Theology Central

Higher education is becoming more difficult, even among secular schools. Among Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries the challenges are even greater. Ongoing anxiety over COVID-19 multiplies these difficulties, and Central Baptist Theological Seminary has had to face them like every other school.

Surprisingly, God has chosen this moment to expand Central Seminary’s ministry around the world. On the one hand, we still have local students who move to Minnesota to attend seminary. For example, last year John Marshall joined us. John has his undergraduate and master’s degrees in Classics from the Catholic University of America. He wanted to train for the pastorate, so he moved from Washington, D.C. to Minneapolis. This year he was joined by his father Brent who just retired from his position as a lawyer with the Justice Department. Now the entire Marshall family is living in Crystal. Brent’s wife Lyn volunteers in our library.

On the other hand, more and more of our students live far from the seminary. In one of my theology classes I don’t have a single student in Minneapolis, but I am teaching students on three continents. If you were to visit our campus, you would see fewer students, but in fact we have more. It’s just that more of them join us from remote locations.

Several years ago Central Seminary began a transition toward in-person distance education. Distance students from many locations join together with on-campus students from Minnesota. They meet in electronic classrooms where the discussion flows as freely as if everyone were sitting in the same room. Pastors in Zambia and the Pacific Islands connect with others in Brazil and Bolivia. Church leaders in Romania and Ukraine pray and learn with students in New York City, Kansas, and (of course) Minnesota.

Our move to distance education has rescued us from COVID-19. Because we were already committed to on-line learning, we could make a seamless transition when Minnesota’s governor clamped restrictions on the number of people who could meet in person. While other schools struggled to meet new challenges, we hardly noticed a difference. Our enrollment has remained steady and has even increased. The ministry of WCTS radio has also expanded with a new FM translator in Plymouth, Minnesota.

Our donors have also remained faithful, in spite of limited public opportunities to give. When we had to cancel our annual “Friends and Family” banquet, the seminary’s friends still responded generously. We are excited to see the ministry of Central Baptist Theological Seminary moving forward during difficult days. Together, we are reaching the world with the gospel.

One opportunity that we have not lost is the annual “Give to the Max” day. Central Seminary has participated in Give to the Max since it was started over ten years ago. The day was originated by GiveMN, an organization that coordinates giving for Minnesota non-profits. Over the years, some of Central Seminary’s most generous donors have taken a special interest in Give to the Max.

This year a donor has offered a $50,000 matching gift. In other words, this donor will match every dollar given (to either Central Seminary or WCTS radio) up to a total of $50,000. Every dollar that you give will turn into two dollars. Together we can turn $50,000 into $100,000. That’s what it takes to keep training church leaders in Europe, Africa, North and South America, and other places.

You can give today by visiting the seminary’s website at www.centralseminary.edu/give or www.wctsradio.com. You can call the seminary between 8AM and 3PM (Central time) at (763) 417-8250. You can mail a gift to Central Baptist Theological Seminary at 900 Forestview Lane North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441. All gifts given before November 19 will count toward the $50,000 matching donation.

College and university students often graduate with heavy debt—sometimes into six figures. If seminary students had to pay for the full price of their education, they too would owe more than they could pay. Debt would cripple their usefulness. They would not be free to give themselves to ministry for years. Because of donors like you, however, our students pay only a fraction of the cost of their education. When they graduate, they are free to throw themselves into the work to which God has called them.

Central Baptist Theological Seminary sends out In the Nick of Time free of charge. We don’t sell your name to advertisers. We don’t spam you with ads. Only once each year do we let you know about this unique opportunity to Give to the Max. Would you consider supporting Central Baptist Theological Seminary with your donation—a donation that will be doubled as soon as you give it—a donation that will help to prepare Christian leaders around the world? Would you please Give to the Max? I am going to.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Thou, Whose Almighty Word

John Marriott (1780–1825)

Thou, Whose Almighty word
Chaos and darkness heard,
And took their flight,
Hear us, we humbly pray;
And, where the Gospel day
Sheds not its glorious ray,
Let there be light!

Thou Who didst come to bring
On Thy redeeming wing
Healing and sight,
Health to the sick in mind,
Sight to the inly blind,
O now, to all mankind
Let there be light!

Spirit of truth and love,
Life-giving, holy Dove,
Speed forth Thy flight!
Move on the waters’ face,
Bearing the lamp of grace,
And, in earth’s darkest place,
Let there be light!

Holy and Blessèd Three,
Glorious Trinity,
Wisdom, Love, Might;
Boundless as ocean’s tide,
Rolling in fullest pride
Through the world, far and wide,
Let there be light!

As I write this essay, the 2020 presidential election is still undecided. After two days of counting, some states are still not certain which candidate won—and until those counts are complete, their votes in the electoral college are hanging in the balance. Neither candidate presently has enough to win the presidency.

The state of Minnesota has endured more than seven months of restrictions related to COVID-19. My church canceled its prayer meeting last evening because the virus was confirmed within the congregation. At work I wear a mask whenever I step out of my office. I’m also a chaplain in the Civil Air Patrol, where masks have become mandatory for all meetings and activities.

My daughter and son-in-law live in Toronto. The border has now been closed for months. My wife and I have not been able to visit them face-to-face all year, and that situation doesn’t look like it’s going to change any time soon. I’ve been told that Canada will allow Americans to visit immediate family, but only if they can guarantee a stay of fifteen days or more. That’s out of the question for us.

A beloved friend appears to be spinning out of control in his spiritual life. He is engaging in the very kind of destructive behavior against which he has warned others. I’ve tried to remain his friend because a friend loves at all times. Still, his choices are making our relationship increasingly difficult.

Churches that I care about are suffering. Some of them don’t know how to respond to COVID-related governmental mandates. Others have shrunk to the point that they can no longer support a pastor. Some have become divided and are threatening to split or close. Unlike Paul, I am not charged with the care of the churches, but I still care about these churches. It pains me to see them drifting, divided, or declining.

In none of the above am I unique.

Many others are presently facing these same kinds of pressures. Some are enduring much worse. Some have endured severe personal illness—or have watched their loved ones go through it. Some have suffered bereavements. Some are struggling in their callings. Some have faced betrayals and abandonments. Compared to what these people are enduring, my little afflictions pale to petty annoyances.

Nor are these pressures unique to our age. I’ve just finished reading Augustine’s City of God, written at a time of invasion when Christian women were asking whether it was better to commit suicide than to endure rape. I have never (yet) had to face grinding poverty, a totalitarian government, the depredations of war, or the humiliation of imprisonment. Compared to most people through most of the world’s history, my life has been one of unimaginable peace and prosperity.

Nevertheless, the stresses of the present are real. They are also widely shared. Perhaps you feel them yourself. If so, then the question for us is how we should face these perplexities.

May I suggest that the first answer is prayer? Perhaps this answer is too obvious to have to state, but God expects us to pray. God responds to prayer. Prayer was a regular feature of Jesus’ ministry. It was also prominent in the lives of the apostles, especially Paul. We should be bringing up our concerns in our regular prayer (proseuche). These concerns should also be spilling over into our desperation prayer (deēsis). We should pray for our situations and for ourselves. We should also pray for each other. I’m not too proud to say it: I wish you would pray for me.

The second answer is to revisit our duties. When stresses increase, they tend to distract us from the things that matter most. We need regularly to return to the question, “What are my duties?” If I wish to be a good Christian, a good husband, a good father, a good minister, and a good professor, then I become responsible for an entire list of obligations. I dare not allow myself to be drawn away from these matters by concerns that may be immediate but are really secondary—if I can do anything about them at all. I must make sure that the most important concerns get addressed.

The third answer is that we should take heart. In fact, we should be brimming over with hope. Our hope has sure foundations. It is grounded in the Providence of God, who works all things according to the counsel of His will and who causes all things to work together for good for us. Our hope is also grounded in the fact that God has given us permission to cast all our cares upon Him, for He cares for us. There is no point worrying and wasting emotional energy on matters that are completely beyond my control but that God has well in hand.

The fourth answer is that we need to encourage one another. Discouragement leads to despondency, and despondency to despair. To despair is to say that we are beyond God’s reach—and that is neither right nor true. We need to remind each other that God is still working in our lives. We need to assure each other that none of us stands alone. We need to bear one another’s burdens, and we also need to hold one another to account. Each of us should stop worrying about where we will find encouragement; on the contrary, each of us should commit himself to becoming a font of encouragement to others. Nothing is more encouraging than to be used to encourage someone else.

In sum, when we are faced with hardship, we must show patience. Endurance is the name of the game. James says that a farmer plants a field, but he must then wait for the crop. While he is waiting he may feel as if little useful is happening, but the crop is growing. Our job is to endure, i.e., to keep doing what we need to be doing, unto the coming of the Lord. His return is drawing nearer. It is approaching one day at a time, and we must persevere one day at a time. Whoever is elected president. Whether or not we can hold prayer meeting. Even if we must wear masks. Or miss family. Or watch friends disintegrate and ministries decline. Prayer. Duty. Hope. Courage. Patience. Today. Tomorrow. Until Jesus comes.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Hallelujah! Who Shall Part?

William Dickinson (?–1889)

Hallelujah! Who shall part
Christ’s own church from Christ’s own heart?
Sever from the Savior’s side
Souls for whom the Savior died?
Dash one precious jewel down
From Immanuel’s blood-bought crown?

Hallelujah! Shall the sword
Part us from our glorious Lord?
Trouble dark or dire disgrace
E’er the Spirit’s seal efface?
Famine, nakedness, or hate,
Bridge and Bridegroom separate?

Hallelujah! Life nor death,
Powers above nor powers beneath,
Monarch’s might, nor tyrant’s doom,
Things that are, nor things to come,
Men nor angels, e’er shall part
Christ’s own church from Christ’s own heart.

For me, learning to read was like being initiated into the mysteries of a secret society. The ability to look at marks on a page and to register those marks in my brain as words, sentences, ideas, and stories—well, it seemed magical. It still does.

People who did not enjoy reading perplexed me. Later I learned that what came naturally and enjoyably to me was an opaque labor to others. Still, I naively assumed that those who worked with ideas must be readers. After all, how else could one communicate either a lengthy narrative or a sustained argument?

I gave pastors a high place among those who did the work of the mind. Perhaps this perspective came from watching my father study through Bible college. I still have vivid memories of him sitting at his desk with open books around him.

At any rate, it came as a shock to discover that most pastors read very little. Reasons for this deficiency probably vary from person to person. Some pastors are more gifted with personal skills. Others are more suited to bustle and activity than to careful thought. Nevertheless, the primary calling of every pastor is to do the work of the mind. If nothing else, preaching is a challenging intellectual activity, at least if a pastor intends to say something worth listening to. Not every pastor needs to be a scholar, but even very ordinary pastors need to be readers.

Becoming well read does not usually happen by accident. Those who read only what they feel like reading, and only when they feel like reading it, will gain only minimal and lopsided exposure to the world of ideas. A balanced reading program must be planned.

How much should a pastor read? Some complete only a volume or two of light reading in a year; others read as much as a book every day. To become reasonably well read, a pastor ought to aim to read just about a book every week. Any more and other areas of ministry may suffer (unless he is remarkably gifted). Any less and his mind will begin to suffer.

Of course, books differ in length. Some can be completed in fewer than 100 pages, while others will run well over 1,000. An average book, however, is approximately 250 pages. Consequently, pastors should aim to average about 250 pages per week—50 pages for each weekday. For most pastors reading most books, that task will take no more than an hour each day.

Some reading has to be done over the long haul. Most pastors will not sit down and read straight through a Bible version, a systematic theology, or a technical commentary. These are projects that must be stretched out. Just two chapters of Scripture each day will get a reader through the Bible in about a year and a half. Commentaries can be read a week at a time in connection with sermon preparation—assuming that the pastor is an expository preacher who works through entire books of the Bible. For theology, Ernest Pickering used to recommend that pastors read 50 pages of systematic theology every week. That amounts to only 10 pages every weekday. At that rate a pastor can work through a fairly substantial systematic theology every few months.

To these sustained reading projects, pastors should add books that cover a variety of subjects. Naturally, they have a professional interest in books that deal with biblical issues. Besides commentaries they should be reading works on biblical introduction, history, backgrounds, and hermeneutics. Alongside these, pastors should read theological works that deal with more specialized questions: hamartiology, for example, or dispensationalism and covenant theology. They should also read volumes on topics in pastoral theology such as church administration, homiletics, and counseling.

Closely related to biblical and theological studies are two other disciplines: philosophy and history. Philosophical works, including books on logic, ethics, political theory, and aesthetic criticism, should be part of a pastor’s reading rotation. So should historical (including biographical) works that cover every period.

For the good of his soul, a pastor should regularly read devotional works. These should include both classical works of devotion (Augustine’s Enchiridion, for example, or Edwards’s Religious Affections) as well as more contemporary works. Naturally, even devotional works should be read critically. Only one book is inspired, inerrant, and completely authoritative; all others need to be evaluated.

Two other categories deserve to be included. One is science. Although a pastor’s work is more related to the humanities than it is to the sciences, he ought not to be scientifically illiterate. The other is belles lettres including works of literary fiction, poetry, and drama. These works of imagination are both enjoyable and worthy of study. Furthermore, they can teach a pastor how to appeal more effectively to the moral imaginations of his congregants.

Most people complete a certain amount of junk reading, designed to turn the mind off rather than to stimulate it. A pastor might read murder mysteries, political thrillers, or romances without necessarily doing himself harm, but he should not count these toward his reading goals. Instead, he should discipline himself to read through the above categories, more-or-less in rotation: biblical studies, philosophy, theological works, history, pastoral theology, science, devotion, belles lettres. Then every now and then he should throw in something completely different just to break up the rotation and expand his thinking.

I have tried to follow a rotation like this for the past 40 years, both as a pastor and as a professor (though as a professor I must read more than a book each week). Furthermore, I keep a log of my reading by title, page count, and category. The discipline of logging my reading helps me to stay accountable. It also gives me a quick way to see whether my reading is becoming imbalanced in any direction. Because I teach theology, of course I must read more in that discipline. Still, I don’t want to neglect the others.

Consulting my log, I can see that the past ten books I have read include two belletristic works, one of which is also a work in Eastern religion and the other an exemplification of Medieval Catholicism. My list also includes a short volume on recent American history, a substantial work on biblical theology, a book dealing with the effects of psychedelic drugs, a book of political theory, a volume in theology proper, a short dogmatic theology, a volume of ancient history that overlaps with Old Testament backgrounds, and a work of ancient philosophy. While this list includes no devotional literature, I did spend a good bit of the summer reading devotional works. If there is a deficiency it is in pastoral theology, though at my stage in life that doesn’t seem as useful as it once was.

So if you’re a pastor, try this. Develop a plan that works for you—it doesn’t have to be mine. But for the good of your mind, your soul, and your congregants, read, and read widely.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

I Send the Joys of Earth Away

Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

I send the joys of earth away;
Away, ye tempters of the mind,
False as the smooth, deceitful sea,
And empty as the whistling wind.

Your streams were floating me along
Down the gulf of dark despair,
And whilst I listen’d to your song,
Your streams had e’en conveyed me there.

Lord, I adore Thy matchless grace,
That warn’d me of that dark abyss,
That drew me from those treacherous seas,
And bade me seek superior bliss.

There, from the bosom of my God,
Oceans of endless pleasure roll;
There would I fix my last abode,
And drown the sorrows of my soul.

Pastors work with people, so they need personal skills. Pastors work with churches as organizations, so they need administrative skills. More than anything else, however, pastors work with ideas. They do the work of the mind. At minimum, they seek to grasp the meaning of God’s Word and to communicate it to their people, applying it carefully to the issues of the day. Consequently, they need both information and intellectual skill.

That skill comes largely through reading. No amount of listening to podcasts or watching videos on YouTube will take the place of reading. If you are a pastor, reading is what will give you something to say.

Of course, you will do a certain amount of reading as you prepare for preaching. You will read your text; in fact, you will translate it. You will read the principal grammars that address issues within your text. You will read commentaries that explore your text (preferably after you have already drawn your own tentative conclusions).

Besides all that, you will be reading the Bible straight through. Maybe you won’t read it through every year, but you will read through the Bible regularly. Over time, you will read through all the principal translations (I’m presently reading through the NET Bible).

If a pastor is going to know how to apply the Bible’s teaching to the questions of the day, he needs to know what those questions are. He needs to know what events are affecting the spiritual, intellectual, and moral environment of the people to whom he preaches. He needs to know how those events are being perceived by the communities in which his church members live.

Probably the worst place to gain that information is through standard news reportage, whether in print, broadcast, or internet. The press has exactly two jobs: (1) get the facts, and (2) tell the truth. It consistently fails in both departments. The problem is not that the news outlets are biased or incompetent; the problem is that they pretend they aren’t. Because their bias is hidden, it is poisonous.

The better alternative is to seek news coverage from outlets that admit their bias up front. In other words, the journals of opinion will do far more to help a pastor understand both the events and how they are being perceived than any putatively objective news source. The key is to read journals that speak from a variety of perspectives. Happily, almost all of them are available online, and in most cases you can access them for free.

Because liberalism keeps changing, knowing the liberal perspective from week to week can prove daunting. The journals on the Left will help you track its current manifestations. The New Republic has taken a liberal slant for generations, as has the Nation (though years ago it had a conservative editor). Mother Jones is a newer journal on the Left, and Slate is newer still. A radically secular and anti-religious variety of liberalism appears in the Humanist. The perspective of mainline, liberal “Christianity” can be found in the Christian Century. You can read a fair representation of the Evangelical Left in Sojourners.

On the conservative side of the spectrum, National Review is the granddaddy publication. Founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., it has been the conservative flagship for over six decades. As might be expected, it represents a generally paleo-conservative perspective. For a more neo-conservative point of view with a religious flavor, First Things is the place to go. Other periodicals like the American Conservative and the American Spectator are more populist in their approach, but still register on the conservative side of the spectrum (though the American Spectator is closer to the edge). Unfortunately, evangelical conservatives do not publish a responsible journal of opinion—the kind of thing that Christianity Today was founded to be but hasn’t actually been for decades. In the absence of something strictly evangelical, an acceptable alternative is probably Touchstone, which is published by a team of “mere Christians” who are evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic.

A journal that does not neatly fit any mold is the New Criterion, which gives significant coverage to arts, letters, and serious cultural trends. It does not aim to be strictly conservative. If anything, it represents an antique version of liberalism. Its editors, however, still hold a commitment to meaning, beauty, and (strangest of all) to norms. Consequently, it often seems conservative by comparison. It’s worth reading, and it has become my go-to journal for cultural discussion since Harpers and Atlantic have gone down as ideological shills.

What should you look for in these journals? The short answer is, whatever interests either you or the people to whom you minister. Certainly you should scan the reviews of books and movies: you would never watch Cuties, for example, but you’d better know what it represents. You should also skim the headlines of the feature articles. You can concentrate on articles discussing trends that will affect churches, ministries, and families. Ignorance of these things is not a virtue.

When I was a pastor I would try to spend two to three hours every week checking these and similar publications. In those days I had to drive to the public library to do this reading. Now I can do the same job directly from my computer.

These sources won’t give you the late-breaking news, but they will help you follow the major stories. Each one will also give you a unique perspective on the events that it covers. Knowing those perspectives can be useful to a pastor, even when they are wrong. A couple of hours every week spent glancing through these periodicals is a worthwhile investment in knowing what you’re talking about.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Come to the Ark

Christian Hymn Book, 1841

Come to the ark, come to the ark;
To Jesus come away:
The pestilence walks forth by night,
The arrows fly by day.

Come to the ark: the waters rise,
The seas their billows rear;
While darkness gathers o’er the skies,
Behold a refuge near!

Come to the ark, all, all that weep
Beneath the sense of sin:
Without, deep calleth unto deep,
But all is peace within.

Come to the ark, ere yet the flood
Your lingering steps oppose;
Come, for the door which open stood
Is now about to close.

The Sixth Commandment forbids murder. This commandment is one of God’s moral laws, grounded in His nature, and articulated across the dispensations. The first murderer, Cain, faced God’s judgment for his crime (Gen 4:8–12). After the Flood, God pronounced capital punishment to be the penalty for murder (Gen 9:5–6). Jesus expounded the Sixth Commandment in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:21–26). The apostle John warns church saints against becoming murderers like Cain (1 John 3:12). These and many other scriptures clearly teach that murder is always and everywhere wrong.

The Lord Jesus applied the Sixth Commandment in ways that went beyond physical murder (Matt 5:21–26). According to Jesus, other violations of this commandment include unjustified anger, abusive speech, and character assassination. Jesus was pointing out that the Sixth Commandment (as well as the others) implies more than it states directly. He was also pointing out that God’s people are responsible both to work out and to live out the implications of the commandments.

One attempt at working out the implications of the Ten Commandments can be found in the Westminster Larger Catechism. The catechism devotes an entire section to duties that are required in the Sixth Commandment (Q 135). Another section (Q 136) deals with sins that this commandment forbids.

Remarkably, the catechism does not consider all homicide to be murder. On the contrary, it recognizes the possibility of taking another life lawfully as part of “public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence.” This position is not surprising: the Westminster Standards were drafted by Puritans whose New Model Army trounced the Cavaliers in the English Civil War. The same Puritans ultimately executed Charles I for treason. These men were not afraid of a fight.

Nevertheless, they were lovers of peace and temperance. The burden of their comments in the Larger Catechism is not to justify violence but to escape it. The duties that the catechism infers from the Sixth Commandment include “avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any.” Furthermore, God requires attitudes characterized by “charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild, and courteous speeches and behavior: forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil.” Among the sins that the commandment forbids are “sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge . . . provoking words; oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.”

The thrust of these teachings is that we do not have to commit a murder ourselves to become guilty of murder. Provoking a murder gives us at least a share of the guilt. Consequently, we must avoid not only murder but also those behaviors which incline people toward murder. If we wish to avoid bloodguiltiness, then we will not even go looking for trouble. To the best of our ability we will stay out of situations where we know it could arise. We will not strut, bluster, or carry a chip on our shoulder. We will not display a demanding, bellicose, or vengeful attitude. We will not degrade people in either our speech or our manner. Instead, we will model gentleness, kindness, patience, reconciliation, forgiveness, and forbearance.

If the Larger Catechism is right (and I believe it is), then these standards are implicit in God’s moral law. As such they are not merely Christian virtues to be cultivated by the most spiritual among the redeemed, but moral minimums for all human beings. A civilization that tolerates their transgression can expect natural consequences to follow. Among other results, it will pay the price of increasing brutality and anarchy.

That appears to be where American civilization stands at this moment. American civilization now glorifies exactly those behaviors and attitudes that tend toward murder. It rewards brashness, swagger, and confrontation. Its people are conditioned to respond with demonstrations instead of due process, slander instead of sober speech, and riot instead of reason. America has a civilization that has lost its moral center and is consequently faced with the choice between either uncontrolled chaos or the sheer will to power. Those whose sole concern is power are willing to use the threat of chaos as their stalking horse, temporarily fostering anarchy until tyranny begins to seem like an acceptable alternative.

So great is the pressure that people who traditionally favor order and decency—that is to say, conservatives—have begun to feel as if they must respond in kind. They have begun to resort to coarseness, caricature, abusive speech, and the argumentum ad baculum. If the Left mounts a protest, then the Right feels that it has to counter-protest. If the Left carries Molotov cocktails and bricks, then the Right shows up brandishing guns. This tactic plays right into the hands of the Left because every escalation brings the civilization one step closer to anarchy, and after anarchy comes tyranny—which by definition can never be conservative.

Perhaps that last comment requires a word of explanation. Someone might object that Naziism and Fascism produced tyrannies, did they not? Of course they did, but the difference between Communism and Fascism is not a difference between the Left and the Right. It is a difference between two versions of the Left. The operative word in National Socialism (Naziism) is socialism. All socialist schemes—indeed, all schemes for economic and social leveling or “social justice”—are by definition Leftist and by definition unjust. I repeat: no genuine conservative ever favors tyranny, even in the name of Nationalism.

Now, back to the point. Not only Christians but all people who wish to avoid the charge of murder must commit themselves to keeping the Sixth Commandment and all its implications. We who profess to be genuinely conservative (let alone Christian) have a duty both to avoid unnecessary conflict and to de-escalate unavoidable conflicts if we can. As our civilization becomes more anarchic, our duty is to stand forth as voices of reason and temperance. We must resist the temptation to demonize our opponents or to appeal to violence. We must distance ourselves from every behavior and attitude that tends to inflame violence and to incite the taking of life. Unfortunately, those behaviors and attitudes have become too common on the Right as well as the Left, in both public and private discourse, by the high and mighty as well as the low and mouthy.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Great King of Glory and of Grace

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Great King of glory and of grace,
We own, with humble shame,
How vile is our degen’rate race,
And our first father’s name.

From Adam flows our tainted blood,
The poison reigns within;
Makes us averse to all that’s good,
And willing slaves to sin.

Daily we break thy holy laws,
And then reject thy grace;
Engaged in the old serpent’s cause,
Against our Maker’s face.

We live estranged afar from God,
And love the distance well;
With haste we run the dangerous road
That leads to death and hell.

And can such rebels be restored?
Such natures made divine?
Let sinners see thy glory, Lord,
And feel this power of thine.

We raise our Fathers name on high
Who his own Spirit sends
To bring rebellious strangers nigh,
And turn his foes to friends.

(With apologies to Wilbur Smith, who has already used this title, and to Murray Harris, who borrowed it from him before I could)

I won’t sugar coat the news: I just turned sixty-five. I can remember when my mother’s father turned this age. He seemed ancient and used up. But then he had fought in the Great War, supported a family during the Depression, and lived through World War Two, the Korean War, and a good bit of the Johnson administration.

My earliest recollection is of being strapped down to a hospital gurney and having my stomach pumped. I was just over a year old, and apparently I had got into the aspirin. Nobody could tell how many I may have gulped. The experience was terrifying. It felt like the end of the world.

About that time my father built a small house outside Mapleton, Michigan. The water was so salty that it corroded the plumbing. Dad also built me a playhouse in the back yard, near an open field of sandy hills. I could listen to the bobwhites whistle in the scrub.

When I was three or four years old my parents trusted Christ as Savior. I was old enough to notice the change that came into our home. Some habits suddenly disappeared. New ones took their place. We began to attend church whenever it was open: typically, four services per week. Every visiting missionary or Bible teacher became a guest in our home. My parents did not simply profess faith. Their lives genuinely changed as they grew in faith and good works.

My own conversion came at seven years of age. At ten I followed the Lord in believer’s baptism. Shortly afterward I recognized consciously and deliberately the claim that Christ held over my life, and I submitted myself to serve Him in whatever way He wished.

During my first ten or eleven years we constantly had foster children in our home. Over the years I had more than twenty foster brothers and sisters, besides my own sisters and brother. Some were with us only for a few weeks; others stayed for years. Some were newborns. Others were advancing into their upper teens. Fully half were mentally “retarded” (as we called it in those days). The rest brought plenty of emotional baggage from their circumstances, but all were special. Cindy and Kelly had watched their mother murder their father. Sarah was a newborn who was with us long enough to seem like a real little sister. Ray was six or seven years older than me, strong as a bull, and acted like a big brother. Whenever one of them was taken away it felt like the end of the world.

Everybody was scared of communism and nuclear war during those days. In school we practiced hiding under our desks from nuclear attack. At church camp and in youth rallies we were regularly warned that the communists had sworn to take over America by 1972, and they were ahead of schedule. Of course, we now know that it won’t happen until 2022.

My first recollection of global events comes from November 22, 1963, when Mrs. Mullarz, our elementary principal, came into our classroom and told our teacher to turn on the radio. President Kennedy had just been shot. School was dismissed early that day and didn’t resume for a week. It felt as if a world had ended.

Over the next several years we witnessed a string of assassinations: Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), and Bobby Kennedy (1968). Viet Nam began to heat up, eventually leading to anti-war protests. Those were years of civil unrest: hippies, yippies, the 1967 race riots, more riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Chicago Seven, the Kent State shootings, the University of Wisconsin bombing. In Cleveland the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. Later that year Woodstock was supposed to be about peace and love, but what I remember is that somebody else had to clean up the mess—which is a bit of a metaphor for my generation. Then Woodstock was followed by Altamont. So much the worse for peace and love.

At the end of 1968 my parents left Michigan for Bible college. My father graduated in 1973, the same spring that I graduated from high school. He graduated in the top half of his class; I graduated in the bottom half of mine. Richard Nixon was the president, the nation was in the middle of an energy crisis, stagflation was running rampant, and the Watergate hearings were just beginning.

I managed to cram a four-year bachelor’s program into the next six years. I also gained experience as a factory worker, a hot asphalt roofer, a lifeguard, a warehouse laborer, and a retail salesman. During that time I met, courted, and wed a farmer’s daughter from southern Iowa. Within a year of our marriage I knew that the Lord was leading me toward vocational ministry. In June of 1979 we moved to Denver for seminary. The next four years brought my M.Div., my Th.M., and an invitation to teach in a Bible college.

That teaching experience lasted only two years, but it was when our daughter was born. I left the Bible college for a pastorate, and that is where our son was born. During that pastorate I began work on a D.Min. While finishing the D.Min., I left the pastorate to begin work on a Ph.D. Then, while working on the Ph.D., I led in planting a church near Dallas, pastoring that congregation for several years. At the beginning of 1998 I began teaching at Central Baptist Theological Seminary.

One thing I’ve learned: the end of the world isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The Asian Flu epidemic of 1957-58 was going to be the end of the world. Then it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Perhaps it was the Civil Rights Movement, desegregation, and bussing. Or was it Viet Nam? Or global cooling? Perhaps it was the Counterculture—or maybe Watergate. No, it was the Iran hostage crisis. Or the Swine Flu. Or AIDS. Wait, it must have been Ruby Ridge. Or Waco. Or the Clinton presidency in general. Or the Oklahoma City bombing. Or global warming. On second (third? fourth?) thought, it must have been the Avian Flu. Or the West Nile Virus. Or Ebola. Or September 11. Or the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Or climate change.

Come to think of it, I’ve endured one end of the world after another—yet here I am. God is still governing the universe. Christ is still coming. We Christians still have a job to do. We have not been called to panic or to speak shrill words. We have been called, you and me, simply to be faithful.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Hallelujah, Praise Jehovah

The Psalter, 1912

Hallelujah, praise Jehovah,
O my soul, Jehovah praise;
I will sing the glorious praises
Of my God through all my days.
Put no confidence in princes,
Nor for help on man depend;
He shall die, to dust returning,
And his purposes shall end.

Happy is the man that chooses
Israel’s God to be his aid;
He is blessed whose hope of blessing
On the Lord his God is stayed.
Heav’n and earth the Lord created,
Seas and all that they contain;
He delivers from oppression,
Righteousness he will maintain.

Food he daily gives the hungry,
Sets the mourning prisoner free,
Raises those bowed down with anguish,
Makes the sightless eyes to see.
Well Jehovah loves the righteous,
And the stranger he befriends,
Helps the fatherless and widow,
Judgment on the wicked sends.

Hallelujah, praise Jehovah,
O my soul, Jehovah praise;
I will sing the glorious praises
Of my God through all my days.
Over all God reigns for ever,
Through all ages he is king;
Unto him, your God, O Zion,
Joyful hallelujahs sing.

One of the blessings of living in the United States of America is freedom of speech. No American needs to ask permission to state his mind, whether in public or in private. This freedom is recognized as a fundamental right—the kind of right that the Declaration of Independence calls “inalienable.” What is an inalienable right? It is a right that stands on its own, a right of which no one can be deprived, and a right that no one can surrender.

The original text of the United States Constitution did not mention this right. That neglect was soon corrected, however, and the right to free speech was soon protected in the first listing of ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech is specifically protected by the First Amendment. It is worth noting that the Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights. It is a recognition and legal protection of rights that already exist.

The limitations upon this right are few. Obscene speech is not protected. Libel is not protected. Neither is speech that creates what Chief Justice Holmes called a “clear and present danger”—specifically, speech that is directed toward and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In other words, protests are protected speech. Incitement to riot is not. Riots themselves are certainly not.

Americans have a tradition of protest speech that dates from before the time the colonies united as states. On December 16, 1773, sixty Sons of Liberty disguised themselves as Indians (their term) and heaved some forty-six tons of tea into Boston Harbor. Whether or not the Tea Act was an unjust law, and whether or not the Boston Tea Party was a moral protest, one thing is clear—protest is not new in America.

To be clear, however, no justified protest can ever breach a just law—not even for the purpose of protesting an unjust act. For example, laws that permit abortions on demand are evil laws. Christians can rightly protest these laws and seek to change them. They might even choose to protest abortion clinics. If they do, however, they must respect the property rights of those clinics. Laws that protect property are just laws, even when they protect unjust people. To undermine property law is to undermine something fundamental to human life and liberty.

The principle is simple: no one can live without property. If someone deprives you of all possessions (clothing, shelter, food, and the means to obtain them), you will die. Whoever can deprive you of property can deprive you of life. It is no accident that “Thou shalt not steal” is a fundamental moral law.

Consequently, when protestors commit trespass or seize a building, they become renegades. They are answerable for breaching just laws. The same is true of protestors that block public streets and hinder traffic: access and egress is part of the means to obtain property. If the street leads to a hospital or some other essential service, then access and egress may even be immediately critical to life.

Certain perspectives commonly distinguish violent from non-violent protests. This distinction, however, hardly matters; it is nearly meaningless. When a just law is breached, the difference between violence and non-violence is at most one of degree. The correct distinction is between protests that respect just laws and protests that breach them. If a protest breaches just laws, then it is really in the same class as a violent protest or a riot.

Liberty rests upon order, and when order collapses, liberty topples. The fundamental duty of all civil authority is to maintain good order and to execute retribution upon those who rupture it. The Bible makes this point all the way from Genesis 9:6 to 1 Peter 2:14, but it would still be true even if we had no Bible. Nothing is worse or more destructive to liberty than anarchy—even when it masquerades as anti-Fascism.

How should the state respond to violence? How should authorities react to people who run wild, burning buildings and looting property? The only right answer is that the civil authority “beareth not the sword in vain” (Rom 13:4). Governments are within their biblical boundaries to suppress violence with violence. If the police cannot or will not maintain order, then the military must.

This principle also applies to supposedly “non-violent” protests that transgress just laws—including property and trespass laws. The fact that protestors are unarmed does not mean that they have the right to intimidate the innocent or to stem the normal flow of normal human liberty. Where just laws are breached, government has a primary duty to intervene.

Rage is not protest. Riot is not protest. Plunder is not protest. Trespass is not protest. The business of government is to stop people from engaging in such behaviors as a form of protest. Officials who cannot understand this simple truth need to be removed from office as swiftly as possible.

I believe strongly in the right to protest. In fact, this essay is an exercise in that right. What I deny is the right to breach just laws. I may be on your side in whatever you happen to be protesting (certainly the case with abortion), but the moment you violate a just law, you will lose my support. In fact, I will cheer when the government meets you with whatever level of force is necessary to halt your infraction and to restore order.

The state of Minnesota understands these principles. In the city of Robbinsdale, less than three miles from my home, is an abortion clinic. By law, protestors are prohibited from trespassing on clinic property. By court order, they must maintain a specified distance from the clinic. This law is rigorously enforced. I am grateful to live in a state where even non-violent protests are held in check.

Right?

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Not the Malicious or Profane

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Not the malicious or profane,
The wanton or the proud,
Nor thieves, nor sland’rers, shall obtain
Tue kingdom of our God.

Surprising grace! and such were we
By nature and by sin,
Heirs of immortal misery,
Unholy and unclean.

But we are washed in Jesus’ blood,
We’re pardoned through his name;
And the good Spirit of our God
Has sanctified our frame.

O for a persevering power
To keep thy just commands
We would defile our hearts no more,
No more pollute our hands.

The summer has not gone as I intended. Of course, many folk can say the same, what with the restrictions imposed in the wake of COVID-19. That’s not what I mean, though. I saw those restrictions as an opportunity. Suddenly my entire summer schedule opened up. I didn’t have a single speaking engagement or a single meeting to attend. This reprieve promised time to complete a major editing job and perhaps a minor writing project or two. I also hoped to tackle a couple of small household tasks.

One of these was to replace the door and its frame on the shed in my back yard. Perhaps I should describe the shed. I built it nearly twenty years ago. While I planned to use it for storage, I also wanted it to be useful as a shop or even an office if the occasion arose. My city allows construction of an outbuilding of up to 120 square feet without a building permit, so I built it ten feet by twelve. The shed rests on a post and beam foundation and is a complete frame structure: joists, sill plates, rafters, studs on sixteen-inch centers. It has an eight-foot ceiling, a gambrel roof, and an attic that I can sit up in.

Last fall I noticed that the door frame had water damage and rot was beginning to set in. I intended to make a weekend project of replacing it. When I tore out the frame, however, I discovered that the jack studs, sill plate, and flooring had been infested with carpenter ants. That’s when I knew I had a real problem.

I tore off the skirting and trim from the bottom of the shed, revealing that the ants had attacked the rim joists and sill plates all the way around the shed. The foundation was intact—I had used pressure treated lumber for the beams—but I was confronted with the problem of repairing the lowest part of the superstructure. Everything else rests on the joists and sill plates. Would I have to demolish the shed and rebuild? Or could I find a way to replace the damaged wood without sacrificing the superstructure?

I could and did. I had to work wall by wall. For each wall, I first cut away the flooring to reveal the joists. I also cut away the bottom several inches of siding to gain access to the structure from outside. I built a framework on the inside, attached to the studs. Then I jacked up each wall, cut out the damaged lumber, and replaced the joists and plates with pressure treated wood. Then I lowered the wall and toe-nailed the old studs to the new plate. While I was at it I sistered the joists wherever they needed extra support to ensure a solid structure.

Because I was working alone, and because I am old and slow, each side took about a week to complete. Then the floor had to be replaced, the whole shed resided, a new door built and fitted, and new trim installed. I still have to install new drip edge, seal the cut edges of the siding, install a bit of trim, and paint the whole thing. It’s almost done.

The foregoing may leave the impression that I enjoy construction or what is often called “working with my hands.” Some people do. I am not one of them. On the contrary, I loathe this work, though I have had to learn to do it. My bent is toward books and ideas. I begrudge every moment I have to spend on household maintenance. Repairing the door and frame was going to make for a dark weekend. Then, as the project grew, it began to seem like a long, black tunnel.

This one project has consumed my summer. I would get up in the mornings and start working on the shed while the temperatures were cooler. During the afternoons and evenings I would try to keep up with seminary work. Days slipped into weeks and then into months. Now the summer is gone. Manual labor has crowded out most of the goals that I had hoped to accomplish before the school year began.

Nevertheless, the experience has not been without lessons, and these have reinforced certain truths that I already knew. Two have been particularly important for me. Let me share them.

The first is that God exercises providential control over our lives. We make our plans, but they are always subject to God’s plan. He is free to interrupt us and redirect our efforts at any moment (Jas 4:13-15). Consequently, our response to those inconveniences reveals our confidence in Him. As Medieval mystic Walter Hilton suggested, we should embrace interruptions as service to God, even if we are disturbed in the middle of our devotions. He intends to gain glory for Himself through those disruptions. Why should we begrudge it? Should we not respond with joy? This summer has provided an opportunity to accept God’s providential dealings in my life and to trust that He knows what He is doing.

The second lesson is that every possession brings with it a stewardship. Jesus observed that earthly treasures are subject to corruption by moth and rust (Matt 6:19). I can testify that they can also be corrupted by carpenter ants. The point is that our possessions make a claim upon us: whatever we own, owns us. Taking possession of a thing makes us responsible for its wellbeing (its maintenance) and its proper use. Greater possessions engender greater responsibility. Consequently, there is a case to be made for simplicity, for keeping possessions to a minimum. I’m not suggesting that possessions are wrong—not for a moment! Still, Jesus cautions against allowing our hearts to become preoccupied with the “cares of this life” (Luke 21:34). One way of avoiding those cares is to commit ourselves to owning fewer possessions. At minimum we ought to realize that the cost of any possession is always greater than its purchase price.

My summer is now at an end. The rest of this week will be occupied with faculty in-service, and classes will begin next week. I’ll put the finishing touches on the shed while returning to a life of students, lectures, and grading. Perhaps I can even get back to those projects that I had hoped to accomplish at the beginning of the summer.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Wait, O My Soul, Thy Maker’s Will

Benjamin Beddome (1717–1795)

Wait, O my soul, thy Maker’s will,
Tumultuous passions all be still,
Nor let a murmuring thought arise;
His ways are just, his counsels wise.

In realms of cloudless light he dwells,
Performs his work, the cause conceals;
And though his footsteps are unknown,
Judgment and truth support his throne.

In heaven and earth and air and seas
He executes his firm decrees;
And by his saints it stands confessed
That what he does is ever best.

Wait, then, my soul, submissive wait,
With reverence bow before his seat,
And ’mid the terrors of his rod
Trust in a wise and gracious God.

This discussion about race and the church has been invigorating and thought-provoking. Yet both of us realize that we have only scratched the surface. We must proceed to the last two questions we want to consider. These questions help us to circle back to one of our main reasons for beginning this series in the first place: we want to understand each other’s perspectives. While neither of us claims to represent fully the White (Jon) or Black (Emmanuel) evangelical viewpoint, we desire to help our readers recognize that as much as we all desire perfect unity in the church, this will not be possible until Christ comes again. So just as Jews and Gentiles struggled to accept and to understand one another in the first century church, we White and Black Christians also must work to accept and to understand one another in the American church. May God help efforts like this to maintain (and increase!) the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace in Christ’s church (Eph 4:3).

How can we be supportive of the ruling authorities in our land (such as police, military, and justice departments) while also showing support for those “others” who feel frustrated with the lack of justice these authorities are called to enact?

JP: First, the Bible calls us to submit to civil authorities and to support their efforts to fulfill their God-given responsibility to punish evildoers and to approve those who do good (Rom 13:1–5). This is why Christians should resist any efforts to abolish or defund police departments, and if a city’s population grows or if the incidence of crime rises, funding to the police should increase. Second, we should encourage wise policing which includes comprehensive and humanitarian training. Third, we should look for opportunities to thank (both privately and publicly) those who enforce justice and protect us at home and abroad.

How can I lend support to people of color who claim that civil authorities are often unjust in the way they treat minorities? First, I need to listen, to be quick to hear and slow to speak (James 1:19). Second, I need to acknowledge poor policing when it occurs and avoid minimizing or denying that it has happened. Third, I need to have a well-established relationship with my Black friends so that we can have an honest conversation about two things in particular: 1) Actual statistics regarding police behavior show that there is no racial bias when it comes to police shootings; however, there is evidence of racial disparity when it comes to non-lethal use of force with people of color being 50% more likely to experience some form of force in police interactions than White people (https://www.dennyburk.com/can-we-weep-with-those-who-weep/). 2) Injustices in the past never justify sinful behavior (such as rioting) or unjust decisions in the courtroom in the present (I recall the awful feeling in the pit of my stomach when O.J. Simpson’s acquittal announcement in 1995 was met with cheers from several of my workmates).

EM: One simple way we can show support for police officers and military personnel is with a word of thanks. We regularly encounter police and military personnel in passing. If we would take a moment and thank them for their service, this would be a big encouragement. We support all authorities with our prayers. Pray for their well-being, for their safety, for their families. Pray that our authorities will exercise a righteous rule and legislate laws that produce peace and are consistent with God’s way of godliness. Also, we should pray for their salvation. Pray that the Lord will use them for our good and not for our chastisement (1 Tim 2:1-4; Rom 13:1-7).

For the frustrated Christians I would remind them that justice is in the hands of the Lord. He will take vengeance against every injustice. It is a confidence every Christian should embrace. It is our assurance from the mouth of our Lord Himself (Rom 12:19). We can be angry over injustices or political decisions, but we can never engage in illegal actions or join hands with subversive groups.

Satisfying the spirit of the general populace is not realistic. What God calls His people to do makes no sense to the unsaved. We can express regret. We can listen to the complaints. We can work within our community for better policing. But we can also give them this reminder: Years ago, LA’s Chief of Police, Willie Williams, was asked why he couldn’t do a better job recruiting police officers. He responded, “Our source of recruits is from the community.” The police are us. They will never be perfect. We are not perfect. We need to work together for the betterment of our community. We need to be better people ourselves. We need a Savior and a transformed life.

How should we respond to the desire of some to destroy symbols related to slavery (like statues and flags), to rename historical/geographical places, and to denigrate historical figures who owned slaves or who fought for the South in the Civil War?

JP: All people are sinners and, therefore, no one leaves a sinless legacy (Jesus excepted, of course). Statues are commissioned and places named in people’s honor because of some noteworthy accomplishment on their resume. But how should we respond when we learn negative truths about these heroes (e.g. they owned slaves)? Or in the case of famous generals or statesmen, should we completely ignore their contribution to America’s history because they fought for the South? Allow me to answer these queries with two questions: “What was the person best known for?” and “Is the awareness of this person’s faults bringing undue pain to people today?” One thing that is difficult to quantify in this discussion is what it means for someone to be “offended” by one of these symbols. I want to be considerate of my brothers’ and sisters’ feelings, but there is sometimes a fine line between “offending” sensibilities and causing an offense that leads someone to sin (1 Cor 8:7–13). I pray for God’s wisdom to know the difference and to land on the side that looks to the needs of others above my own (Phil 2:4).

EM: The words of the apostle Paul (Rom 13:7) come immediately to mind. Every Christian is commanded to render to all authority taxes due, respect and honor due. Statues, murals, and pavilions have been ways civic leaders, the nation, and communities honored historical figures for their contributions. Some of those honored owned slaves and some are said to have had a reputation for White supremacy. No one is without fault, and history should not be revised for special interest groups. Perhaps a productive approach would be to incorporate a more inclusive methodology while honoring figures in American history. For instance, when I was in high school, I recall our history books had one paragraph on slavery and another paragraph that mentioned Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver. I was an adult before I learned of the many African-American contributors to our nation’s success.

There is a saying, “Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.” I do not know the exact source of the proverb. Some claim an African origin. One interpretation states, “As long as the lion can’t write, the hunter keeps telling his side of the story. His heroic acts in the jungle, his expeditions, medals, and bravery are glorified in all his stories.” The success of our nation was a contribution of many, both the hunter and the lion.

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament 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 64

Henry Francis Lyte (1793–1847)

Hear, O Lord, our supplication;
Let our souls on Thee repose!
Be our refuge, our salvation,
’Mid ten thousand threatening foes.

Lord, Thy saints have many troubles,
In their path lies many a snare:
But before Thy breath like bubbles,
Melt they soon in idle air.

Cunning are the foe’s devices,
Bitter are his words of gall;
Sin on every side entices;
Lord, conduct us safe through all.

Be our foes by Thee confounded,
Let the world Thy goodness see,
While, by might and love surrounded,
We rejoice, and trust in Thee.

What are tangible ways we can respond to racist attitudes in our churches? How can we promote healthy relations between people of different ethnicities in our churches?

JP: Believers’ responses to racist attitudes in local churches should be the same as they would be in regard to any sinful action or perception. We are called to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), to admonish and warn (Rom 15:14; Col 3:16; Heb 3:13), and to instruct others (Col 3:16). So whether the sin relates to corrupt speech or racist attitudes or disrespectful behavior or any other type of transgression, believers have an obligation to speak up, to point out the problem, and to offer help so that the person can repent and turn from his destructive path. We show a lack of love toward one another when we fail to point out the sin of racism (or any other sin, for that matter) and can even help to “save” them (to use Jude’s words in v. 23).

While we do have a responsibility to address racist sins when we see them so that such behavior is thwarted, we must also model generous and loving hospitality and kindness toward those who are of a different ethnicity than our own. This welcoming attitude should begin with the leaders in the church and filter down to every member. There should be an integration of every member into the church’s ministry, regardless of their ethnicity, so that responsibilities and places of service are based on the gifts given by the Spirit for the “common good” (1 Cor 12:7).

EM: I suggest a proactive approach. A church needs to know the hearts of God’s people with every issue that plagues where we live. A way for assessing heartfelt attitudes and the basis for those attitudes, including perplexing thoughts that trouble members, is small group studies and discussion. Well-planned discussion can produce great and sometimes challenging conversations. Sharing one another’s life stories is another way of learning about one another. A follow-up question might be “What were the lessons from home that remain part of your life?” Or “How has your experience with otherness influenced your thinking?” There are about six hours in a week a church might gather for study, worship, and prayer, yet we leave the house of God with no more than superficial knowledge of one another or what we think.

The home must be the first place where discussions and teaching start. The church can assist families with resources and topics. Youth ministries share the gospel, make disciples, teach, and preach against drugs, questionable music, pornography, premarital sex, and other sins. Why not include love for the brethren, even our enemies, with particulars pertaining to race and the controversies of the day? Young people are aware of what is happening in our world. Millennials especially want discussions. The home and church must help them process what they hear and see. Solomon taught Rehoboam what to expect in the nation at large. The first lesson was about guarding himself from the gang mentality (Prov1:5-19). The lessons are not a one-time curriculum but reoccurring, perhaps annually, as a reminder of what kind of Christians they must be or must become.

A third helpful way is introducing the church to Christians of color who were stalwarts of the faith. There are former slaves who were pastors and some even preached to all white congregations! There are missionaries. One notable former slave, Rev. George Liele (1782), left for Jamaica eleven years before William Carey’s missionary enterprise to India (1793) and thirty years before Adoniram Judson left for Burma (1812).

I believe the tension between Black and White will always be a challenge in our country. As political capital, racial discrepancies will not be allowed to go away, and unfortunately those of African descent will remain the pawns. Therefore, since racial disharmony is a given, some racist attitudes will enter the church, and we cannot let it have place. The church can promote racial harmony by de-emphasizing racial classification and promote the one man found in Christ, who is our peace and who has made both Black and White one (Eph 2:14-18).

Should Christians support Black Lives Matter?

JP: While the slogan “Black Lives Matter” is certainly a true sentiment, just as “blue lives matter” and “all lives matter” are likewise factual, Christians should be wary of using the phrase. Here’s why. The official Black Lives Matter movement is built upon a Marxist foundation and strongly supports the LGBTQ agenda—a quick perusal of their website will confirm this. By “Marxist” I am not referring to the economic version which is most familiar to us, but rather I am speaking of social Marxism. Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds, 52) describes this well: “Just as Marxism was meant to free the labourer and share the wealth around, so in this new version of an old claim, the power of the patriarchal white males must be taken away and shared around more fairly with the relevant minority groups.” Thus, in this way of thinking it is no longer wealth that should be redistributed but rather social and cultural power. All of the atheistic foundations of Marxism remain in this newer version of social change advocated by Black Lives Matter, and for this reason Christians should have no part in using the BLM hashtag, displaying yard signs, or carrying placards that support the movement. At the same time we should be aware that many protesters, hashtag users, and yard sign people are probably unaware of all the anti-biblical foundations of Black Lives Matter; they merely like the slogan and blindly support it. Thus, education is needed, especially among Christians in our churches.

EM: My simplest response: “No!” I say this for two reasons. First, BLM’s statement of beliefs includes positions contrary to truth. They oppose the institution of marriage ordained by God and gender identity, male and female, created by God. In their own wording, they seek to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages.’” They want to “foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)” (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/).

The second reason I say no Christian can support BLM is because it is a dangerous organization, Marxist-leftist in ideology. Large sums of money are flowing into it, and the intent of that giving through the organization supports the deconstructing of American society. John Hayward, writing for Breitbart, references Fortune (2016) which looked into BLM’s funding and “noticed its agenda and funding streams could ‘help dispel the myth that the movement itself is set on violence,’ but could also ‘confirm the worst fears’ of skeptics who saw BLM becoming another part of the vast and protean left-wing money machine” (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/11/the-complex-funding-and-ideology-of-black-lives-matter/).

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament 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 43

Henry Francis Lyte (1793–1847)

Judge me, O Lord, to Thee I fly,
New foes and fears my spirit try;
Plead Thou my cause, my soul sustain,
And let the wicked rage in vain.

The mourner’s refuge, Lord, Thou art;
Wilt Thou not take Thy suppliant’s part?
Wilt Thou desert, and lay me low,
The scorn of each insulting foe?

Send forth Thy light and truth once more,
To Thy blest house my steps restore:
Again Thy presence let me see,
And find my joy in praising Thee.

Arise, my soul, and praise Him now;
The Lord is good, be faithful thou:
His nature changes not like thine;
Believe, and soon His face will shine.

Who is qualified to participate in a discussion about race in the church?

JP: When I first contacted Emmanuel and asked him to consider writing about this issue of race in the church, he graciously agreed to do so with one condition: that a White person join the conversation so both perspectives could be heard.

I was genuinely encouraged by Emmanuel’s outlook, which is solidly based upon Scripture’s teaching that all human beings are part of one human race and all are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Furthermore, Christians of any ethnic group are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19). His opinion also flies in the face of our secular American culture today. Many believe that because White people are the majority and hold the position of societal power, they are not permitted to have a part in conversations about race, for they are to blame for our current situation: “How can Whites relate to the Black person’s experience? It is high time their voice is silenced; they have had their opportunity to speak and act righteously and have miserably failed.” Sadly, this is the opinion of many people of color in America today.

There is no room for such thinking in the church. Early in the formative years of the church, the apostles dealt with the racial tensions in their world between Jews and Gentiles: Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10:44; 11:17), Paul and Barnabas at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:44-48), Peter and the Judaizers at Antioch of Syria (Gal 2:11-14), and the circumcision debate at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Clearly, the path to racial harmony in the church was not lined with roses. But Paul and his fellow apostles adamantly spoke in favor of ethnic unity (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-16). Indeed, we are all members of the one body of Christ and should treat each other with respect and dignity (1 Cor 12:12-26). This includes giving one another the opportunity to talk, to suffer, to rejoice, and to worship together.

EM: Great question. I personally long for my White brethren to lend a voice. Too many one-sided claims are being made, especially through the media. The majority race must share their concerns. The concerns between Blacks and Whites will differ, but that is okay; the conversation must begin. As an example, Barna Research recently highlighted the stark contrast in perspectives between White and Black “practicing Christians.” Two examples from the poll: (1) 75% of Black Christians agree somewhat that the U.S. has a history of oppressing minorities, while only 42% of White Christians agree somewhat. (2) Only 38% of White Christians believe the U.S. has a race problem, and 78% of Black Christians believe our country has a race problem (labeling is Barna’s). What is the substance of these perspectives? Truth must prevail in the discussion. What do the facts show? Barna’s survey asked the question, “Is the cause for economic disparity between races due to systemic racism?” White people might say, “No, it is an individual problem.” Black people say, “Yes!” But what are the actual contributors? Statistics measure qualities or outcomes but they do not give you cause. Systemic racism must be defined, then proven.

If truth is the objective, then a person’s position or ethnicity has no inherent supremacy. Humanity is not the source of truth. Jesus Christ is truth, in being, word, and life (John 1:1; 14:6; 2 Cor.1:20), and the truthful way of life is found in Scripture.

The challenge for Whites is two-fold: boldness and motivation. If White Christians speak the truth with boldness, they must be ready to be labeled a racist by the secular world. Prayerfully in a Christian setting, lessons will be learned, and transformation accomplished. Second, White Christians must be willing to become part of a solution. Barna’s survey showed only about one-third of White Christians were interested in addressing the problems of racial injustice, while 70% of Black Christians reported being motivated (stats taken from Barna [https://www.barna.com/research/problems-solutions-racism/]).

Is integration a good and reasonable goal for local churches? If so, how can churches promote it?

JP: I think it is reasonable for a church to have a similar demographic to the community in which it is located. Of course, the “community” is going to vary depending on whether a church is urban, suburban, or rural. What is the area’s ethnic makeup within five miles of an urban church? 20 miles of a suburban church? 30 miles (or more) of a rural church? Other factors play into this as well, especially if a church is located near an immigrant population that prefers services in another language. But as the Lord allows, our churches should look like the neighborhoods in which they are found.

While we cannot force diversity, we can certainly pray for the salvation of those in our community who are “other.” We should make special efforts to be hospitable to minorities by inviting them into our homes and actively befriending them; in short, we must seek to build personal relationships with those who are different than we are. As every member is called to serve in the body, we should be sure to enlist minorities to serve as greeters, ushers, worship leaders, Scripture readers, Bible teachers, deacons, elders, etc.

EM: Every local church should have an objective to reach her community. If the area of ministry is diverse, I believe that the local church should purpose to reflect the ethnicity of the community. The Great Commission is to all ethnic groups. The task is not easy.

An important step is for church leadership to promote a vision for diversity and unity. The first question any congregation should answer is “What kind of church do we want to be?” Next, learn about the people living within the area. Then launch the congregation to reach inside their sphere of influence. Three years ago, a Chinese lady in our church took the initiative and coordinated a Chinese New Year’s celebration. Five hundred Chinese came the first year, 1000 the next year. Last year we limited the invitation so we could have a better opportunity to build relationships. It has been a marvelous learning experience about Chinese culture. Several Chinese attend a Sunday morning Bible discovery class. The church has gained a strong connection with the Chinese community. (These are highly educated and professional people who live scattered throughout the community. They are not concentrated in one section of the city.) We have received testimony how grateful they were that we reached out to them and that we were willing to reach out to them through cultural engagement. When we show people we care about who they are, we gain a gateway into their heart for the gospel, and we build lasting relationships.

If the local community does not possess a sizeable ethnic population, a local church can seek a relationship with a church comprising other ethnicities. The connection does not have to be ecclesiastical like some church groups have chosen (e.g., sharing pulpits and choirs). I am talking about a greater bond of friendship. There are many ways connections can be formed (e.g., small reading groups, discussion groups, work projects, or showing hospitality in the home). In Philadelphia, representatives from two White congregations drove 25-30 miles to meet with a predominantly Black church. Relationships were built through work projects on the church building. In the aftermath of the Floyd incident, these churches are planning another discussion group. Building relationships helps build trust, and when people trust one another, they can better serve one another and listen to one another in times like these.

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament 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 18

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Just are Thy ways, and true Thy word,
Great Rock of my secure abode:
Who is a God beside the Lord?
Or where’s a refuge like our God?

‘Tis He that girds me with His might,
Gives me His holy sword to wield,
And while with sin and hell I fight,
Spreads His salvation for my shield.

He lives, and blessed be my Rock!
The God of my salvation lives:
The dark designs of hell are broke;
Sweet is the peace my Father gives.

Before the scoffers of the age
I will exalt my Father’s name,
Nor tremble at their mighty rage,
But meet reproach, and bear the shame.

To David and his royal seed
Thy grace for ever shall extend;
Thy love to saints in Christ their Head
Knows not a limit, nor an end.

For the past two weeks, we have heard from Pastor Emmanuel Malone as he has answered several questions related to the issue of race in our American culture generally and then in our evangelical church culture particularly. We learned about the danger of minimizing another’s pain, about latent racist attitudes among Whites, about the Black experience with law enforcement, and about the biblical acceptance model proposed by Pastor Malone.
 
Now we would like to have a dialogue related to several questions. Our intent in this discourse is not necessarily to show our disagreements over these issues (using a point/counter-point method) but rather to learn each other’s perspectives. In taking this approach, we hope to shed light on these matters and to welcome our readers into the conversation for the benefit of Christ’s church and the glory of Christ’s name.

In the last issue of Nick of Time Emmanuel used the words “repent” and “confess” when referring to the necessary response of White Christians to past sins like slavery, segregation, and discrimination. What do these words mean and how should White Christians respond to language like this?

JP: Before discussing repentance and confession of other people’s sins, I think we need to evaluate our own. Have I ever told or laughed at a racially biased joke? Have I ever used the “N” word, even in a ditty or as a term for a Brazil nut? Have I ever used poor hermeneutics like the Hamitic curse or the Mosaic Law’s proscription of interracial marriage to justify treating Blacks as inferior? Have I used racial stereotypes in my thinking, speaking, writing, social media posts, etc.? For the older readers, did you agree with segregation practices in your church, whether through active participation or silence? If I have sinned in these or any other unloving ways toward those of a different ethnicity, I need to repent of my sin. And I would even go a step further in light of John the Baptist’s words when he called for sinners to bring fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). We would do well to ask, “What are some ways I can show my minority brothers and sisters that I have turned from my sinful actions and now desire to demonstrate love and compassion for those I have treated as ‘other’?”

So what about White guilt? Am I guilty, i.e., liable for punishment, because of something my White forebears did? Do I need to seek forgiveness and repent for sinful actions they committed, especially in light of passages like Ezek 18:4 (“the soul that sins, it shall die”)? On the one hand, we have verses that express sorrow and confession in terms of the corporate solidarity of the people of Israel under the terms of the Mosaic covenant (Neh 9:2, 33; Ps 106:6; Dan 9:5–6; Lam 3:42). This is why Daniel, Jeremiah, and the psalmist could speak about Israel’s sin as their own. In this sense, I find it hard to use repentance language while speaking of the sins of my ancestors since America is not a theocracy like Israel, nor is it under a covenantal agreement like Israel was.

But on the other hand, texts like Neh 9:2, 33 that speak of confessing the sins of forefathers are given for our instruction (1 Cor 10:6–11). Beyond the covenantal overtones of this ancestral confession lies an example of public admission, acknowledgement, and recognition that these sins should not have been committed and that these sins had led to the current state of disarray and confusion Israel was then experiencing. Hence, what is keeping us White Christians from confessing and acknowledging the sins of our White ancestors? We ought to be shedding light on these sins in our writing (both scholarly and popular), church and institutional Bible conferences, conversations on podcasts and radio/TV shows, and blogposts and other social media platforms. Rather than shrug off the failures of our White ancestors in regard to the institution of slavery, segregation, and discriminatory practices, we should seize every opportunity to publicly recognize that these behaviors happened and that the residual effects of these sins are still with us today.

EM: Repentance and confession are transformative responses. Both are reflective of a person’s change in thinking. For White Christians repentance is necessary if one’s heart harbors/harbored prejudice and ill-will toward a person of color or any people group. (This applies to Black Christians too.) Repentance is necessary when in the past a person was complicit and failed to stand for truth when knowingly faced with racist attitudes, policies, or practices. I often ponder, how could White Christians support segregation in a church or in Christian colleges or seminaries, whether the legal kind in the South, or the implied kind in the North? Did many agree or were they afraid to speak out? There are two kinds of repentance: 1) repentance for sin that results in salvation, and 2) repentance for sins committed in one’s Christian life. Regarding this second type of repentance, there are White Christians who need to repent if they have a sinful way of thinking and conduct regarding people of color. For me when I heard the truth preached on WCTS radio, not knowing what to expect, I said in my heart, “My racialized life is no more.” I gathered my family and headed to Fourth Baptist Church because the truth was proclaimed there, and I wanted us to abide in it.

Confession is acknowledgement. Though you did not personality contribute to racial problems, you as a citizen of the United States, as part of a family who spoke ill of Black people, and as part of the majority race that had enacted and enforced slavery and then segregation, you should express regret for what has happened in this country. Daniel, after reading Jeremiah, understood the time of exile was ending and made a confession. He associated himself with the sins of his nation and leaders, his family, and people (Dan 9:1–6). He himself may have been guilty of the same sins. I have taught math for over 10 years at the junior college and university level. In every class there came an occasion when I would confess to the students my regret for my generation’s (the 60s) impact on theirs. We, as a collective, created a rebellious spirit in American culture. While I personally did not teach my generation to act or think as they did, I identified with the spirit of the times that set the tone for the way of life they were living and the godless values they held.

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament 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 Heavenly Father! Hear

James Montgomery (1771–1854)

Our Heavenly Father! hear
The prayer we offer now;
Thy name be hallow’d far and near,
To Thee all nations bow:
Thy kingdom come; Thy will
On earth be done in love,
As saints and seraphim fulfil
Thy perfect law above.

Our daily bread supply,
While by Thy word We live;
The guilt of our iniquity,
Forgive as we forgive;
From dark temptation’s power,
From Satan’s wiles defend,
Deliver in the evil hour,
And guide us to the end.

Thine then ever be
Glory and power divine;
The sceptre, throne, and majesty
Of heaven and earth are thine;
Thus humbly taught to pray
By thy beloved Son,
Through Him we come to Thee, and say
All for His sake be done!

Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, spoke of the “unbought grace of life.” What he meant was that we receive from our forebears a patrimony of ideas, perspectives, habits, attitudes, and sensibilities that together make life more humane. We pay nothing for this patrimony: it is given to us freely. Our duty, then, is to preserve it as best we can and to hand it along to those who come after us.

As we grow older, we ought to grow increasingly aware of how indebted we are to people whom we shall never be able to repay. Part of piety (in the proper sense of the term) involves recognizing these individuals and crediting them for the “unbought grace” with which they have gifted us, sometimes at significant cost to themselves. We cannot pay our debt, but we can and should acknowledge to whom it is owed.

One of the individuals to whom I owe much is Myron Houghton. The first time I saw Myron I was in college and he was on our college’s chapel platform, pretending to be his twin brother, George. He introduced George as, “my brother, Doctor Houghton.” George then stepped forward and introduced Myron as, “my brother, Doctor Houghton.” Finally Myron explained that they were “womb mates.”

A couple of years later I became Myron’s student at Denver Baptist Theological Seminary, where he taught systematic theology. The first day of class he introduced his students to “six characteristics of my theology,” a summary of his theological method. He repeated these six characteristics in every theology course that he taught. He explained that his theology was exegetical (centered upon the right handling of Scripture), evangelical (gospel-centered), fundamentalist (church-centered), devotional, philosophical, and historical. Years later I took a doctoral course on theological method and discovered that Myron’s “six characteristics” required almost no revision. They still summarize my theological method.

Myron was a learned man. He had a diploma from Moody Bible Institute, a bachelor’s degree from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, an MDiv from Grand Rapids Baptist Theological Seminary, a ThM from Grace Theological Seminary, a PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary, an MLA from Southern Methodist University, an MA from Saint Thomas Seminary in Denver, and a ThD from Concordia Seminary in St Louis. He completed a certificate program (equivalent to the MDiv) for Saint Stephen’s Course of Study in Orthodox Theology. He also studied at Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis and Covenant Seminary in St Louis where (as one alumnus told me) he was remembered as something of a legend. Myron collected diplomas like some people collect stamps.

For Myron, however, the attraction did not lie in the degrees themselves. Rather, he was fascinated with systems of thought, especially theological systems. He wanted to be prepared to respond to them, and he was convinced that a good response had to be based on an accurate understanding. He pursued this diversity of educational experience so that he could converse intelligently with a wide array of theologians. As a professor Myron taught us that we did not understand an opponent until we could describe his position so well that he recognizes himself in it.

He carried this emphasis on listening and understanding into his teaching. For example, though he seldom used the term, Myron was a moderate (4.5 point) Calvinist, but he was not content merely to expose his students to Calvinism. When I took his soteriology course he required every student to read an entire ThM thesis arguing for an Arminian understanding of divine election and human freedom. He wanted us to be informed, and above all, he wanted to be fair.

Myron continued this emphasis in his book on Law and Grace. In his argument Myron followed Edward Fisher (The Marrow of Modern Divinity) in a particular Reformed view of the relationship between law, gospel, and grace. To ensure that other views receive fair treatment, however, Myron quoted their exponents at length—sometimes for pages at a time. If these quotations slow down his argument, they also clarify the issues.

Myron Houghton was probably the most widely respected theologian to represent contemporary fundamentalism in the marketplace of ideas. Certainly he was the only one to gain much of a hearing outside fundamentalism itself. This recognition was not so much the product of his writing as of the conversations in which he engaged. Through meaningful discussion he helped many to clarify their thinking, and he also drew many to a fuller understanding of the truth.

Teaching at Denver Baptist Bible College and Seminary, then at Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary, Myron Houghton communicated a sound system of theology. More importantly, he taught his students to think theologically, to love ideas, and to love conversation about those ideas. He supplemented his teaching with good humor and a personal interest in his students, whom he often hosted at some local restaurant.

With declining health, Myron retired from teaching only a year ago. Last week he tested positive for COVID-19. This week he passed into heaven. His departure is a stunning loss for the Church Militant.

In and out of the classroom, Myron was a man of conviction who understood and advocated the ideals that distinguish fundamentalists from other evangelicals. He also exhibited the ability to understand and converse charitably with theological opponents while never surrendering his commitment to the truth. This combination, so rare among fundamentalists, may be his most important legacy.

The apostle Paul notes that we do not have “many fathers” in Jesus Christ. Myron, however, was certainly a well-loved theological uncle. He was the thinker who first made me put shape to my theology. I am not alone in my admiration for him as a scholar and a man of God. Many of us owe Myron a debt that we shall never be able to repay, a debt for the “unbought grace of life.”

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

Lord, We Adore Thy Vast Designs

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Lord, we adore thy vast designs,
Th’ obscure abyss of Providence,
Too deep to sound with mortal lines,
Too dark to view with feeble sense.

Now thou array’st thine awful face
In angry frowns, without a smile;
We, through the cloud, believe thy grace,
Secure of thy compassion still.

Through seas and storms of deep distress
We sail by faith, and not by sight;
Faith guides us in the wilderness,
Through all the briers and the night.

Dear Father, if thy lifted rod
Resolve to scourge us here below,
Still we must lean upon our God,
Thine arm shall bear us safely through.