought it to a significant level of order and utility, but then charged them with exercising dominion, thereby increasing its order and usefulness. While humanity has fallen into sin, God has never revoked this fundamental human responsibility.
Nevertheless, fallen people do face increased obstacles to fulfilling their God-ordained responsibility to creation. One barrier is that sin has broken the created order. The world was never meant to be easily bendable to the human will, but now its resistance has increased to the point of recalcitrance. Another barrier is that since we are broken people, we tend to keep on breaking things. In particular, we keep damaging the created order. We damage it when we take wrong attitudes toward it, because those attitudes lead to actions. If we trivialize creation, we end up preying upon it. If we divinize creation, we will grant it a kind of autonomy that directly impedes our practice of dominion.
In view of the fall, the exercise of dominion has become immeasurably more difficult. Nevertheless, this human responsibility has not been revoked. Since God still holds people accountable to bring increased order to creation, what do they need to know? What will help them?
One very important truth is that God Himself is not finished with the created world. He has not written it off as a failed project, any more than He has written off the human race as a failed project. His intention is to rescue it. He will not only restore it, but also ultimately make it better than it would have been if sin had never touched it.
When Christ died on the cross, He died to provide salvation for individual sinners. He intended to rescue people both from original sin and from the sins that they had personally committed. Individual redemption, however, is not the only objective that Christ attained on the cross. His work also included victory over principalities and powers, which are spiritual forces opposed to God (Col 2:15). It included a plan for Israel and the nations (see Isa 19:18–25 for God’s plans for Israel, Egypt, and Assyria). Indeed, God’s plan is ultimately to sum up all things in heaven and earth under the authority of Christ (Eph 1:10). To accomplish this, Christ reconciled all things to Himself on the cross (Col 1:20). This reconciliation does not mean that all people will be saved, but it does mean that Jesus’ cross-work touches every person and every object in the universe. The atonement resonates with consequences that are truly cosmic.
In an important sense, redemption extends to the created order, damaged as it is by the fall. Paul addresses this issue in Romans 8:19–23. There, Paul acknowledges that creation has been subjected to futility as the result of human sin (20). The present disarray of the created order includes things like fires, floods, blizzards, tsunamis and other events that wreak havoc. It also includes the predation of some creatures upon others. As Tennyson said, nature is “red in tooth and claw.” Pain, suffering, and death have come into the world as it now exists.
God does not intend this condition to last forever. Nor does He plan simply to destroy the present world. Instead, He purposes to set it free from slavery to corruption. He intends it to enjoy the glorious liberty of the children of God (21). In other words, a day is coming when the whole created order will be restored to peace, productivity, and wholeness.
When will that occur? According to Paul, it will happen at the revealing of the sons of God (19), the time when God’s heirs will be put on display so that everyone can see and know their true identity. This revealing takes place when believers are visibly manifested as God’s heirs at the redemption or resurrection of their bodies (23).
In other words, the future promises a time when the just will be raised from the dead and visibly glorified. When this glorification takes place, the whole created order will be restored to the splendor that it enjoyed before the fall. The present fallen creation must be restored, so the restoration must occur before the destruction of the heavens and the earth by fire (2 Pet 3:7–10). In the long run God wins within human history. He wins before the creation of the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21–22).
In this restored creation, humanity will assume its proper role in exercising dominion over the world. This fulfillment will center upon Jesus, who is the perfect human being and the prototype for what God means humans to be. Consequently, even though we do not yet see all things subjected to human dominion, we do see Jesus who, even during His earthly ministry, took dominion over the elements of nature. When Jesus reigns, the rivers will clap their hands and the mountains will sing together for joy (Psalm 98:8).
This restored earth under the rule of Jesus will exhibit tremendous fruitfulness. The plowman will overtake the reaper and the planter will overtake the grape-picker (Amos 9:13). Animals will no longer hurt each other. Even the lion will eat grass. Wolves and lambs, leopards and goats, cows and bears will live peacefully together (Isa 11:6–9). Human dominion will be so complete that even a child will be able to manage these brutes. An infant will reach exploring fingers into the nests of cobras and vipers without harm. No one will hurt or destroy.
The Lord Jesus has already paid the price for these events to become reality. Every one of God’s opponents was defeated at the cross. While the creation still groans and suffers labor pains (Rom 8:22), the time of its deliverance is speedily approaching. At that time, humanity—and especially the human king, Jesus—will assume fully the dominion over creation that God always intended.
God has not given up on the created order. He does not see it as trivial. Jesus has died and risen again, not only to redeem individuals to Himself, but to redeem the whole cosmos where it has been marred by sin. Christ will be head over all things to the Church which is His body (Eph 1:22–23).
If God values creation so highly, then so should His people. While they must take pains never to deify the created world or to turn it into an end in itself, they must never despise God’s creation, neglect it, or treat it with contempt. Rather, they should embrace their divinely appointed role as guardians, caretakers, codevelopers, harnessers, cultivators, and conservators of the created order. They should so order the created world as to make it into the best that it can be while under the present circumstances.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
The King Shall Come When Morning Dawns
John Brownlie (1857–1925)
The King shall come when morning dawns
and light triumphant breaks,
when beauty gilds the eastern hills
and life to joy awakes.
Not as of old a little child,
to bear, and fight, and die,
but crowned with glory like the sun
that lights the morning sky.
O brighter than the rising morn
when He, victorious, rose
and left the lonesome place of death,
despite the rage of foes.
O brighter than that glorious morn
shall this fair morning be,
when Christ, our King, in beauty comes,
and we His face shall see.
The King shall come when morning dawns
and earth’s dark night is past;
O haste the rising of that morn,
the day that aye shall last.
And let the endless bliss begin,
by weary saints foretold,
when right shall triumph over wrong,
and truth shall be extolled.
The King shall come when morning dawns,
and light and beauty brings;
“Hail, Christ the Lord!” Thy people pray,
come quickly, King of kings!
God, Creation, and Humanity, Part 7: The Deification of Nature
Sometimes human beings undervalue the created order. When that happens, they may bring disorder into the natural world because they begin to prey upon creation. This behavior is a reversal of God’s intention, which was that humans should continue the work of ordering the world—a work that God Himself began during creation week.
The extent to which humans can disorder their world, however, is generally limited by the degree to which they can themselves tolerate disorder. Order is essential to human flourishing. People can live with a mess only so long before they feel impelled to begin cleaning it up. That is what has happened with the environment, at least in the industrial West (more should be said about the developing world at a later point in the discussion). After creating a significant mess, people started to clean it up—and they were doing a decent job of it.
At the very moment when Westerners began to succeed in cleaning up their environment, however, a different mindset emerged. Rather than demeaning the natural world and seeing it only as a thing to be exploited, some people began to deify the created order and to grant it autonomy from and even authority over human interests. This growing change in attitude was the hinge from a healthy respect for nature into an unhealthy version of Green Environmentalism.
The door was opened for Green Environmentalism by the increasing secularization of the West. By suppressing their consciousness of God, who can be seen in natural revelation, people also diminished their ability to perceive the image of God in humanity. They lost their sense of human uniqueness and began to view humanity as just another species of animal. As mere animals, however, humans could no longer be thought of as exercising any level of rightful dominion over creation. This change in thinking separated nature from both divine and human influence, so it was granted its own autonomy. People no longer had the right to govern, arrange, improve, and order the natural world. Rather, nature had to govern humans.
Paradoxically, this was also the point at which environmentalism became explicitly religious. The new religion, however, was not one that acknowledged a personal creator God. Instead, it was an amalgam of Eastern pantheism with primitive animism. This vision of the world was turned into propaganda by works like James Cameron’s Avatar movies. The upshot is that nature itself became divinized. People began to bow before an all-wise and all-giving Environment with something like reverential awe. Furthermore, they had no hesitation about imposing these religious convictions upon others who did not hold them.
This species of Green Environmentalism has committed itself to advancing Marxism in both its political and cultural varieties. The connection is straightforward. If the environment is truly autonomous and if humans have no right to govern it, then any attempt to impose order upon it must be seen as oppression. Consequently, a divinized nature achieves status as a victim for whom social justice must be pursued. Intersectionality links the exploitation of this divinized nature with various other supposed forms of racial, sexual, and economic oppression.
The oppressors, of course, turn out to be the same in every scenario. They are white males of European descent, not because being Caucasian or male has any intrinsic moral value, but because this is the class that has supposedly exercised hegemony over wealth and power. Consequently, the (post)modern Green Environmental movement is dominated by hostility to every form of capitalism, including free markets, capital enterprise, and the private ownership of property. Back in the nineties somebody quipped that environmentalism was like a watermelon: green on the outside, but red on the inside. After three subsequent decades that quip can no longer be taken as a joke. It is a simple statement of fact.
Environmentalists are trying to control legislation so as to “protect” the environment, which means barring its use for the wellbeing of humans. Even more aggressively, they have infiltrated and sought to dominate non-legislative regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Forest Service. These bodies are structured so that they cannot be accountable to ordinary citizens, and they are free to run roughshod over the interests of farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners, and others who make their living by turning the created world into useful goods for human flourishing.
What (post)modern Green Environmentalists want is not simply to conserve the environment, but to preserve it. They talk about sustainability, but what they want to do is to leave the natural world as nearly untouched as possible. The older notion of conservation included wise use, but the contemporary goal is non-interference. Non-governmental environmental organizations purchase thousands of acres of land every year simply to take it out of human use. They pressure corporations and zoning commissions to take more land out of human use. In the worst cases, they view human beings as intruders into the natural world, or even as viruses that must in the long run be eliminated.
The tragedy is that the created order responds poorly to non-interference. To cite just one example, wildfires in the American West have been increasing in both frequency and intensity. This increase is the direct result of a non-use policy that bars not only logging, but often even the gathering of dead wood. Forests become choked with tinder that ignites with a spark or lightning bolt. These fires can burn so hotly that the ground is scorched and sterilized, becoming impossible to reforest for generations.
Humans have been given the job of ordering creation. If they abuse that job, they can create a mess that needs to be cleaned up. If they neglect that job, however, and allow an increase in natural disorder, they will discover that the environment itself becomes a predator that renders human flourishing exponentially more difficult. The solution is not simply to exploit the environment, nor to try to preserve it, but to manage it, order it, and use it wisely. This is the only way in which human beings can begin to fulfill their responsibility toward the creation in which they live.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
God Seen In His Works
Anne Steele (1717–1778)
There is a God, all nature speaks,
Thro’ earth, and air, and seas, and skies,
See, from the clouds his glory breaks,
When the first beams of morning rise.
The rising sun, serenely bright,
O’er the wide world’s extended frame,
Inscribes, in characters of light,
His mighty Maker’s glorious name.
Diffusing life, his influence spreads;
And health and plenty smile around;
And fruitful fields, and verdant meads,
Are with a thousand blessings crown’d.
The flow’ry tribes, all blooming, rise
Above the weak attempts at art;
Their bright, inimitable dyes
Speak sweet conviction to the heart.
Ye curious minds, who roam abroad,
And trace creation’s wonders o’er,
Confess the footsteps of the God,
And bow before him, and adore.
God, Creation, and Humanity, Part 6: The Devaluation of Nature
During creation week, God brought the world from a relatively lower level of order to a relatively higher level of order. In an unfallen world, humans would have continued this process of ordering creation as God’s sub-regents, exercising dominion and subduing the world. By sinning, however, they brought death into the world, and with death came disorder. Creation has become less responsive to human dominion than it would have been, and humans became less capable of exercising what dominion they still had. Furthermore, they began to exercise it in ways that thwarted rather than fulfilled God’s purposes.
Sinful people think wrongly about God. They think wrongly about themselves. Inevitably, they think wrongly about creation. Wrong thinking about creation takes two broad forms: people either devalue it or they overvalue it.
The devaluation of creation has both ancient and modern forms. One ancient form was Gnosticism, which saw the material world not as the creation of a benevolent God but as the product of a stupid and ill-willed Demiurge. People who have been influenced by Gnosticism tend to view material creation as evil and not good. This judgment extends even to their own bodies. If materiality is bad, then embodiment is bad, and all bodily functions such as eating and procreation are also bad.
Full-blown Gnosticism arose during the Second Century. It was condemned early by Christians, but it continued to exert an influence. Its effects still linger in an attenuated form. The result is that, even though Christians may not see creation and ordinary life as evil, some of them dismiss it as worthless. They denigrate ordinary life, and especially the ordinary pleasures of life. These people tend to see overt devotion and evangelism as the only rightful pursuits for Christians. In their minds, whatever is not explicitly religious is at least suspect and probably sinful. Perhaps certain pleasures (such as the joys of the table or the marriage bed) cannot be avoided altogether, but they ought not to be sought. Activities such as reading fiction, playing games, or listening to non-religious music are seen as a form of idleness and are better avoided in favor of explicitly spiritual pursuits such as singing hymns, visiting the afflicted, and reading the Bible. They tolerate instruction in the interest of understanding the Bible, but learning for its own sake is frowned upon.
For such people, the beauties of nature may (perhaps) be enjoyed but not pursued. In fact, these people view the natural world largely in terms of its utility. They tend to be interested in creation only as a thing to be manipulated to meet their needs. Land that cannot be farmed or mined or built on they do not see as good or useful. They discipline themselves to spend all their time productively, and they believe that nature must be similarly disciplined. The created world is seen largely as an obstacle to be overcome. Wetlands are for draining. Rivers are for damming and bridging. Forests are for logging. People who think this way exhibit little interest either in appreciating the immediate beauty of creation or in grasping the intricacies of its interconnectedness.
The denigration of creation also takes a more modern and secular form. In this secular form, a utilitarian view of the natural world is twisted and amplified by two factors. One is a turning away from the concept of God. The ancients—even the Gnostics—still believed in some sort of God or gods who would ultimately hold them accountable. Modern people have jettisoned this prejudice. Secular people may believe in God, but their professed beliefs no longer exert significant influence over their daily choices. Even if they believe that God exists, they behave as though He had no interest in their activities. They are not so much atheists as they are un-theists.
This shift to un-theism means that people no longer see the natural world in connection with God or with any sort of a divine order or purpose. Everything becomes here-and-now, and they lose any sense that they will ever be held accountable for their use of the created world. In a word, they are free to destroy and pollute wherever and whenever it serves their purpose.
By itself, the harm that stems from this change in attitude would be slight if it were not for a second change. That second change is industrialization, or the ability to use machinery to produce on a large scale. Industrialization amplifies the damage that people can do to the created order. A single person casting a net could never overfish the oceans, but enough people with diesel-powered trawlers could. A single blacksmith heating iron over his fire is not likely to change the air quality, but a series of foundries can. A farmer spreading manure in his field will not cause algae blooms in nearby lakes, but all the farmers spraying industrial fertilizers on their crops will.
Unfortunately, secularization and industrialization virtually coincided in the West. The moment when people were losing their sense of inward restraint was the same moment in which they were overcoming outward obstacles. They became less inhibited about damaging the created order (and each other) at the very time when they gained the ability to do more damage than ever before.
Secular industrialization held sway from the mid-to-late Nineteenth Century until the final third of the Twentieth. This was a period of tremendous technological expansion, resulting in everything from skyscrapers to automobiles to labor-saving devices in every home. Those were also the years when skies were filled with smog and rivers with pollutants—not to mention the years when weapons of unimaginable terror were unleashed in wars of unparalleled scope.
The predations of secular industrialization could not be sustained. The image of God is hardwired in humans, and God’s image-bearers cannot stand to live in permanent disorder. By the 1960s, even secular industrialists were coming to understand that they had to clean up their mess. By the 1970s they had begun this process, and by the turn of the millennium many of the environmental effects of secular industrialization had been reversed.
In the process, however, something happened to the environmental movement. What started as an effort to clean up the mess turned into the equal and opposite error. Instead of denigrating the created order as they had for so long, people began to deify it. That shift has led to even more calamitous results, as we shall see in subsequent discussions.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Heralds of Creation
James Montgomery (1771–1854)
Heralds of creation! cry—
Praise the Lord, the Lord most high;
Heaven and earth, obey the call,
Praise the Lord, the Lord of all.
For he spake, and forth from night
Sprang the universe to light;
He commanded,—nature heard
And stood fast upon his word.
Praise him all ye hosts above,
Spirits perfected in love;
Sun and moon, your voices raise;
Sing, ye stars, your Maker’s praise.
Earth from all thy depths below
Ocean’s hallelujahs flow;
Lightning, vapor, wind, and storm,
Hail and snow, his will perform.
Birds on wings of rapture soar,
Warble at his temple-door;
Joyful sounds from herds and flocks,
Echo back, ye caves and rocks.
High above all height his throne;
Excellent his name alone;
Him let all his works confess.
Him let all his children bless.
Missions as Church Planting
[This essay was originally published on November 2, 2007.]
Historic Baptists agree that the work of missions is the work of planting churches. They derive this conviction from the uniform pattern of the New Testament. When the churches of the New Testament commissioned and sent out a member, it was invariably either to plant churches or to assist someone who was planting churches.
If the New Testament pattern holds, then a missionary’s work is not primarily to educate the ignorant, to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, to seek justice for the oppressed, or to engage in other works of mercy. These works are incidental to missions. While such works may be useful in facilitating church planting, and while they may be performed as fruits of the individual missionary’s Christian compassion, they are not properly the work of missions, and they should never be allowed to displace the work of missions.
Who, then, is a missionary? Properly speaking, a missionary is a church planter. The missionary’s responsibility is to preach the gospel, baptize those who profess the gospel, train believers in the faith, and organize them into New Testament churches. If Timothy and Titus may be used as examples (there are some differences), the missionary’s responsibility is not complete until the churches are fully ordered and self‐perpetuating.
The work of the missionary involves a much broader range of responsibility than the work of the local pastor. As church planters, missionaries must master the same biblical and theological content that a pastor has to know, but they also must excel as witnesses for Jesus Christ. They must be able, with minimal resources, to organize a functional church. In the case of foreign missionaries, they must normally be able to communicate well across cultural and linguistic barriers. The work of missions has an exponentially higher level of difficulty than the work of a pastor at home—though this in no way demeans the work of the pastor!
If a man cannot pastor a church at home, is he really qualified to be sent as a church planter? And how does anyone know whether he can pastor a church at home unless he has actually done it? Clearly, Barnabas and Saul had significant experience in local church leadership before they were sent out on their first missionary journey. Why should the modern missionary be less qualified?
American churches have typically taken the attitude that men who cannot function in ministry at home can be sent to the mission field. The formula has been simple. On the one hand, the most qualified men are called to the most prestigious churches at home. On the other hand, the least qualified men are sent into places where their commissioning churches only have to see them every four years.
Within the Lord’s vineyard, no work is more challenging than the work of missions. If it is as important as everyone says, then shouldn’t the best and brightest be encouraged toward the mission field? More specifically, shouldn’t the bulk of missionaries be drawn from men who have proven themselves in the work of the pastorate?
This suggestion raises a question about current missionary practices. Is it compatible with the “missionary call” about which so many make so much?
The answer to this question is that the New Testament does not seem to teach such a thing as a distinctive and lifelong call to missions per se. One can make an argument (though this is not the place to make it) that the New Testament does imply a calling to what is sometimes referred to as “vocational ministry.” In order to justify the notion of a lifelong call to a specific area of service, however, a biblical interpreter must engage in considerably more theological gymnastics. In fact, the New Testament undermines such a notion, for it shows men moving not only from one specific ministry to another but also from one kind of ministry to another.
When modern Christians refer to “vocational Christian service,” they include several different areas of ministry. They include New Testament ministries such as pastors, missionaries (church planters), and itinerant preacher‐teachers. They also include certain responsibilities that support these New Testament ministries, such as theological teachers and coordinators of infrastructural organizations. These supporting ministries grow out of particular functions of New Testament pastors or missionaries, and are generally regarded as “vocational ministry” even though they are not biblical offices. For example, a theological professor or a coordinator of a mission agency is usually said to be “in the ministry.”
Individuals are often led from one responsibility to another during the pursuit of their ministries. The same person may be a pastor at one time, a missionary at another, and a seminary professor at still another. A missionary may move between fields, and a pastor may move from one church to another. Nothing in the New Testament indicates that a person who moves between areas of service is somehow betraying the call of God upon his life. If anything, the New Testament pattern favors such moves.
Theologically, no reason exists for not insisting that men be tried and proven before they are sent to the mission field. Practically, many factors should motivate churches and mission agencies to ask candidates to prove themselves in ministry before going to the field. Among these are the years of travel that candidates will spend in deputation, the high price of establishing a new missionary on the field, and the heavy toll that first‐term ministry takes on new missionaries and their families.
The work of missions is one of the most vital aspects of New Testament Christianity. Churches that do not plant churches are failures as churches. Missions is too important to do in a shoddy or slipshod way. It is a work for the best and brightest of those who are called to minister.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Happy the Church, Thou Sacred Place
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
Happy the church, thou sacred place;
The seat of thy Creator’s grace;
Thy holy courts are His abode,
Thou earthly palace of our God.
Thy walls are strength, and at thy gates
A guard of heavenly warriors waits;
Nor shall thy deep foundations move,
Fixed on His counsels and His love.
Thy foes in vain designs engage;
Against His throne in vain they rage;
Like rising waves with angry roar,
That dash and die upon the shore.
Then let our souls in Zion dwell,
Nor fear the wrath of men or hell;
His arms embrace this happy ground,
Like brazen bulwarks built around.
God is our Shield, and God our Sun;
Swift as the fleeting moments run;
On us He sheds new beams of grace,
And we reflect His brightest praise.
APPLICATION & AID