Theology Central

Twenty years ago almost no reputable college, university, or seminary offered distance education. In fact, “distance ed” was one of the marks of a diploma mill. Nevertheless, the new computer technologies, and especially the internet, were about to provide platforms that could be used for widespread experimentation in distance education.

An early adopter was Northland International University, which was reputed to have spent seven figures setting up a distance ed platform. Their technology relied heavily on pre-recorded presentations and threaded Internet discussion groups—an approach typically known as asynchronous distance education. I taught one course for Northland using those tools, and I hated it. I thought that it depersonalized the educational process, so much so that I could not understand how it fit with Northland’s mission of “life touching life.” I was convinced that students who took the course in this format received a worse education than those who took it live.

Another early adopter was Maranatha Baptist University. Unlike Northland, however, Maranatha adopted synchronous distance education, using an early version of Zoom technology to combine local and distance students in the same learning experience. I also taught a course for Maranatha in those days, and I found very little difference between interacting with local students who were physically present and interacting with distance students who were virtually present. This was my first positive experience with distance ed; for the first time I could see how distance ed might be done effectively.

Several years ago Central Seminary began using the Zoom platform to incorporate synchronous distance education into our curriculum. At the master’s level, every class has included some combination of distance students and local on-campus students. The technology has enabled us to reach students not only throughout the United States and Canada but in multiple countries in Africa, South America, and Asia.

Any remaining hesitation we might have harbored about distance education was swept away by the COVID pandemic. Every institution and every accreditor has recognized that some form of distance education is essential under the present circumstances. For Central Seminary the move to all-Zoom courses has been seamless at the master’s level. In about a month we will be offering our first all-distance D.Min. course. I don’t know of an institution of higher learning that is not making the same adjustments. To paraphrase Nixon, “We’re all distance ed now.”

My guess is that COVID-19 loosed the genie from the bottle. I doubt that any of us will ever go back to education as it used to be. What we need to do now is to take stock of the situation and to decide how to make the most of—OK, this is an expression I thoroughly despise, but it applies here—of the “new normal.” In this vein I offer the following four observations.

First, distance education brings some definite positives. One is that we can reach students anywhere in the world, as long as they can get a decent Internet connection. Another is that we can offer education to students in their home churches. They do not have to move to Minneapolis to go to seminary.

Second, from a strictly academic point of view, we lose very little when we use synchronous technology. The virtual classroom really is still a classroom; professor and students can still interact as a fellowship of learning. The verbal exchange is slowed only slightly, and some group activities (such as singing together) are impaired, but students can still learn languages, hermeneutics, exegesis, and theology.

Third, what we actually do lose is all of the stuff that usually happens outside the classroom. Traditional chapels become impossible. Lunchroom conversations do not happen. Mentoring takes on an impersonal tinge. We can still grade assignments, but we get little opportunity to evaluate our students’ spiritual discipline, their work ethic, their personal skills, or their devotion. Even when we do get some impression of these things, we aren’t able to do much to help them. This deficiency is important, because these areas are exactly what has distinguished seminary and even Bible college education in the past. If these areas are left unaddressed, then the next generation of pastors and missionaries could be disastrous for the churches.

Fourth, something has to be done to address the non-academic side of ministerial preparation. The good news is that the Lord Jesus Christ has already created an institution and ordained it to accomplish that task. His institution to make disciples and to prepare Christian leaders is the local church. It is time for the churches to reclaim ownership of ministerial instruction.

As a Baptist, I see this situation as overwhelmingly positive. In the New Testament, the churches equipped and trained their pastors. Part of my goal since coming to Central Seminary has been to move the responsibility for training pastors and missionaries back toward the local church. Seminaries can provide the academic side, and that is a good thing, because most churches will never be able to. The process of discipling a future leader into Christian ministry, however, is always done better by the local church. Seminaries need churches even more than churches need seminaries.

For decades Central Seminary has operated in close partnership with local churches. Indeed, our mission statement begins with the words, “to assist New Testament churches.” The present situation simply underlines the importance of church partnerships. Future pastors need to be trained by present pastors under the discipline of effective New Testament churches. Colleges, universities, and seminaries are service organizations whose mission is simply to help local churches. It is time for our institutions to celebrate their rightful place as junior partners in the process. It is also time for local congregations to take seriously their own responsibility in equipping future generations of leaders.

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.

Father of Mercies, Bow Thine Ear

Benjamin Beddome (1717–1795)

Father of mercies, bow Thine ear,
Attentive to our earnest prayer:
We plead for those who plead for Thee;
Successful pleaders may they be!

How great their work, how vast their charge!
Do Thou their anxious souls enlarge:
Their best acquirements are our gain;
We share the blessings they obtain.

Clothe, then with energy divine
Their words, and let their words be Thine;
To them Thy sacred truth reveal,
Suppress their fear, inflame their zeal.

Teach them to sow the precious seed;
Teach them Thy chosen flock to feed;
Teach them immortal souls to gain,
Souls that will well reward their pain.

Let thronging multitudes around
Hear from their lips the joyful sound;
In humble strains Thy grace implore,
And feel Thy new-creating power.

Let sinners break their massy chains,
Distressèd souls forget their pains;
Let light through distant realms be spread,
And Sion rear her drooping head.

By every indicator, historic, mainstream fundamentalism is a shrinking movement. Churches are shrinking. Fellowships are shrinking. Mission agencies are shrinking. Schools have closed and those that remain are scrambling for students.

Furthermore, the churches are producing fewer young people who feel any sense of calling toward vocational ministry. From an educational perspective, not only is the pond shrinking but the number of fish in the pond is declining. This situation confronts Bible colleges and seminaries with a difficult question: how can they continue to train students for ministry in mainstream fundamentalist churches and mission fields? Various institutions have adopted different strategies.

First, some schools aim to attract new students by broadening their offerings. Institutions that used to identify themselves as Bible colleges have transitioned into liberal arts colleges and even universities. Among those that remain Bible colleges (which means that they require all students to major in Bible), the curriculum has been expanded to include supplementary majors in education, counseling, nursing, history, business, humanities, and other disciplines. Seminaries, too, have diversified their offerings, hoping to attract students who wish to become more effective in their Christian service as ordinary church members—but not as vocational ministers. Many schools have launched into higher levels of education, with colleges starting graduate schools and seminaries, and seminaries offering post-graduate programs. These changes are so common that finding an institution that has not implemented at least some of them is nearly impossible.

This approach does succeed in attracting more students than would otherwise attend the school. For some, it provides an alternative to secular colleges and universities. Nevertheless, because it draws students to non-ministry emphases, it accomplishes little by way of producing the next generation of pastors and missionaries. For those who wish to equip Christian leaders, this strategy must be judged a failure.

A second strategy that some schools have tried is to broaden their constituencies by seeking acceptance from the more conservative wing of mainline evangelicalism. These schools have begun forging ties to groups like the Southern Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church of America. To expand their circle of fellowship, however, they have sometimes abandoned distinctives that they have held for generations. They feature speakers who have not previously been allowed on their platforms. They soften their dress codes and their codes of conduct. These changes are not made so much in the effort to be more biblical as in the effort to appeal to a different kind of student. They are pragmatic changes rather than principled changes.

What occasionally happens is a sort of slingshot effect. Sometimes the velocity of change has been so rapid that the institution overshoots any target that might be taken as biblical or even reasonable. In rejecting dated or unsupportable aspects of their ethos, these schools may begin to reject whatever appears to be simply inconvenient. They lose old identity but have not built up a new one. They alienate their older constituents as they stake their future on the support of the new constituents they are courting, but who are reluctant to support them because of past hostilities. This strategy is a gamble that has already closed more than one college and seminary. It alienates the older constituents, who direct their support to other institutions that still uphold the old ethos.

That phenomenon has contributed to a third strategy. Some schools attempt to capitalize on the exodus of supporters from these broadening institutions. By emphasizing their older standards of fellowship and conduct, they try to portray themselves as trustworthy in a “last man standing” sort of way. Furthermore, just as a broadening institution usually seeks support from its Left, these reactionary institutions often appeal for support to their Right.

This strategy is the mirror image of the last, and it turns out to be just as pragmatic in its approach. It upholds older standards, but often not for principled and biblical reasons. For example, one school—which insists that it is not King James Only—requires its students to use the King James Bible in their churches, even if their churches (including their home churches) use something else. Given a choice between deferring to the King James Only crowd and deferring to its students’ home churches, this institution made the pragmatic choice.

These pragmatic strategies (both to the Left and to the Right) may actually succeed in attracting ministerial students who would not otherwise have come. This kind of pragmatism, however, risks producing graduates who will subvert the churches in which they minister. Depending upon the direction in which the school faces, it will attract students from one side or the other of mainstream fundamentalism. Because it has had to compromise in order to gain those students, it will lack the ability to steer them toward a completely biblical system of faith and practice.

The fourth strategy also involves openness to ministerial students from outside mainstream fundamentalism—whether from the Left or the Right. The difference is that an institution that adopts this strategy is not willing to alter its own ethos to appeal to those students. If it is a separatist school, it teaches robust separatism winsomely and persuasively. If it is a Baptist school, it teaches Baptist distinctives without blushing. If it is a dispensational school, it teaches dispensationalism with clarity and force. It allows other students into the institution, but it aims to transform them. It does not modify its principled commitments to appeal to those on either side.

What would attract outside students to such an institution? That question has many answers. Smaller classes. Personal attention and care. Professors who combine pastoral experience with rigorous academics. Course structures that are designed for the convenience of students and not administrators. Genuine devotion to God. Commitment to Scripture. Theological sobriety. Prioritizing the local church and its ministry. In short, excellence.

There are no guarantees for any fundamentalist school. All of them wish to survive—and I personally hope that all of them do. What they must not do, however, is to purchase their survival at the expense of principled and biblical positions. Let them flourish by adopting the strategy of excellence.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Thou Only Sov’reign of My Heart

Anne Steele (1717–1778)

Thou only sov’reign of my heart,
My refuge, my almighty friend,—
And can my soul from thee depart,
On whom alone my hopes depend?

Whither, ah! whither shall I go,
A wretched wand’rer from my Lord?
Can this dark world of sin and woe
One glimpse of happiness afford?

Eternal life thy words impart,
On these my fainting spirit lives;
Here sweeter comforts cheer my heart,
Than all the round of nature gives.

Let earth’s alluring joys combine,
While thou art near, in vain they call;
One smile, one blissful smile of thine,
My dearest Lord, outweighs them all.

Thy name my inmost pow’rs adore,
Thou art my life, my joy, my care:
Depart from thee—’tis death—’tis more,
’Tis endless ruin, deep despair.

Low at thy feet my soul would lie,
Here safety dwells, and peace divine;
Still let me live beneath thine eye,
For life, eternal life is Thine.

To get to work I have to drive south about five miles and then west about four miles. I can take a variety of routes to cover that distance. I can drive south through city traffic on either Douglas or Winnetka Avenues. Alternatively, I can take County Road 100 or US 169, both of which are freeways. If I want to go west first, I can take either 63rd Avenue or Bass Lake Road; these are shorter routes, but they are city streets that have speed limits as low as 30 miles per hour. If I go south first, I can take State Highway 55 West (the Olson Highway), which is longer but has a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. Or I can drive an additional half-mile south and take Interstate 394 west; this route avoids most stop lights, but it requires a bit of backtracking through a neighborhood. I could also travel west about halfway through my southern trip by taking 42nd Avenue, 36th Avenue, or Medicine Lake Road, though they have slower speed limits combined with multiple stops.

My best chance of avoiding a fatal crash is to take city streets as far as I can. Those routes, however, double my driving time, and they also increase the likelihood of a minor crash. By traveling the limited-access highways I can save time and lower the possibility of a minor crash, while increasing the likelihood of a fatal crash only incrementally.

Every time I drive to work, I must choose a route. In fact, I make this decision nearly every normal day, including Sundays (since my work is located in the building where I go to church). A variety of factors enter into the decision. Safety is one of those. So is time on the road. Other considerations such as road construction, weather, or the daily traffic report may also influence my choice. Under normal circumstances, however, none of these choices is morally wrong. Going to work is a good thing, and having multiple routes is also a good thing. My decision is a prudential decision, a decision between good things. I do not have to decide between a good and an evil.

We often encounter situations in which we must choose between good things. Sometimes we are also confronted with choices between bad things. As long as these bad things are natural evils rather than moral evils, our choice is still a prudential one. Shall I choose to avoid the traffic jam or shall I choose to avoid the road construction? The truth is that I do not have to choose either unless I embrace the good of going to work. I do not choose the (natural) evil for its own sake, but as a subsidiary effect of getting to work. In other words, when I choose to go to work, the delay over traffic or road construction is an unintended consequence.

This discussion is directly applicable to the way that we face an epidemic. To halt the spread of the disease or to “flatten the curve,” some people reasonably wish to invoke quarantine-like measures. It is not unreasonable to limit the size and frequency of gatherings temporarily, to restrict access to public places, and to require prophylactic measures like masks, gloves, and social distancing. Though these choices will probably not keep anybody from catching the disease, they may slow down the rate at which people catch it and thus save some lives by lowering the odds that the hospitals will become overloaded with patients. That is a good thing.

Nevertheless, these restrictions take a toll. For one thing, the forcible deprivation of civil rights is in some ways worse than the physical threat of the disease. For another, businesses have to be shuttered and people put out of work. Those who are not able to earn a livelihood and who have not prepared for hard times may have trouble acquiring the necessities of life. Furthermore, intrusive governmental overreach is difficult to repulse once it has begun (including the overreach involved in mass-distributing fiat money). Avoiding these calamities is also a good thing, and to choose liberty over some level of safety is not unreasonable, either.

How much liberty should people be expected to surrender in the interest of incrementally increasing the probability that a few more individuals will survive the disease? Some have argued in favor of greater restrictions; others are increasingly arguing in favor of greater liberty. My point is not to advocate either direction, though I will add that I am in an “at risk” category, and will probably have a rough time if I catch the disease. My point is that the choice between greater safety and greater liberty is a prudential one.

I am not suggesting that liberties must never yield to concerns over safety, nor do I believe that all intrusions upon liberty are warranted as long as they can be done in the name of safety. At the present time, however, none of the evidence points clearly in one direction or the other. Shutting down businesses and ordering people to stay at home may be doing some good, though nobody can really say how much. On the other hand, the intrusions upon liberty are probably not intractable, though nobody can really be quite sure.

What we can say is that the quarantine-like measures have probably done nearly all of the good that they are going to do. Here in Minnesota we’ve had nearly two months of “flattening the curve.” Just how flat is it supposed to be? Barring a cure or a vaccine, at some point we are going to have to let the disease run its course. Each passing day brings a lower return of safety and places a heavier burden upon liberty. At some point, the responsibility must be shifted onto us who are at risk: if we wish, we can still shut ourselves up and let the rest of the world get on with living.

We take risks every day as part of our ordinary lives. I risk a crash by driving to work. I risk an incrementally greater chance of a fatal crash by driving to work on freeways. These choices are prudential; I have to weigh all considerations and make the choice that seems best under the circumstances. Safety is a concern, but it is only one of many.

The choice about whether to open businesses (and churches) or to shelter at home is also a prudential choice. To this point, state and local governments have been making that choice for all people. We are nearing the point, however, at which people must be permitted to make it for themselves.

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.

Meet and Right It Is to Sing

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

Meet and right it is to sing,
In every time and place,
Glory to our heavenly King,
The God of truth and grace.
Join we then with sweet accord,
All in one thanksgiving join!
Holy, holy, holy Lord,
Eternal praise be thine!

Thee, the first-born sons of light,
In choral symphonies,
Praise by day, day without night,
And never, never cease;
Angels and archangels, all
Praise the mystic Three in One;
Sing, and stop, and gaze, and fall,
O’erwhelmed before thy throne!

Father, God, thy love we praise,
Which gave thy Son to die;
Jesus, full of truth and grace,
Alike we glorify;
Spirit, Comforter divine.
Praise by all to thee be given,
Till we in full chorus join,
And earth is turned to heaven.

One of the reasons I went to seminary in Colorado was because of the mountains. The Rockies were not my only reason. They weren’t even the most important reason. Some might think that they were a carnal reason, though I disagree. Nevertheless, the natural beauty of those high peaks certainly entered into my choice.

I enjoyed them as thoroughly as I thought I would. I liked camping and hiking behind Rampart Range. During the summers I loved backpacking in the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness. The view east out onto the plains from high on Mount Hermon Road was one of the grandest I’ve ever seen. I particularly relished hunting: every November a classmate and I would pack into the snows of the Flat Tops Wilderness to shoot mule deer and elk. Part of me still wishes that I were in the Mountain West.

The first year I was in Colorado, however, a funny thing happened. I took an assistant pastorate with a pastor who had grown up near Greeley, and he introduced me to the high plains. In time I came to love the plains even more than I loved the mountains (if that’s possible). Something about the combination of buffalo grass, prickly pear, and yucca over unbroken miles was just enchanting. The remoteness of the plains appealed to me, as did their vast openness. I had plenty of company with the pronghorn, the rabbits, the rattlesnakes, and the raptors.

My favorite place was Pawnee Buttes. The buttes stand on the boundary of the Pawnee National Grassland at the edge of the Colorado Piedmont, a drop-off where the floor of the plains falls away hundreds of feet in an escarpment of chalk bluffs. These bluffs are carved and latticed with a network of little canyons. A mile or so out from the bluffs, the two Pawnee Buttes rise some 300 feet. Their peaks are taller even than the plains above the escarpment. To me this site was lonely, wild, and breathtaking. I never got tired of it.

During those years I did lots of hiking around the bluffs and the buttes. Birds of prey nested in the bluffs—enough of them to be called a colony, though they were of different species. The first eagle I saw in the wild was at Pawnee Buttes. Horned toads also lived there, and I found porcupines back in those bluffs.

Mule deer lived in those canyons, too. In fact, the biggest deer I ever saw were there. In the West, you measure a deer’s antlers against its body width. A deer with antlers of a full body width is a decent trophy. At Pawnee Buttes I saw deer whose antlers stretched a full body width on either side of their torsos—magnificent animals. At the time I had a rifle in my hand—but the season was closed. No matter. The sight was unforgettable.

One of the most chilling moments I ever experienced occurred in those bluffs. I had followed a narrow canyon for perhaps half a mile into the bluffs when I became aware of a sort of electrical hum in the air. I couldn’t locate the sound, so I stood very still and tried to focus on its direction. It seemed to be coming from everywhere at once. That was when I realized that the cliffs on both sides of me were pockmarked with thousands of tiny burrows made by ground-dwelling bumblebees. You can believe that I backed out of that canyon very slowly and gently.

During my six years in Colorado I visited Pawnee Buttes many times. I never, ever met another person. It was so remote that nobody went there. It was like my own private Western preserve. I loved to think that those bluffs and buttes were virtually unchanged since pioneers had settled the West.

When I left Colorado I spent six years in Iowa, then another seven or eight in Texas. Eventually I relocated to Minnesota. On a trip westward I thought I’d take my children to see the Pawnee Buttes.

I said earlier that the buttes were located on the edge of the Pawnee National Grassland. They were bounded by private property all along the northern edge, and one of the buttes actually stood on private land. During the years that I was gone, the owners of that property had built windmills all along the horizon. Dozens—scores—hundreds of those mechanical monstrosities now formed the backdrop for every angle from which the buttes could be viewed. The remoteness, wildness, openness, and solitude of the site had been destroyed.

Worse yet, the Forest Service had decided that the site needed improving. I don’t know who they were expecting to visit, but the feds had built a wooden board walkway for access from a paved parking lot. Nonexistent tourists were supposed to stay on the walkway because otherwise they might disturb the raptors, dontcha know. You could no longer get close to anything that really mattered.

In short, both the rancher who owned the land and the federal agency that controlled the site had fallen under the sway of the environmentalists. The net effect was utterly to wreck everything that made that environment worth visiting. The Pawnee Buttes are no longer breathtaking. They’re ugly. If you ask me, that’s pollution of the very worst sort.

Scripture does not teach that we must preserve the created order in untouched condition, but I do think we should at least preserve some pristine sites. Pawnee Buttes should have been one of those sites. It’s too late now. The place has been polluted. I don’t intend to go back.

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.

All That I Was

Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)

All that I was, my sin, my guilt,
My death, was all my own;
All that I am I owe to Thee,
My gracious God, alone.

The evil of my former state
Was mine, and only mine;
The good in which I now rejoice
Is Thine, and only Thine.

The darkness of my former state,
The bondage, all was mine;
The light of life in which I walk,
The liberty, is Thine.

Thy Word first made me feel my sin,
It taught me to believe;
Then, in believing, peace I found,
And now I live, I live!

All that I am, e’en here on earth,
All that I hope to be,
When Jesus comes and glory dawns,
I owe it, Lord, to Thee.

 “My faith has found a resting place not in device nor creed….” This line opens one of the hymns that used to be sung regularly in Baptist churches. It is still sung in some. It can be taken in two ways.

One is to suggest that devices and creeds (or symbols or confessions—these terms are nearly interchangeable) are antithetical to genuine faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, the hymn itself sets up a contrast: “I trust the ever-living one: His wounds for me shall plead.” Understood in this sense, to trust Christ is to refuse to trust creeds and confessions.

The text can also be read a slightly better way. It can be understood to say that the real object of saving faith in Christ Himself: we trust in Him, and not in our statements about Him. Taken in this sense, the song is less obviously false, but it continues to suggest some sort of contrast between Christ and doctrine, with the former being essential and the latter being dispensable.

Frankly, I wish that we could eradicate this hymn from our worship. Why? Because we cannot trust Christ as a mere name or sentimental abstraction. We can only trust a Christ who is understood in some specific way. We could trust the Christ of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We could trust the Christ of the Mormons. We could trust the Christ of the Unitarians. We could trust the Christ of Protestant Liberalism. Or we could trust the Christ of Christian orthodoxy.

Can’t we just trust the Christ of the Bible? The question seems reasonable, but it shows the exact problem. Each of these Christs purports to be the Christ of the Bible. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that their Christ is found in the Bible. The Mormons assert that their Christ is found in the Bible. It does no good to say, “I trust the Christ of the Bible,” unless you specify just who that Christ is.

“Alright,” you might say, “I believe that the Christ of the Bible is the Second Person of the Godhead: coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father.” Perhaps you might even back up this statement with some biblical references. If this is what you said, then you would be correct: this is the biblical Christ whom we must trust.

Perhaps you might continue, “I believe that by His incarnation the Christ of the Bible added to His deity a complete human nature, becoming fully and genuinely a man.” You might back up this statement with other biblical references. Once again, you would be right. This affirmation also defines the Christ whom we must trust.

You might further say, “I believe that the Christ of the Bible is one person in two complete natures, human and divine, such that His person must never be divided, and His natures must never be either confounded with or converted into each other.” Again, you might support this statement with biblical references. For the third time, if you said this, you would be correct. This affirmation also describes the Christ whom we must trust.

If you wished, you could add many similar true statements, each of which could be backed up by biblical references. Each of those statements would do two things. Positively, it would specify the identity of the biblical Christ who you claim to be biblical and in whom you believe. Negatively, it would contrast this Christ (the one you believe to be biblical) with the various false Christs (the ones apostates claim to be biblical).

Specifically, the first statement above contrasts the true, biblical Christ with the Christ of the Arians and the Modalists. The second statement contrasts the biblical Christ with the Christ of the Docetists, Cerinthians, and Apollinarians. The third statement contrasts the biblical Christ with the Christ of the Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monophysites. These contrasts go to the heart of the matter, because who Christ is determines what He can do. The biblical Christ can save if you trust Him. The Christs of the Arians, Modalists, Docetists, Cerinthians, Apollinarians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monophysites will send you to hell if you trust them.

Which Christ you believe to be biblical is an issue of paramount importance. It is not sufficient simply to say, “I believe in Christ.” You must believe in the right Christ among several contenders. You must believe in the true Christ. You must say which is the Christ of the Bible and which are pretenders. Therefore, the three statements above, and other statements like them, are absolutely indispensable to the Christian faith. You could not possibly claim to believe in the true and biblical Christ if you were to reject these statements.

Let us suppose that you were to take these statements and put them together, thus:

I believe that the Christ of the Bible is the Second Person of the Godhead: coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father. By His incarnation He added to His deity a complete human nature, becoming fully and genuinely a man. He is one person in two complete natures, human and divine, such that His person must never be divided, and His natures must never be either confounded with or converted into each other.

Affirming this statement would not save you, for only Christ Himself can save you. Yet the only Christ who can save is the Christ who is defined in this statement. Consequently, denying it would surely keep you from salvation. Your denial would keep you from the true and living Christ. If you trust the true and living one, then you are not simply trusting a name or a sentiment. Your only safe resting place is in the Christ of this statement.

Now notice that this statement is exactly a creed. Creeds are descriptions and definitions of what people take to be biblical. This particular creed certainly does not say everything that needs to be said, but it is still a creed. It describes or defines the only Christ who merits your trust because He is the only Christ who can save. If you are genuinely trusting the Christ of the Bible, then you are trusting the Christ of this creed. To deny this creed is to place yourself in eternal peril. Consequently, there is an important sense in which the resting place of your faith is in a device and creed.

Of course, we do not confuse creedal descriptions and definitions with the gospel message. We do not evangelize by simply having people repeat the creed. Indeed, people may and usually do trust Christ without knowing the full description and definition of His person and work. But that does not diminish the importance of having a description or definition. When you encounter someone who believes in a false Christ, then the defense of these creedal descriptions and definitions takes center stage.

We need devices and creeds. If we had not already received them, we would be forced to invent them. The only Christ who merits our trust is a Christ who is rightly described in creeds.

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.

O Praise Ye the Lord

Tate and Brady (1696)

O praise ye the Lord, Prepare your glad voice,
His praise in the great Assembly to sing;
In their great Creator Let Israel rejoice;
And children of Zion Be glad in their King.

Let them His great Name Extol in their songs,
With hearts well attuned His praises express;
Who always takes pleasure To hear their glad tongues,
And waits with salvation The humble to bless.

With glory adorned, His people shall sing
To God, Who their heads With safety doth shield;
Such honor and triumph His favor shall bring;
O therefore for ever All praise to Him yield!

How many recessions have I lived through? The first one I can remember was the “stagflation” triggered by the oil crisis and stock market crash in 1973-74. Then came the recession(s) of the later Carter regime: a double dip in 1980, which was then aggravated by the Iranian Revolution and its subsequent events. Another spike in oil prices precipitated a recession in late 1990 which lasted into 1991: I was moving from Iowa to Texas at the time and had to find a job at the bottom of that recession. It was compounded by bad loans made by the so-called “Thrifts” or “Savings and Loans;” they went out of business. Things were fine for a decade until the “dot-com bubble” burst in 2001, leading to another economic plunge. Then came the Great Recession of 2007, which lasted for over a year. Now we are in the Great Lockdown, which has turned into a new recession.

I’m neither a survivalist nor a prepper. Barring the Rapture, I’m not anticipating TEOTWAWKI during my lifetime. In fact, whenever the politicians or the press begin to talk about some kind of crisis, I immediately grow suspicious and dig in my heels. Most putative crises are no more than excuses by power mongers to introduce sweeping changes to which clearheaded and free people would never otherwise submit.

Nonetheless, one thing is clear. Hard times do come, even in prosperous countries. They have come regularly in the past. Economists calculate that the United States has experienced nearly fifty recessions over the past 245 years. In other words, on average, this country has experienced some sort of economic downturn about every five years (or just a bit more). Given the regularity of these occurrences in the past, we don’t need a prophet to tell us that they are likely to come again.

Even during good times, bad things can happen. Businesses go bust. Employees are fired or laid off. Natural disasters occur. Life choices may backfire, creating unforeseen hardship. Jesus’ own half-brother reminded us that we “know not what shall be on the morrow” (Jas 4:14).

You can be confident that hard times are looming. If you’re not in them now, you will be at some point. Therefore, it makes sense to get ready to face them. Here are several strategies that will help you to prepare.

First, most ordinary people need to learn to live modestly and even frugally. We have to distinguish wishes from needs, and then to secure the real necessities. For example, if you want to prepare for hard times you can live in an older and smaller residence. You can usually limit yourself to a single, older car. You can eat your own cooking, dining at restaurants only on special occasions. You can limit the number of plans and subscriptions you sign up for. You can buy many necessities second-hand at garage sales and thrift stores.

Second, eliminate most or all luxuries. Things like smart phones, power boats, snowmobiles, ATVs, gaming machines, espressos, lattes, cappuccinos, home theaters, much computer equipment, and (for most people) high-speed internet are luxuries. Such things have a tendency to multiply: if you permit one, it turns into many. Nothing will drain your resources faster.

Third, don’t treat your possessions as disposable items. Buy clothes, shoes, and accessories that won’t go out of style, and then keep using them until they wear out. Don’t trade your car in on a new model—drive it until you’ve used it up. Don’t discard your leftovers from dinner—warm them up for lunch the next day. Use up what you have before you replace it with something new.

Fourth, never buy any consumable or depreciating item on credit. Never. The only loan that you should have is the mortgage on your home, and you should make a priority of paying it off. You can use credit cards, but only as a short-term substitute for cash. Never buy something with a credit card that you will not pay off at the end of the month. I can’t stress this strongly enough: credit will enslave you. It will absolutely destroy your ability to prepare.

Fifth, learn to do things for yourself instead of paying other people to do them for you. Perhaps you can change your own oil or paint your own house. Maybe you can plant a vegetable garden and can or freeze some of the produce. You can learn to clear your own drains, shingle your own roof, or sew your own clothes. Wives can learn to cut their husbands’ hair (though the reverse is not usually true). Everything that you can learn to do for yourself will help to stretch your resources further.

Sixth, force yourself to save. It is sinfully wrong to believe that the Lord will always provide when you face needs. Usually He provides before the need comes. You are then responsible to manage His provision. If you squander it on something other than the coming need, then that is your fault and not His. Just assume that at some point you are going to be out of work for a month or six. Make sure you keep enough food and other necessities to last you that long. Have money in the bank to pay your mortgage, utilities, and other bills while you have no income. Plan now so that you will be prepared when it happens.

These strategies need to become habits of life. You need to practice them until they become second nature. You need to get so used to living modestly that you no longer miss what you do not have; you must become “content with such things as ye have” (Heb 13:5). These are not short-term tricks, but patterns of living to adopt until you really are prepared (or as prepared as one can be) for hard times to come. Interestingly, once you are prepared, you’re likely to discover that many of these patterns continue. That’s alright—these are the same patterns that will enable you to abound toward others.

Too many people spend what they receive almost as soon as they get it. They buy on impulse to meet an immediate wish, sometimes running up enormous debt to do it. They assume that nothing will ever go wrong. When it does, they feel victimized. They begin looking for somebody to blame. They feel entitled to some sort of bailout, and they often begin to demand some sort of “stimulus.” They are fools (Prov 10:21; 13:4, 16; 21:20, 25-26; 22:3).

Let these attitudes never characterize God’s people. Yes, He is providing. He will continue to provide. Nevertheless, He commits to us the responsibility to manage His provision wisely and carefully. If we do, we will be able to weather hard times when they come. We will have what we need. Indeed, we will have enough to share.

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, My Fond Fluttering Heart

Jane Taylor (1783–1824)

Come, my fond fluttering heart,
Come, struggle to be free,
Thou and the world must part,
However hard it be:
My trembling spirit owns it just,
But cleaves yet closer to the dust.

Ye tempting sweets, forbear,
Ye dearest idols, fall;
My heart ye must not share,
Jesus shall have it all:
‘Tis bitter pain, ‘tis cruel smart,
But ah! thou must consent, my heart!

Ye fair enchanting throng!
Ye golden dreams, farewell!
Earth has prevail’d too long,
And now I break the spell:
Ye cherish’d joys of early years,
Jesus, forgive these parting tears.

O may I feel thy worth,
And let no idol dare,
No vanity of earth,
With thee, my Lord, compare:
Now bid all worldly joys depart,
And reign supremely in my heart!

Can we talk? There’s a problem that I’d like to share with you. It’s not one that I can fix, but maybe you can.

Since I’ve been at Central Seminary, the Lord has permitted me to occupy many pulpits. I’ve enjoyed visiting the churches, getting to know the people, and fellowshipping with new congregations. In some cases I’ve been invited to return to those churches many times, and the relationship has grown deeper each time.

The truth is that I would be willing to donate my time and efforts to help God’s people. My income from the seminary meets my expenses and even allows me a bit extra. I don’t need extra income from itinerant ministry to pay the bills. I would never turn a church down for meetings just because the congregation was unable to pay me.

In fact, there have been times when I have not been paid. Sometimes the pastor has explained that the church just can’t afford to give me anything—and that’s fine with me. Other times I’ve agreed that the church’s giving should go to some other project. There have also been occasions when the church has given me nothing but the pastor hasn’t told me anything about it. When that happens, I find myself faced with dilemma: should I say something to the pastor or shouldn’t I? On the one hand, I don’t want to sound mercenary. On the other hand, the lapse could be the result of an unfortunate oversight, an administrative bumble, or (just possibly) dishonesty. I’ve known of situations in which some crooked church fiduciary would skim the honoraria for guest speakers, counting on the speakers not to complain. Well, I wouldn’t complain—but if the pastor says nothing and no honorarium appears within a month or two, I will ask him what his intention was.

Churches vary widely in their handling of expenses and honoraria. Most churches will cover transportation expenses and provide at least a modest honorarium. Some churches receive a love offering in lieu of either covering expenses or providing an honorarium. A few churches provide an honorarium but do not cover expenses. Among the churches that provide honoraria, the smallest are about fifty dollars per service, while the most generous can run to several hundred dollars per service. Interestingly, the size of the honorarium is often not proportioned to the size of the church. Some of the most generous churches in which I’ve ministered are also among the smallest.

And here is where I want to bring up the problem that I hope you’ll help me solve. Many of those smaller honoraria are not adequate to cover even the speaker’s cost to travel to the church. A guest speaker actually loses money every time he fills one of those pulpits. He effectively pays for the privilege of preaching to those congregations.

For me, that’s not a problem. Central Seminary pays me enough that I can afford to take a financial loss on some engagements. And besides, my next engagement will usually make up the difference.

Not ever speaker has that flexibility. For example, seminary students are often tapped to fill pulpits. Their incomes are usually stretched already. They are supporting young, growing families. They are paying tuition for their schooling. Sometimes they are actually trusting God for their next meal, and they may see a speaking engagement as God’s provision. If, however, the church neglects to compensate them—or even delays compensation—this neglect may result in genuine financial hardship.

Scripture is clear on this count: the laborer is worthy of his reward (1 Tim 5:18). Paul quoted these words when he was teaching about paying those who “labor in the word and doctrine,” i.e., preaching and teaching. He elsewhere taught that God has ordained that people who “preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). In other words, a local church has a duty to care financially for those who minister the Word in its midst.

So what should a church do? How should it fulfill its biblical obligation to care for the preachers who stand in its pulpit? I suggest the following.

First, every church should be sure to reimburse the expenses of the speaker. The church should cover all expenses for lodging and meals for the speaker and for his wife (if she comes).If a speaker flies to the engagement or rents a car, then the church should reimburse the exact amount of the expense. If he drives his own car, a fair way of calculating his expense is to approximate the per-mile figure that the IRS publishes (currently about $.57 per mile). For example, if a church reimburses at just $.50 per mile, a speaker who travels two hours (120 miles) away should receive a reimbursement of $120 for the round trip.

Second, a church should also remunerate the speaker fairly for the time he invests in his teaching and preaching. This includes not only the time actually spent in the pulpit but also the time spent in preparation and transportation. Suppose a speaker is traveling two hours to an engagement where he will teach Sunday school and preach for two Sunday services. For each lesson or sermon he will likely spend five to ten hours in preparation. Taking the minimum figure, he will have invested fifteen hours in preparation, four hours in transportation, and three hours in the public services, for a total of twenty-two hours on one day’s ministry. Minnesota has a minimum wage of ten dollars per hour. If the church pays this man a $200 honorarium, he will receive substantially less than minimum wage for his labors. That is one reason why, under ordinary circumstances, an honorarium of $100 per service should be viewed as minimal.

Third, some churches will choose to receive a love offering for the speaker. This custom provides a wonderful opportunity for individual church members to exhibit gratitude for the day’s ministry. It is entirely appropriate. Nevertheless, the church should also adopt a policy that the love offering will be supplemented from church funds if it does not reach a stated minimum amount. That amount should be adequate to cover expenses plus reasonable compensation for the speaker’s time and effort.

Most churches handle this situation magnificently. I am deeply grateful for churches that have ministered to me in a material way. On the other hand, I would never begrudge ministry to a church that cannot pay as well—or even at all. While I’m willing to absorb a loss, however, not every preacher is in the same position. Christ lays the obligation upon the church to care for these men who minister the Word.

How can you help? If you are a church member but not an officer, then show this article to your pastor. If you are a pastor, then reprint this article for your congregation. If you are a deacon, then bring this article to the next deacons’ meeting so you and your peers can review your church’s policies. That would be a first step toward fixing the problem.

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.

When God Inclines the Heart to Pray

Benjamin Beddome (1717–1795)

When God inclines the heart to pray,
He hath an ear to hear;
To Him there’s music in a groan,
And beauty in a tear.

The humble suppliant cannot fail,
To have his wants supplied,
Since He for sinners intercedes,
Who once for sinners died.

Few things have so universally affected the missionary movement like the current COVID-19 pandemic. As the world’s economy has ground to a halt, so too has the advance of the gospel been significantly curtailed. With “shelter-in-place” orders stretching from California to Canada, Romania to Rwanda, the world is facing the pandemic with vigorous efforts to halt its spread and mitigate its effects.

Americans are under orders to remain in our homes with limited movement. Restaurants are closed to sit-down dining; non-essential businesses are also shuttered and social distancing is the order of the day. Churches which would be preparing for Good Friday and the Easter weekend are now thinking of creative ways to make this year’s celebration unique and special.

There is a body of people affected in unusual ways by this global situation—our missionaries. My son and his family returned to the US for a four-month furlough in late February, just in time to have most of his prearranged meetings cancelled and his well-thought-out travel plans disrupted. Conferences he was to attend were suspended and long-overdue visits are on hold. Even his scheduled return to Zambia in early July is uncertain but hopeful. A consequence of the disrupted furlough is the inability to connect with churches in person to report on past activities and future plans. Many churches are using technology in the interim to maintain connections with the congregations that cannot meet in person. He spoke at his first scheduled mission conference to an empty auditorium and into a digital camera. He has Zoom meetings with churches and supporters, but helpful as this is, it is not the same as face-to-face meetings with pastors, church leaders, and congregations, meetings which normally include informal fellowship and prayer times. His churches are doing their best to help him in these days.

Recently, I was communicating with a mission leader who is dealing with the unique problems his missionaries are facing during these unprecedented days. I have already alluded to numerous problems state-side missionaries are facing, in addition to normal virus precautions: travel plans cancelled, churches not having regular services, some not having any services at all, concerns about getting to or returning from the field. Missionaries on full-time deputation are stuck and may not even qualify for unemployment benefits. For missionaries overseas, the problems compound. They have concerns about their families so far from home and their families back at home. How can they be close to older parents who may be imperiled by COVID-19?

Missionaries also face health concerns of their own. Those in the majority world struggles with medical care at the best of times. Missionaries who are in countries with substantial health care resources may be in the hot-zones. They have little to no way to leave these places even if they wished to do so. They will need to ride out the storm. Missionaries who leave should not be judged against those who stay. Circumstances make these choices unique and must be made in concert with the sending churches and mission agencies. The decision to stay put or go home can be very difficult. If a missionary chooses to leave, the family will need support. If a missionary chooses to stay, it may mean weeks of isolation with little or no “work” to do for which they were commissioned. Missionary work demands lots of face-to-face interaction, Bible studies, and evangelistic outreaches, which are likely curtailed. Novice missionaries, who may be in the midst of language school or who may be dealing with culture shock, are trapped in strange places. “Cabin fever,” a challenge in the best of circumstances, can be compounded in a time like this. Grocery stores in some two-thirds world countries have a hard time staying stocked in normal times; how difficult might it be in these times of chaos? Some may experience food shortages and security issues in their countries. Challenges abound.

Financially, the missionaries may also be threatened. With the stock market in a rollercoaster pattern and churches not meeting, supporting churches have an uncertain revenue stream, meaning that supported missionaries may find their monthly commitments diminishing because churches cannot give what they do not have. In some countries, the currency may be in freefall, helping to offset some of the potential lost support. Planned furloughs must be put on hold for those who need to return from the field. Some mission agencies have emergency evacuation plans for exceptional circumstances for overseas personnel, but a pandemic could drain emergency funds, making repatriation for some impossible. Airlines are flying limited routes and even official needs like visa applications and renewals may be impossible to obtain. I have a friend who needs to return to his country soon to renew his visa, but it is looking like this will not happen. If the visa lapses, will the country renew it? Another friend has a work permit, but his country is telling him that it will not be renewed as he does not offer an “essential service” in times like this.

Beyond the personal and financial challenges, our missionaries are facing the myriad of issues related to the discipleship work they are doing. People have life and death questions. Missionaries will seize the moments as they can using technology to alleviate some of the issues, but some missionaries serve in places where electricity and internet are spotty at the best of times. Nationals may not be connected. Pressures from a country in chaos may make things intolerable. Other missionaries have itinerant work, with travel a necessary component. Even if they wished to travel, they may be unable. Some may even be “stuck” in a place they traveled to but cannot get out from now that travel bans are in place. Or they may fear being caught if they do travel, so their options are limited.

Finally, there is the emotional toll that this is surely exacting on our missionaries. I know my family and I are stressed more than normal and our life is certainly less impacted than many overseas servants of the Lord. We have stable internet and pastoral support near at hand. Living in a strange land with few real friends, being cooped up in small apartments with little or no outside access so that children can run and get exercise, may be very taxing for some of our missionary families.

So what can we do from afar or near to help our missionaries during this exceptional time? First, we can be alert to the many kinds of issues they may now be facing that have not been reported in traditional missionary updates. “Pray for us as we enter into a sixth week of quarantine.” When is the last time you read a request like that? Prayer is the most important thing we can do for our missionaries. Beyond that, we need to do all we can to maintain their support lest they be left in a more difficult strait through want of finances. Send extra if we can to help our missionaries and to let them know they are loved and cared for. Third, drop them a note or FaceTime them to let them know you are praying for them and standing with them. There is one thing about days like this: we have a pretty good idea of where to find people—at home, hunkered down, waiting for things to improve! Reassure our missionaries that they are not forgotten and that we are praying for them to stay healthy and thrive with the Lord during these days. Finally, pray for their work. It’s the Lord’s work and it will go on, virus or no virus. Missionaries will have unique opportunities of ministry not afforded them at other times. Pray for them to use these to the glory of God.

God is in control of world events. He is building His church and not even the gates of hell can prevail against it. Our missionaries are in the vanguard of gospel advance. Let’s stand with them in these interesting days!

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions 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.

from The Sacrifice

George Herbert (1593–1633)

Then on my head a crown of thorns I wear:
For these are all the grapes Sion doth bear,
Though I my vine planted and watered there:
Was ever grief like mine?

So sits the earth’s great curse in Adam’s fall
Upon my head: so I remove it all
From th’ earth unto my brows, and bear the thrall:
Was ever grief like mine?

…

O all ye who pass by, behold and see;
Man stole the fruit, but I must climb the tree;
The tree of life to all, but only me:
Was ever grief like mine?                                   

Lo, here I hang, charg’d with a world of sin,
The greater world o’ th’ two; for that came in
By words, but this by sorrow I must win:
Was ever grief like mine?

Such sorrow as, if sinful man could feel,
Or feel his part, he would not cease to kneel.
Till all were melted, though he were all steel:
Was ever grief like mine?

But, O my God, my God! why leav’st thou me,
The son, in whom thou dost delight to be?
My God, my God————
Never was grief like mine.

We are living in unprecedented times, to be sure. On Friday, New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio suggested that all churches and synagogues who do not comply with the notice to suspend meetings could be forced to close…permanently. News has just come out that a prominent Florida pastor was arrested over the weekend for defying the order not to assemble. Who would have thought it would come to this in America? Seems like the First Amendment to the Constitution has already addressed this issue. These are uncertain times.

Even if your church has agreed to the voluntary closures (we have here at Fourth Baptist), the challenge of ministering to people and keeping churches “open” has presented a new set of problems. For example, churches are now offering online giving. In this digital age, churches have set up bill pay apps to receive donations. And why not? What’s wrong with an app that allows you to simply deduct your gift, weekly, monthly, or periodically from your bank account? For the record, I gave my church an offering today because, despite the shutdown, the needs of the church still go on. Still, I don’t like online giving to my local church because it seems to me that the Bible instructs us to think about what we will give (as each one purposes in his heart, so let him give, 2 Cor 9:7). Moreover, we are to bring our gifts as an act of worship. Online giving can be “thoughtless” but our giving should be purposeful. I understand that some will argue that online giving allows for regularity, anonymity, and ensures that the church work will continue. Agreed. But I will switch back to giving in the service as an act of worship rather than doing online giving once this crisis is over.

Giving is one thing. Doing church online is something else. Can we even do church online? Is this really possible? For the record, the pandemic has not been the start of online church meetings, and when the pandemic is over, they will not disappear. I imagine that the sheer convenience of these meetings will ensure they continue until the internet breaks or Jesus returns. I must confess, from time to time, my wife and I have enjoyed a service at Fourth Baptist remotely when we have been up on the North Shore. I occasionally listen to the preaching of my successor at Emmanuel Baptist in Windsor, Ontario, online. I am sure our seniors and shut-ins appreciate listening in when they cannot get out. What a great day in which to live.

Having access to good preaching from around the world from the comfort of your living room, what could be better? Assembling with the Lord’s people for fellowship and worship. The question of remote church is an important one. Can we have church as the Bible defines it digitally? If we really can, why not sell our buildings and use the money for missions! If we cannot do church digitally, are we doing wrong by having online services at all? Some churches are refusing to hold online meetings. Older pastors don’t have the technological skills while others think that online services are misguided, if not completely unbiblical.

Before I address these questions, let’s look at the Old Testament and the Temple. The Temple contained the central altar. It was only there on that altar that the sacrifices to God could be offered. The Jews, if they wanted to offer acceptable worship, had to journey to the central altar to worship. When divine judgment came and the central altar was razed, the Jews were left without a place where true worship could be performed. Moreover, the Jews were scattered in the Diaspora, making it nearly impossible to go to Jerusalem. So, they came up with the synagogue system. Jews met to carry out what they could do legitimately in the absence of the central altar. They could do some things at the synagogue but not others. The synagogues offered some opportunity but could not fully meet the need for Jewish worship. While the necessity of the synagogue may have been a consequence of Jewish intransigence and much of Jewish efforts were works of the flesh, neither Jesus nor the disciples had any problem using the synagogue system to promote the Christian message. They certainly didn’t boycott it. Was it the Temple? Clearly not. Could it be used to convey biblical truth, even to deliver biblical sermons? Apparently.

In the same way, digital meetings offer Christians opportunities to hear the Word preached, perhaps sing some songs together, hear announcements of the needs of the assembly, and pray “together,” etc. But you cannot have a digital assembly; church cannot be digital and still be church.

Part of what makes the church church is the “gathering of ourselves together,” which clearly cannot be done digitally. Without corporate gatherings we cannot worship God corporately as the church was intended to do. There is an aspect of worship that demands a gathered multitude. We cannot do this digitally. Nor can we partake of the Lord’s Supper digitally, despite creative attempts to the contrary. We share the communion meal together as an assembly. It is not a private ceremony; it is a corporate act that we should do regularly. We gather together to celebrate the Lord’s death until He comes. How often we do this is a matter of Christian discretion—weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly, occasionally. Personally, I think more is better. If I would hazard a guess, I think among Baptists, monthly is likely the most frequent pattern. But communion is rightly done when the church gathers. I’ve seen communion given to newly-weds. That’s not biblical communion. We don’t have communion with our students. Communion is a gathered local church activity.

As Baptists, we hold to a symbolic and non-salvific meaning to communion. It doesn’t do anything for us. We are no better for the partaking or no worse for not partaking. It won’t save us. But it has spiritual benefit which comes from a gathered celebration. We unite around the Table in common koinonia (fellowship). Attempts to have communion digitally are efforts in futility. These attempts won’t accomplish what is intended to be accomplished at the Table; they are unbiblical.

What about drive-in church? Some churches have been having people gather in their cars in the church parking lot while the meeting is broadcast over an FM channel. It’s creative. But I’m not sure how it differs from digital attempts. There is no mutual edification, especially if we maintain social distancing. Moreover, I am not sure what more is accomplished with drive-in over digital. Both fall short of New Testament ekklesia.

So, should we stop online efforts? Why? They do provide teaching and encouragement. Our pastor preached a fine message from Psalm 23 last Sunday. These online labors offer some attempt at togetherness, even if it’s not church. But, while we wait on the Lord to turn the virus to naught, and while we watch or participate in these online activities, we need to long for the day when we can gather again and do church as the Bible prescribes it. By all means, minister to the shut-ins with a digital feed. But don’t think that this is church. It isn’t, and I for one look forward to the end of all of this when we can again assemble together to worship our Great God!

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions 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 133

Scottish Psalter and Paraphrases, 1650

Behold, how good a thing it is,
and how becoming well,
Together such as brethren are
in unity to dwell!

Like precious ointment on the head,
that down the beard did flow,
Ev’n Aaron’s beard, and to the skirts,*
did of his garments go.

As Hermon’s dew, the dew that doth
on Sion’ hills descend:
For there the blessing God commands,
life that shall never end.

The ministry of the Word is the primary duty of the pastor. Both Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4 and his personal example (e.g. Acts 17:23) make that abundantly clear. Preaching the Word is a high and holy calling. Ministers have often talked about standing behind the “sacred desk.” The desk itself is not sacred but the duty performed there is. To preach from the Word and speak on behalf of God is a duty not to be discharged lightly. Preaching the Bible week in and week out is a heavy and holy calling as one guides the Lord’s people toward their heavenly rest. In this week’s Nick, I wish to speak to the ministry of the Word, especially at times of great calamity.

I have long been a believer in expository preaching—opening the Scripture and laying out its divine meaning before a congregation. Included is systematic preaching through the Bible, generally one book at a time. Not that we should start in Genesis and preach through to the book of the Revelation without interruption. We could do that, but I wonder if that’s the best way to do the work. Expository preaching is where the ministry of the Word begins—with a commitment to faithfully expound the Scriptures so that they will do the work which God intends them to do: “so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom 10:17).

So, given a commitment to expositional preaching, what’s next? Where do we begin this sacred task? In part, the answer to the question depends on several things. Where am I in my ministry? Am I just starting out? Am I a seasoned preacher with some experience? I would still like to think I have a few good years of preaching left. I’m not sure tackling Isaiah verse by verse is what a novice minister should do. Another question to ask is, where am I at in this (my current church) ministry? What does the church really need? I think preaching should aim at something. If we aim at nothing in our preaching, we will hit it every time! Our preaching should be aimed at producing something in the hearts of our hearers—conviction, encouragement, instruction, admonition, something!

As a minister who does not fill a regular pulpit, my preaching doesn’t follow a traditional approach of preaching through books of the Bible. I am called upon to fill area church pulpits for a week or two, generally when the settled pastor is away from his pulpit. Occasionally, I get to do a conference where I preach a series of messages of a specified topic, e.g. missions. My preaching is occasional and limited.

However, for more than half my ministry, things were different. On four separate occasions throughout my forty years of ministry, I had the joy of preaching in an assembly as its pastor or interim. Preaching week by week to the same people over an extended period of time is a great joy. Systematic teaching is possible and should be carefully thought through. Starting out in a ministry one might ask where one goes with the Word in the new situation, especially as your familiarity with the congregation is limited. For my part, I preached two different books in the early days of my pastoral ministries. First, I focused on the Gospel of John. What a great book to do evangelistic preaching! I had no idea where individuals in the assembly stood with regard to their understanding of the gospel. Preaching systematically through John allowed for regular gospel preaching designed to exhort the unbeliever to find mercy in Jesus Christ and instruction to the saints on the nature of true Christianity. I love John’s Gospel for that reason. Also, I preached through the book of Philippians. The epistle is a good basic New Testament book that allows the minister to deal with the Christian’s sanctification (work out your own salvation, Php 2:12), the threats of doctrinal error (beware of dogs, Php 3:2), and interpersonal challenges within the assembly (Euodia and Syntyche, Php 4:2). It is full of encouraging instruction.

The routine of preaching two to three times per week needs thoughtful attention to content (what does the assembly need?) and variety (how can we address a broad spectrum of life issues: marriage, sound theology, personal evangelism, global missions, effective parenting, conquering besetting sin, depression, etc.?). A preacher will settle into a routine of preaching that may become too routine. The next sermon is invariably the next pericope. This may work well on most occasions; however, there may be occasions when something interrupts the routine.

Calamity is just such an occasion. Life happens. When it does, the minister may need to deviate from the planned series to address some compelling life issue. It was my regular practice to address the things that were on the minds of my congregation at times of special challenge. I was doing doctoral work when 9/11 happened so I didn’t get the opportunity to address that from the pulpit, but I would have had I been preaching then. When the tsunami of 2004 happened, I was to preach in a church in Washington state. I chose as my topic for that occasion “Spiritual Lessons from Sudden Destruction.” Some estimates suggest that upwards of 225,000 people lost their lives in Indonesia and thirteen other countries. It was just not possible not to address that global calamity. In the same way, the recent fears of a global pandemic have also directed my pulpit work. With the world’s attention turned toward an expanding health crisis, how could this not affect my preaching? Earlier this month, I had two pulpit supplies as the pandemic was on the rise in the minds of the public. I chose on those occasions Psalm 90, “so teach us to number our days that we might learn wisdom.” Now I cannot say why God permitted this pandemic, but would this not be an occasion to “number our days”?

Had I been preaching in a settled pulpit, would I have changed long-term sermon plans to address the crisis? Absolutely. National calamity warrants a dedicated sermon to my congregation. But a couple of caveats are in order. First, deviating from a series needs careful thought. If we deviate too often, we run the risk of “crying wolf” to the congregation. Only significant events should be addressed. Second, caution should be exercised that we do not speak for God when we have no information—"God caused this event or that event because….” During the 9/11 aftermath, well-known preachers suggested that God was judging America for its sin. Perhaps He was, but on what authority did we have to say so? Unless we believe we have some form of direct contact with God and He tells us this is why He did something, we better be careful not to charge Him with a reason for the event. I am not saying we refuse to recognize the hand of God. We just cannot say with authority why God does what He does when He has not spoken. Finally, when we address calamity, we need to temper words of judgement with words of encouragement. We may think God is reigning down misery on humanity, and we may believe that He will one day soon bring judgement, but we also need to offer comfort to the Lord’s people that He has everything under control. This is His world and He protects His own (Psalm 121). We may wish to offer comfort, but should we not also offer warning, if appropriate?

By all means preach to the today if it warrants a message from God. Speak His truth with all the authority which He delegates to us through the Word. But remember to speak of both wrath and grace. Both are found in abundance in the written Word of God. We give out the Word and let it do its work. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12).

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions 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.

Often the Clouds of Deepest Woe

Caroline Fry (1787–1846)

Often the clouds of deepest woe
So sweet a message bear,
Dark though they seem, ‘twere hard to find
A frown of anger there.

It needs our hearts be wean’d from earth,
It needs that we be driven,
By less of every earthly stay,
To seek our joys in heaven.

For we must follow in the path
Our Lord and Savior run;
We must not find a resting-place
Where He we love had none.

It came as no surprise last Friday when late in the day word came that the seminary’s Friends and Family Banquet, scheduled for March 30, was cancelled. Fourth Baptist Church had already determined to suspend public congregational worship for two Sundays in response to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s request that gatherings of more than 250 people not be held. Churches across the country advised parents with small children and their elderly congregants to stay home and listen to a livestream, where available. I spoke to an assembly on Sunday that fell well below the 250 maximum, but even there it appeared that many stayed home.

This year will be the “9/11” for the current generation. My generation remembers where we were when news of the airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers was reported. I was driving to a class early in my doctoral studies. My wife called my cell phone to ask if I was listening to the radio. I turned it on in time to hear Peter Jennings describe the collapse of the South Tower. When I reached campus, classes had been suspended and students were huddled around every television on campus. Shock and awe prevailed.

The events of 2020 will likely be designated “The Year We Lost.” Universities have sent its resident students home, either ending their spring terms early or moving to online classes only. It is too soon to predict what may become of graduation ceremonies scheduled for early May. Apple has closed its stores around the world for two weeks, malls are closing, people are practicing social distancing, and the Stock Market is volatile, plunging and rising as the Federal Reserve tries to stabilize things. Governor Walz has now ordered restaurants in Minnesota to close their in-store dining rooms, permitting take-out and delivery only. Who knows where all this will end?

God does! He did not wake up one morning in mid-December to the outbreak of COVID-19 and mutter to Himself, “I didn’t see that coming!” “I wish I had known so I could have warned humanity to get ready!” Open theists of a few years ago argued that some things are just beyond God’s control. Living in an open universe is the price we pay for “free will.” If God were to know ahead of time what would happen, then the things that do happen, happen necessarily. These would include the free responses of human beings. So, if God knows things ahead of time, including bad things, and bad things happen, it is either because God doesn’t care if bad things happen to us or that God cannot keep bad things from happening. He doesn’t control the world. Things just happen.

Both of these prospects are both alarming and, thankfully, unbiblical. God knows, He cares, and He controls. I am glad that open theism is unbiblical. We live in a universe controlled by a God who works everything according to the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:19). So why the bad things? Why does God allow, permit, or even cause bad things to happen to us?

God is at work in his world drawing humans to Himself. Hardship and calamity will either draw humans to Christ or it will push them away from Him. Christians can bear witness to God and His works in His world at such a time as this. Who will tell of His power and might if we don’t! What an opportunity for the believer.

It is such a blessing being a Christian at a time like this. While the world hoards toilet paper and hand sanitizer, the Christian stands poised to be a light in the darkness, a city set on a hill, shining the truth of God before benighted souls stumbling along in the darkness. Christian, take heart! All the coronavirus can do is kill us! To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Who among us doesn’t long for Canaan’s fair and happy land where our possessions lie? We face a certain future in uncertain times. We may not know what the future holds, but we know who holds the future!

The Scriptures are replete with admonitions to believers to “redeem the times” and to “number our days.” We are mortal. Death is our expected lot unless the Lord returns to take us into the Father’s presence. We look for the upper taker, not the undertaker! But in doing so, we walk circumspectly in this world with an eye to the sky waiting for the Blessed Hope and Glorious Return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We have a duty to discharge to the Father to speak of His Son. Now more than ever we need to look for opportunities to speak on behalf of the Lord.
The coronavirus should not be a reign of terror in our hearts but a reminder that time is short and life is fleeting. Christians are to live in this world in a way that demonstrates our trust in God. What better time to do so than in the midst of a pandemic. Paranoia should not control us. We should be able to demonstrate supreme confidence on the God who neither slumbers nor sleeps. Neighbors, friends, family, co-workers all need to see Jesus in the way we conduct ourselves in the days of chaos. This is our opportunity to point people to Christ.

Will this be a long season of uncertainty? Perhaps. Will this be costly to us personally? Undoubtedly. However, in all this God, God sees, God plans, and God controls. Where can we go from His presence? How then should we respond in this time of uncertainty?

Let us pray! When all else fails, we turn to God in prayer. Maybe we should turn to prayer soon. Perhaps we cannot have public prayer meeting because of social distancing, but we can pray—for God’s will to done, for us to embrace and welcome His will, for God’s grace in the calamity, despite what may happen, and for the world that those without Christ will turn to God rather than away from Him in anger and despair.

Let’s be ready to tell to all who ask the reason for the hope that lies within us (1 Pet 3:15). It has been said that “the bell that is struck the hardest sounds the clearest.” Lord, teach us through this time of uncertainty “to number our days” (Ps 90:12) that we may seek Thy wisdom and bear witness to the certainty of Jesus Christ who to know is life everlasting! Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions 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.

And Art Thou With Us

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

And art Thou with us, gracious Lord,
To dissipate our fear?
Dost Thou proclaim Thyself our God,
Our God for ever near?

Doth Thy right hand, which formed the earth,
And bears up all the skies,
Stretch from on high its friendly aid,
When dangers round us rise?

And wilt Thou lead our weary souls
To that delightful scene,
Where rivers of salvation flow
Through pastures ever green?

On Thy support our souls shall lean,
And banish every care;
The gloomy vale of death shall smile,
If God be with us there.

Last week I published the first half of my “Most Interesting Reading of 2019” list. These books aren’t necessarily the best that I read. They’re not even necessarily the most commendable. Instead, they were the books that I found most interesting, for a variety of reasons. In some cases, the reason may have been sheer astonishment and incredulity. Consequently, if you read one of these books and just hate it, don’t blame me. You already know I’m odd.

Casillas, Ken. The Law and the Christian. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2007.

This book provides proof that Bob Jones University is continuing to mature theologically and exegetically. Casillas wants to find a biblical way to walk the tightrope between legalism and license. His discussion is thoughtful and careful. The book is a delight to read.

Hayek, Friedrich A. The Road to Serfdom. 15th Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

This was a re-reading of a book that I discovered in seminary. It is one of the three foundational texts of modern American conservatism (the others being Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind). Hayek deals most explicitly with the economic side of conservatism, which he connects directly to political and social freedom. If you have never read this book, you absolutely must. That goes for Weaver and Kirk, too.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

This was another re-read. I began to come across references to Kuhn’s work during the mid-1980s. Eventually I decided I needed to read it for myself. This is the book in which Kuhn coined the phrase paradigm shift. He was explaining how science often advances, not by discovering new evidence, but by interpreting old evidence in new ways. How and why this re-interpretation happens is the subject of the book. Some books bear re-reading. This is one.

Kyle, Chris. American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U. S. Military History. New York: HarperCollins, 2013.

The first thing that you need to know is that this book is about the military. It includes descriptions and language that one encounters in a military environment. Still, if you want to know what a man has to do to become a Navy SEAL and a top-notch sniper, it will show you. It will also give you a boots-on-the-ground glimpse at America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan—but only if you have the stomach for this kind of reading.

Marshall, Walter. The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: James Taylor, 1692.

During the early part of the year I did some binge-reading in Keswick theology. I discovered that a few present-day Keswick writers hark to Marshall as a kind of spiritual and theological progenitor, so I decided to read the source. On my view, while Marshall used some language that was similar to language that Keswick would later use, he is really a representative of the better sort of Puritan. He was a godly man who still calls us to godliness.

Peters, Ellis. The Virgin In the Ice. New York: William Morrow, 1983.

It’s a guilty pleasure: I like murder mysteries. The problem is that many murder mysteries have become a platform for their protagonists to engage in all sorts of deplorable conduct. Ellis Peters’s Cadfael series, however, is just good, clean fun, and not a bad introduction to Twelfth Century society and religion. Brother Cadfael is a former soldier and sailor who has become a Benedictine monk, but in his calling he finds plenty of chances to solve crimes. The Cadfael series comprises about twenty books; The Virgin In the Ice just happens to be one that I read this year.

Peterson, Robert A. Our Secure Salvation. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009.

I read Peterson’s book on assurance almost immediately after reading Canaday and Schreiner’s The Race Set Before Us. The difference was pronounced. Both share a Reformed perspective on this life of faith, but I would never think of handing The Race Set Before Us to ordinary Christians‑‑except, perhaps, to confuse and scare them. In Our Secure Salvation, however, Peterson offers a gentle, warm, and encouraging summation of the Reformed view of assurance. I’m genuinely grateful for this book.

Renihan, James M. Edification and Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705. Studies in Baptist History and Thought. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock/Paternoster, 2008.

Renihan’s book is expensive. It isn’t available on Kindle. It’s a bit hard to read, what with all the early Baptist quotations. But it is a good book. It points out how close the Particular Baptists were to the Presbyterians of the Westminster Confession and the Congregationalists of the Savoy Declaration (these documents were adapted by Baptists as the Second London Confession). It also focuses on the ways in which Baptists differed from the two foregoing groups. In so doing it provides a very useful glimpse into early Baptist life and faith.

Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

You don’t have to agree with a book to enjoy it. I rather strongly disagree with Riddlebarger’s thesis that the Bible teaches amillennialism, but I enjoyed the book because he makes the argument about as well as it can be made. Its main deficiency is that Riddlebarger seems to equate Dispensationalism with a kind of populist theory from Dallas. I’ll certainly be responding to Riddlebarger’s arguments in my classes. I appreciate the work that he has done to sharpen me.

Sowell, Thomas. Black Rednecks and White Liberals. New York: Encounter Books, 2005.

I can think of no one who writes more ably on the topic of race and culture than Thomas Sowell. In this particular volume he argues that certain aspects of American Black culture and certain aspects of poor White culture share common roots in an older “redneck” or “cracker” culture. The argument is interesting and Sowell presents it well. I like the book, not because I agree or disagree, but because it was well argued and presented. It’s too bad that this man isn’t writing any more.

Tuchan, Barbara W. The Guns of August. New York: Macmillan, 1962; repr. Random House, 2009.

For me, the complexities of World War I have made the conflict something of a blur. I understand the horrors of that war. I can perceive its social and cultural effects. But I had not understood the causes and events that led to the conflict before reading Tuchan’s work. She tells a tale of secret treaties that left nations distrustful of each other, of Russian ambition, of British bumbling, of German militarism embodied in the Schlieffen Plan, of the French Plan XVII which left that nation trusting to the élan of its soldiery. And she ties it together well.

When I publish these lists, I’m always afraid that I’m displaying too many of my own quirks. But as I said above, you already know I’m odd. This list only confirms it. Some of these are good books. Some aren’t. But I enjoyed them all.

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.

Psalm 62

When dangers press and fears invade,
Oh let us not rely
On man, who, in the balance weigh’d,
Is light as vanity!

Riches have wings and fly away;
Health’s blooming cheek grows pale;
Vigour and strength must soon decay,
And worldly wisdom fail.

But God, our God, is still the same,
As at that solemn hour
When thunders spake his awful name,
His majesty and power.

And still sweet mercy’s voice is heard,
Proclaiming from above
That good and gracious is the Lord,
And all His works are love.

Then trust in God, and God alone,
On Him in faith rely;
For man, and all his works, are known
To be but vanity.

Every year I try to publish a list of the books that I found most interesting during the preceding twelve months. Usually these are books that I have just read for the first time. Occasionally they are books that I’ve found either so important or so interesting as to merit a second (or third) read.

This year my list is late. Partly that’s because I had more important things to write about. Partly it’s because other professors wanted to write for In the Nick of Time. Now that I’m getting around to compiling my list, I find that it’s too long for a single article. So here’s the first half. I’ll publish the rest of the list next week.

Anderson, Ryan T. When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. New York: Encounter Books, 2018.

The sexual revolution has now shifted toward transgenderism. Anderson’s book is perhaps the best short introduction to both the history of this controversy and the issues it raises. The first chapters were quite discouraging, but Anderson addressed the questions in a calm and reasonable fashion. This is a book that will help you to understand the problem and the politics.

Berenson, Alex. Tell Your Children the Truth About Marijuana. New York: Free Press, 2019.

Over the past few years state after state has decriminalized or legalized cannabis. The same argument is made everywhere, i.e., that marijuana is a harmless drug that actually helps its users. Berenson, a journalist who once accepted this argument, challenges it sharply. He sets his facts in order and builds a formidable case that legalized cannabis introduces significant hazards. If you can only read one book about marijuana, read this one.

Cain, Susan. Quiet: The Power of Introverts. New York: Crown, 2012.

The world seems to be led by noisy and outgoing people. Susan Cain, however, argues that quiet people—introverts—bring unique virtues that must not be neglected. I’m glad to hear it.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. by John T. McNeill; tr. by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: WJKP, 1960.

Obviously the Institutes is a monumental work of theology. Until 2019 I had never read straight through the Battles translation. Compared to the Beveridge translation it’s a breeze. For me, this kind of reading is not primarily about agreement or disagreement. It’s about watching a first-rate theological mind at work.

Campbell, James. The Ghost Mountain Boys. New York: Crown/Random House, 2007.

During WWII my wife’s father fought in New Guinea with the Red Arrow Division. He would never talk about his service, but his brothers told stories about his trek over the Owen Stanley Mountains and his participation in the Battle of Buna. This book tells the tale that we always wondered about, and it’s a great (but not pretty) one. I wish that he were still here to thank—though after reading this account any thanks seems shallow by comparison.

Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. All Things Considered. New York: John Lane, 1909.

G. K. Chesterton is one of those authors who deserves his own directory on your hard drive. All Things Considered is a collection of occasional essays, written for newspaper publication, addressing issues of Chesterton’s day. He did not consider these to be his best work, but his thought and wit are nevertheless fully on display. One should never allow a year to pass without reading at least one of Chesterton’s books.

Eaton, Michael. No Condemnation: A Theology of Assurance of Salvation. 2nd rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

The author was an associate of R. T. Kendall, and both of those men are at least mildly popular with the “Free Grace” crowd. I really wanted to like this book. It started well, with the author posing a question peculiar to Calvinism: if believers are unconditionally elected, and if the reprobate can experience false faith, then how can professing believers have any confidence that their faith is genuine and they are among the elect? His answer begins plausibly but grows progressively worse as it develops. Eaton ends up suggesting that some believers may have to do a stint in Gehenna. Wow. But sometimes weird is interesting.

Edsel, Robert M. The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History. Nashville: Center Street, 2009.

I’d heard about the movie, which always impressed me as being something like Hogan’s Heroes. The book, however, is serious history. It tells the story of a small cadre of Allied soldiers who raced against the Nazis to save the great cultural treasures of Europe. It’s a fascinating story that includes episodes of genuine heroism.

Ellis, Joseph J. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Vintage Books, 1998.

Thomas Jefferson was an enigma in many ways. Ellis’s book explores a variety of those ways, examining Jefferson’s attitude toward France, his relationship with his family, his on-and-off-and-on friendship with John Adams, his activity in politics and government, and his slave-owner’s objections to slavery. This is an illuminating volume that grants a glimpse into the complexities of Jefferson’s character.

Finney, Jack. Time and Again. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Time-travel romances are a dime a dozen, and that’s about what most of them are worth. Finney’s Time and Again is an exception. It combines a plausible premise with an interesting plot, fairly well-developed characters, a satisfying denouement, and most of all an atmosphere. I came away from this reading with the impression that I had experienced a bit of the ambience of New York during the Gilded Age.

That’s the first half of my list, alphabetized by author. For the rest of the list, check next week’s In the Nick of Time.

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.

Psalm 77

Tate and Brady’s Psalter (1696)

Will God for ever cast us off;
His love return no more?
His promise, will it never give
Its comfort as before?

Can His abundant love forget
Its wonted aid to bring?
Has He in wrath shut up and seal’d
His mercy’s healing spring?

I’ll call to mind His works of old,
The wonders of His might;
On them my heart shall meditate,
Them shall my tongue recite.

Thy people, Lord, long since have Thee
A God of wonders found:
Long since hast Thou Thy chosen seed
With strong deliverance crown’d.

As interesting as this may sound, a second conservative resurgence may be afoot in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). For the record, my roots are in the SBC. Before college, I was a member of an SBC church. I was baptized in one, married in another one, and earned a PhD from an SBC school. Much of my family is there now. I have many friends in this world, good orthodox men who love God and wish to stand faithfully for His Word. I have lived with and studied the SBC since the mid-1970s. I left the SBC in the 70s, like many others, when things looked bleak. However, beginning in 1979, a conservative movement in the SBC abandoned, pushed out, or otherwise removed the old theological liberalism that had come to dominate their movement. By 2000, the seminaries had returned to orthodoxy in general and inerrancy in particular. The convention presidency was firmly in the hands of the conservatives as were the six seminaries. The SBC looked as though things were recovering. By 2000, it was no longer accurate to call the SBC “liberal.” Sure, there were “mopping up” operations in state conventions to rescue state schools, but at the national level the SBC was not liberal.

Nearly two decades later, a new group of SBC pastors and laymen are calling for a second conservative resurgence. The Conservative Baptist Network, this new group, has identified Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Social Justice as the crucial issues in this second conservative resurgence.

Critical Race Theory: Last summer, much to the consternation of conservatives in the SBC, the SBC passed Resolution #9 affirming CRT as an “analytical tool.” The conservative men, under the leadership of Tom Ascol, tried to torpedo the resolution to no avail. Concerned that this embrace of CRT was evidence of theological and cultural drift in the SBC, the Founders sponsored a documentary to address the future of the convention. Their blog has tried to alert Southern Baptists of the dangers of CRT. (See Tom Nettles 3-part series: part one, part two, part three.) Ascol and company have been laying the groundwork to attempt to repeal Resolution #9 at the annual SBC meeting in Orlando in 2020. Members of the 2019 resolutions committee have doubled down in their support of the original resolution. This dustup alone will make for a very interesting convention in Orlando. For another discussion of CRT from a prominent SBC professor, see Owen Strachan’s four part series: (part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4).

Social Justice: A second issue raised by the Conservative Baptist Network is the emphasis on social justice within the SBC. This is a complex issue which has been developing over the past several years. Among the disputed actions was the hiring of Karen Swallow Prior by Southeastern Seminary’s president Danny Akin. Prior was embroiled in the Revoice controversy over the category of Christian (celibate) homosexuals. Southern Baptist pastors are concerned over her influence in Southern Baptist life. Many pastors think this is another sign of SBC drift.

Beth Moore: A third issue raised in the cinedoc is the challenge of Beth Moore, a Southern Baptist women’s Bible teacher and a popular speaker in SBC churches—sometimes from the pulpit and to congregations that include men. She preached the Mother’s Day sermon in her son-in-law’s church last year. This unleashed an internet firestorm with opponents and supporters speaking out on whether women should ever be preaching in SBC churches. This subject was debated (see the debate here) before a Founders meeting held in conjunction with the annual 2019 SBC meeting. Compounding the problem, Moore, herself a victim of childhood sexual abuse, charged the convention with overemphasizing complementarianism (see the cinedoc at 10:40), thus contributing to the MeToo Movement hitting the SBC (especially this Houston Chronicle exposé of serious sexual sin among SBC churches). Just last week, the SBC Credentials committee disfellowshipped a church whose pastor is on a sexual predator watch list. The pressure from MeToo is raising the stakes in the debate over SBC complementarianism. R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern and expected to be elected president of the SBC this summer, has also written and spoken against women in pulpit ministry. The debate shows no sign of letting up with recent back and forth just last week. Also see this.

The Pastors Conference: Another reason for the recent repartee in the convention over its direction is the announcement a couple of weeks ago of the speaker lineup for the annual SBC Pastors Conference 2020. Pastor David Uth, pastor of First Baptist Church, Orlando, and president of this year’s Pastors Conference, announced an unusual speaker lineup including two Pentecostal-types, a woman who is listed as a pastor at her Los Angeles church doing a spoken word performance, and an SBC pastor who uses extreme tactics to draw a crowd (Victorious Secrets! Seriously?). When the internet controversy broke, Uth was unmoved. Last week the SBC Executive Committee (EC), a group of agency representatives who meet between the annual meetings to conduct the convention affairs when it is not in session, voted that without a change in the lineup there would be no official SBC support for this year’s conference. Some Southern Baptists think this is EC overreach. Initially, Uth informed the SBC that his church would pay all the expenses rather than change the lineup. An ultimatum was given by the EC—make changes by February 24, or else—but the pastor deflected, insisting that God told him to fast and pray for 40 days before he could announce an answer. The SBC EC acquiesced, so things are at a standstill pending the 40 days.

The ERLC: Also raised during last week’s EC meeting was the direction of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) led by Russell Moore. The EC created a task force to study the ERLC to determine if it is fulfilling SBC needs or causing the SBC Cooperative Program (the SBC consolidated funding agency) to lose donations. Ultimately, this is about leadership. Moore has been under fire over alleged drift and his anti-Trump rhetoric which has offended prominent SBC pastors. The SBC is divided over Moore’s leadership. Prominent churches have threatened to withhold funds to the CP over the ERLC. The board of the ERLC has objected to the oversight in the strongest possible terms as an intrusion into their work. Rumors have also circulated concerning Moore’s connection to George Soros, a Democratic financier. The Conservative Baptist Network came out in support of the recent decisions of the EC.

As of today, I cannot predict where and when all this might end. I heard from an SBC friend that CP giving has indeed been affected significantly. Churches (also here) have recently left the SBC. Will more follow? It is too soon to tell. Will the existing problems rupture the largest Baptist body in the world? God only knows. Will the SBC circle the wagons at any cost? Ronnie Floyd, EC president, recently issued a call for evangelism at Vision 2025. It’s a worthy call and pressing need. But can the SBC simply lay aside these tumultuous issues to do evangelism if they remain unaddressed? Can an otherwise divided body unite for evangelism?

The fight within the Northern Baptist Convention was initially a fight to reclaim the convention. When that did not happen, churches left. Are we watching a déjà vu moment? We need to pray for the SBC. We need to exercise caution in how we describe what is happening. We need to be charitable and ask God for mercy on their behalf. We need to be ready to welcome among us any church that might come our way. We need to be wary as our adversary the Devil, as a roaring lion, walks about seeking those to devour! We could be next.

Fundamentalism, or what’s left of it, has its own set of issues. We who live in glass houses need to be careful about throwing stones. Every generation is responsible to fight its own battles. Victories of yesterday are insufficient to ensure faithfulness today. God calls upon each of us to know His Word and stand upon His truth. I cannot fix what happened yesterday. I cannot foresee what will happen tomorrow, but I can determine to be faithful today. May God grant us His grace to stand on His Word and encourage others who do so.

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions 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.

Awake, My Soul, Stetch Ev’ry Nerve

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

Awake, my soul, stretch ev’ry nerve,
and press with vigor on;
a heav’nly race demands thy zeal,
and an immortal crown.

A cloud of witnesses around
hold thee in full survey;
forget the steps already trod
and onward urge your way.

’Tis God’s all-animating voice
that calls thee from on high;
’tis his own hand presents the prize
to thine aspiring eye;

That prize, with peerless glories bright
which shall new lustre boast,
when victors’ wreaths and monarch’s gems
shall blend in common dust.

Blest Saviour, introduced by thee
have I my race begun,
and crowned with vict’ry, at thy feet
I’ll lay my honors down.

Trials long and sharp for me,
Pain, or sorrow, care or shame,—
Father! glorify Thy name.

Let me neither faint nor fear,
Feeling still that Thou art near;
In the course my Saviour trod,
Tending home to Thee, my God.

In Kevin Bauder’s excellent series on Christian suffering, he made an exegetical case for the salvation of those incapable of believing, especially infants. While I agree with Kevin on the hope for infant redemption, I do not find his explanation for that hope rooted in Romans 5 convincing.

Kevin argues that there is a universal application of Christ’s atonement so that Adamic guilt is not the basis for anyone’s condemnation before God. He writes, “In other words, by His ‘righteous act’ (His death and resurrection), Christ has secured not only the provision, but also the application of justification for all humans with respect to Adamic guilt.” It would follow that if Christ’s work nullifies Adamic guilt for all, then those without willful, personal sin (including infants) are accepted by God as righteous.

Our disagreement is highlighted by the universal language of Romans 5:18: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” What does all mean here? Kevin writes,

Plenty of interpreters have tried to explain away the words “all” and “the many” that are applied to Christ’s work. Some have understood these words to mean “all of the elect,” or “all who are in Christ.” Others have understood the justification to be merely potential and not actual. Limiting the effects of Christ’s righteous act, however, works no better than limiting the consequences of Adam’s sin.

Kevin takes the position that all means all. The very same group of people who are condemned by Adam’s sin are also justified by Christ’s righteous act. However, Kevin is no universalist. To take the position that Christ’s work justifies all people, he must take justification to refer to something other than what we ordinarily take it to mean—indeed, something other than Paul’s otherwise consistent use of the term justification.

That is my first objection: I cannot agree that the context of Romans allows us two distinct definitions of justification. I see nothing that suggests that Paul is changing his topic from justification in the fullest sense—an unchangeable declaration of righteous standing before God through Christ, received by faith, rewarded with eternal life—to this interim justification that exonerates a person from Adamic condemnation and restores him to a pre-Fallen judicial condition (but with a post-Fall nature).

Romans 5:12–21 is undoubtedly a distinct unit of thought, but it is part of Paul’s broader defense of justification by faith alone—an argument which depends on a consistent definition of justification. The epistle’s opening argument culminates in humanity’s universal condemnation: “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Rom 3:20). This is the prelude for Paul’s announcement of the gospel: “but now” we “are justified by his grace as a gift…to be received by faith” (Rom 3:21, 24).

Romans 4 sustains the argument: justification by faith is no novelty; it has always been thus for the people of God. The same justification that Abraham received by faith is for “us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:24-25).

The very next verse opens chapter 5: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” Paul continues to elaborate on this theme of justification through the rest of chapter 5 (vv. 9, 16, 18). And having rested his case that we are justified by grace through faith, he begins Romans 6 by addressing an anticipated objection: that if justification is by grace through faith, personal obedience is of no significance.

The suggestion that in the midst of this one coherent discussion Paul has (without warning) substantially changed the meaning of one of his most central terms is implausible. While Paul has unwaveringly insisted that justification is by faith, this new kind of “justification” is obtained entirely apart from faith, as it must be if it is to apply to infant redemption. Paul’s justification is one that grants us “peace with God” and assurance of salvation. The new “justification” might release us from Adamic guilt, but one’s own personal sin places the “justified” person back under the curse of sin. Not only can this “justified” person be lost, he can then be justified again in the second (and more ordinary) sense.

Further, within 5:12–21, the benefits obtained through justification cannot be limited to the removal of condemnation of Adamic guilt. In particular:

• 17: “those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ”
• 18: “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men”
• 19: “so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous”
• 21: “grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”

For my part, I see no way to restrict these Pauline phrases to mean merely “provisionally no longer condemned for Adam’s sin.” They are strong and full promises of eternal life that come to all/the many. They speak of justification in the normal Pauline way.

My second objection is rooted in Paul’s explanation of why “death reigned from Adam to Moses” (v. 14). Paul claims that all people everywhere have come under condemnation because of Adam’s sin, not because of their own personal sin. To cement this point, he focuses on the time between Adam and Moses, in which there is no externally promulgated law from God. He declares that God does not count sin where there is no law to transgress.

To be sure, sin exists during these years (“for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given,” v. 13), yet God is not counting that sin. There is then in the judgment of God no personal sin that leads to condemnation during these years. And yet all people in this era fall under the penalty of sin: all (except Enoch) die. Paul’s explanation of this is that death reigned because they are held guilty of Adam’s sin.

I have difficulty seeing how Kevin’s reading of this passage accounts for Paul’s argument here. Assuming his view that Christ’s death has universally rescued humanity from being condemned by Adamic guilt, and if God doesn’t count sin where there is no law, then why should those from Adam to Moses have died at all? Otherwise, what does Paul mean when he says that God does not count sin where there is no law?

While Kevin’s position does allow for all to have a consistent meaning throughout Romans 5, I find it quite in accord with Paul’s broader theology to understand him as referring to a condemnation that comes to “all in Adam” (which state we are all in by birth) and a full justification that is the possession of “all in Christ” (into which we only come by faith). Indeed, we see this kind of all earlier in Romans: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [implied all] are justified by his grace as a gift…to be received by faith” (Rom 3:23-25).

To be sure, in holding to hope of infant salvation, I would rejoice to find a passage that explains the way in which God justifies infants. I fully understand that this is no mere abstract theoretical concern. Even so, it is a theological and exegetical concern, and I remain unconvinced by the exegesis of my brother, mentor, and friend.

This essay is by Michael P. Riley, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church of Wakefield, Michigan. Since 2011, he has served Central Seminary as managing editor of In the Nick of Time. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Let Zion in Her Songs Record

John Kent (1766–1843)

Let Zion in her songs record
The honors of her dying Lord,
Triumphant over sin;
How sweet the song there’s none can say,
But those who sins are wash’d away
Who feel the same within.

We claim no merit of our own,
But, self-condemn’d before Thy throne,
Our hopes on Jesus place;
Though once in heart and life depraved,
We now can sing as sinners saved,
And praise redeeming grace.

We’ll sing the same while life shall last,
And when, at the archangel’s blast,
Our sleeping dust shall rise,
Then in a song for ever new,
The glorious theme we’ll still pursue
Throughout the azure skies.

Prepared of old, at God’s right hand
Bright everlasting mansions stand
For all the blood-bought race;
And tell we reach those seats of bliss,
We’ll sing no other song but this—
Salvation all of grace.

The book of Job makes sense to us readers because we know what happened outside the story. We know that Job was a righteous man. We know that Satan slandered Job before God, and we know that God granted Satan permission to test Job. We know that Job’s sufferings were part of a larger cosmic drama. We also know how the story turned out.

If we place ourselves in the world of the story, however, it makes considerably less sense. Job is a righteous man upon whom God’s blessing rests. Suddenly God’s blessing is removed, only to be replaced by something that appears to be God’s judgment. Inside the story Job’s friends draw all the wrong conclusions. Job himself is confused. He feels betrayed. He balks at the treatment that he is receiving.

Too often we assume that Job eventually came around to God’s point of view because he was given the explanation for his trials. After all, we know the explanation, so why shouldn’t Job? This assumption, however, overlooks an important consideration. Nowhere in the book does God tell Job what is happening. Job never receives an explanation—yet in the end he submits to God in worship and awe.

Rather than offering an explanation, God confronted Job with His own power, care, and wisdom. Job saw God as bigger, and himself as smaller, than he had ever imagined. Job also realized that God was deeply involved in the daily nurture of His creatures. God showed Job that He was providing food even for wild beasts, overseeing their birth and growth, giving them homes, and matching their natures to their habitat (Job 38:39‑39:30). Had these matters been left to Job, creation would have come undone.

When Job understood the wisdom, power, and care of God, he no longer required any explanation of his circumstances. Quite the opposite: Job realized that he had tried to criticize God in ignorance, and now he repented in dust and ashes (Job 42:1‑6). Job did not need to understand his circumstances. He needed to know God, for God is worthy of trust.

Trust is the fundamental issue. Whenever we begin to complain about the trauma that God allows in our lives, we are implicitly calling into question His wisdom, His power, or His care. We suspect that God does not know what He is doing, or that He is not paying attention to our circumstance, or that He is not able to secure the best for us, or that He simply does not care. Rarely would we state our objections in just those words, but they really do summarize what we feel.

God permits pain in the lives of every one of His children. The world is filled with natural suffering, which results from the Fall. God cancels none of that suffering for His people. In addition, believers endure suffering that is meant to accomplish a whole series of spiritual goods in their lives. Normally, believers experience more distress and affliction than the unsaved. Sometimes we are able to discern the reasons why God permits a particular affliction. Often we are not.

God does not owe us any explanations. Very often (as with Job) He does not offer us any. He simply shows us Himself as He has made His character plain through His Word. Then He invites us to trust Him.

We will face times when we stare into the abyss of suffering and yearn for it to be removed. To us the affliction may seem like an unending and senseless obstruction that even thwarts our good intentions toward God. We sometimes beg God to take it away—perhaps repeatedly. In response to our prayers God may, in His good pleasure, remove the sorrow. Alternatively, He may help us to understand exactly why we are facing it. Much of the time, however, He simply says to us, as He did to Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Cor 12:9). We often receive no other explanation this side of heaven.

God knows what He is doing. We do not need to. We may be completely clueless about our circumstances, but we know who God is. His wisdom and power are evident in His creation. His love for us is clearly revealed on the cross (Rom 5:8). We do not have to know what He is doing. We simply have to trust the One who “hath done all things well” (Mark 7:37).

We need not accept quietist views of the Christian life to recognize that we can and should rest in God. When the north winds of affliction howl into our lives and we risk being buried under deep drifts of sorrow, we can find our rest and peace in God. There is a kind of repose that comes through faith when we trust Him because we know who and what He is. We do not always need an explanation. We do always need Him.

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.

We Praise Thee, O God

Julia C. Cory (1882–1963)

We praise Thee, O God, our Redeemer, Creator;
in grateful devotion our tribute we bring;
we lay it before Thee, we kneel and adore Thee,
we bless Thy holy Name, glad praises we sing.

We worship Thee, God of our fathers, we bless Thee;
through life’s storm and tempest our Guide hast Thou been;
when perils o’ertake us, escape Thou wilt make us,
and with Thy help, O Lord, our battles we win.

With voices united our praises we offer,
to Thee, great Jehovah, glad anthems we raise;
Thy strong arm will guide us, our God is beside us,
to Thee, our great Redeemer, forever be praise.

Gabe was an old man. He had spent years on a mission field where his ministry had produced marked results. Now retired, his will to serve was strong, but his body was feeble. He deeply wanted to do something for God, but it seemed as if he could no longer do anything useful.

Joe was a young man who loved God, but who landed in prison on a trumped-up assault charge. To all indications his testimony was ruined. It seemed as if every opportunity to serve God would be denied to him.

Ben was suffering the first stages of Alzheimer’s. He knew that his mind was going, and he dreaded what this meant for the future. He could see no way that he would ever again be useful to God.

John still had one of the brightest minds of his civilization, and he was known for his skills as a translator and author. John, however, was going blind. Pondering his loss, he wondered aloud why God would remove the one real talent that he had to offer.

Some of the names have been changed, but none of these situations is fictional. In fact, they are common. Many believers face a future that looks like one of these situations.

Most react almost instinctively with dread. No one looks forward to body and mind decaying. Nobody wishes for a falsely-ruined reputation. No believer wants to be useless to God. Some have even preferred to take their own lives rather than to submit to what they viewed as a futile existence.

All of which raises an important question: is it even possible for a believer to become involuntarily useless to God? Can circumstances or even slander hurt us so badly that God can do nothing further with us? The question here is not whether believers’ sins can damage their usefulness to God. That question is worth discussing, but here the question is about circumstances that affect Christians through no fault of their own.

To answer this question in the affirmative, it would be necessary to affirm one of two propositions. First, some circumstances that believers face are truly outside of God’s control and can damage their usefulness to Him without His permission. Second, even though God has control of all circumstances, He genuinely wishes to reduce some of His children to uselessness.

The first proposition is manifestly false. The uniform message of Scripture is that God exercises meticulous, Providential control over every circumstance. When Joseph spoke of his brothers’ past sins against him, he told them, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen 50:20). Joseph used the same verb in both halves of the verse. He was saying that his calamities had resulted from a double intention: his brothers’ and his God’s. In the long run, God’s intention overcame the brothers’ evil plan. No circumstance ever occurs in any believer’s life without God’s permission and oversight.

So might God sometimes wish to reduce some of His children to uselessness? The only acceptable reply is that God is perfectly capable of using us even when we do not perceive our own usefulness. Indeed, God may be using us greatly in exactly those moments when we feel that our existence is most futile.

Years ago I was in a doctoral course when the professor began to unburden himself about his father’s situation. His father had been a widely-known exegete and theologian, master of many languages, and author of many publications. We all knew his name and had read his books. But now, in his old age, the father’s mind had deteriorated to the point that he was barely aware of his surroundings. My professor and his brother had been tasked with the old man’s care. They hated to place him in an institution, but they felt themselves incapable of providing the kind of round-the-clock care that he would require in their homes. My professor was perplexed, and he was actually looking to his students for prayer and counsel.

As we prayed and talked through the situation, it occurred to me that my professor (himself a brilliant academic) was being stretched and deepened spiritually by this situation. God was using his father’s senility to accomplish profound spiritual results in his life. In fact, no one else could have been used in quite the same way. Yet the father had little or no awareness of his usefulness to God in this situation.

Our perception of our usefulness does not reflect our true usefulness to God. Instead, God delights to use us when we are weakest—that is to say, when we are most useless in ourselves. After all, it is not as if God needs us. He uses us for our benefit, not His. He is pleased to allow us to be His instruments.

When God wanted to use Joseph (the Joe above), He prepared him by allowing a woman’s false accusation to put him in prison. When God wanted to use John Milton (the John above), He took away his eyesight. The Milton who wrote Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Samson Agonistes was a blind man. In the meanwhile, Milton also authored a sonnet in which he wrestled with the question of his usefulness to God. This poem has ministered to thousands of God’s people, and its conclusion ought to be engraved on every Christian heart.

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg’d with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide;
“Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?”
I fondly ask. But Patience to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: “God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts; who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.”

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.

Now From the Altar of My Heart

John Mason (1646–1694)

Now from the altar of my heart
Let incense flames arise;
Assist me, Lord, to offer up
Mine evening sacrifice.

This day God was my Sun and Shield,
My Keeper and my Guide;
His care was on my frailty shown,
His mercies multiplied.

Minutes and mercies multiplied
Have made up all this day:
Minutes came quick, but mercies were
More fleet and free than they.

Lord of my time, whose hand hath set
New time upon my score,
Then shall I praise for all my time,
When time shall be no more.

Paul and Silas arrived in Thessalonica with their backs still torn from their whipping in Philippi. In spite of their pain they made themselves bold to preach the gospel (1 Thess 2:2), so that some Jews and many Gentiles believed (Acts 17:1-4). Quickly, however, opponents of the gospel organized persecution (Acts 17:5-9). The new believers at Thessalonica smuggled Paul and Silas out of town at night, sending them on to Berea (Acts 17:10). The departure of these evangelists did not halt the opposition, though (1 Thess 2:14-15). Finally, Paul sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to find out how the young believers were holding up under persecution (1 Thess 3:1-5). Timothy delivered a glowing report (1 Thess 3:6-7), prompting Paul to send a letter of encouragement and instruction back to the church. Still the persecution and affliction endured (2 Thess 1:4), so Paul wrote a part of a second letter to help explain the sufferings of these faithful children of God (2 Thess 1:5-9).

This text is a little gem. It may be the most extended discourse in the Bible about why God allows faithful believers to suffer persecution. It implies that God permits persecution for three reasons.

The first reason is that faithfulness in persecution proves how genuine one’s faith is (2 Thess 1:5). Perseverance is a manifestation of true saving faith and of loyalty to the kingdom for whose cause believers are persecuted. The point is not that persecution somehow merits salvation. Instead, sufferings illustrate that God’s judgment of worthiness—which will be pronounced upon all believers at the Bema—is fully justified. God is not wrong to save people when, as a consequence of saving faith, He is able to turn them into such persevering saints. Indeed, the fact that God entrusts them with suffering is already evidence that He rightly judges them to be worthy (for Christ’s sake) of spending eternity with Him.

The second reason that God permits persecution is to arouse a longing for “rest” or relief (2 Thess 1:7)—a longing which He fully intends to satisfy. One grows weary of being mocked, abused, harried, and tormented. When persecution ends, the relief can be intense. This relief is what believers will experience at the rapture, when they are forever freed from opposition.

Paul does not simply focus to the rapture, however. He also points to Jesus’ glorious descent to earth (2 Thess 1:7-8). Something happens at Jesus’ coming to earth that does not happen at the rapture. While saints experience relief from persecution at the rapture, they must wait to receive vindication at the second coming. At His coming Jesus will judge those who have persecuted His people. He will deal out retribution to those who have rejected Him and harmed His saints. In that hour, the roles will be reversed, and those who have experienced persecution will exult in the destruction of their tormentors.

This is the third reason that God permits persecution. When He deals out retribution He will place His justice on full display. Those who have groaned under the machinations of the wicked will be satisfied that God never overlooked any of the evil that was done to them. Evildoers will be banished forever from the presence of Christ’s glory as they are sent into everlasting destruction (2 Thess 1:8-9).

In these verses, Paul is clearly not trying to establish an eschatological timeline. He is viewing the coming of Christ and all its judgments as a single, complex event. He does not distinguish the rapture, the glorious coming of Christ to earth, or the final judgment at the great white throne. He wants to encourage persecuted believers, and the entire unfolding complex of Jesus rescuing His people and judging the wicked provides that encouragement.

Paul links events that will be fulfilled at different times. Church saints are liberated from persecution at the rapture. They are vindicated at the glorious second coming, which follows the rapture by seven years. God judges the wicked with eternal separation from His glory at the great white throne, which follows the second coming by a thousand years. Paul joins all of these together under the description, “When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day” (2 Thess 1:10). The expression “in that day” encompasses at least one thousand seven years.

One must not try to turn this passage into a proof text about the timing of eschatological events. That is neither its purpose nor its nature. Paul is offering encouragement, not prophetic chronology. Consequently, he offers a single eschatological snapshot taken with a wide-angle lens. That snapshot reveals that God has a purpose in allowing the persecution of His children. In fact, He has multiple purposes.

When we are persecuted, we need to remember that God has counted us worthy of a great honor. He is entrusting us with an opportunity to put His transforming grace on display. When we remain faithful under persecution, our perseverance matches up with the high position to which God has called us. Furthermore, God intends eventually to grant us both relief from persecution and vindication in the presence of our tormentors. Indeed, He will use the everlasting condemnation of our persecutors as an object lesson to illustrate and exonerate His own justice. When we experience persecution, we are entering into a cosmic drama in which God wins—and we win with Him.

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.

Day of Judgment! Day of Wonders!

John Newton (1725–1807)

Day of judgment! Day of wonders!
Hark! the trumpet’s awful sound,
louder than a thousand thunders,
shakes the vast creation round.
How the summons
will the sinner’s heart confound!

See the Judge, our nature wearing,
clothed in majesty divine;
you who long for his appearing
then shall say, “This God is mine!”
Gracious Savior,
own me in that day as thine.

At his call the dead awaken,
rise to life from earth and sea;
all the pow’rs of nature, shaken
by his looks, prepare to flee.
Careless sinner,
what will then become of thee?

But to those who have confessed,
loved and served the Lord below,
he will say, “Come near, ye blessed,
see the kingdom I bestow;
you forever
shall my love and glory know.”