Theology Central
Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.
It’s Not a Cadillac! Part One: A Bit of History
The Association of Theological Schools, the primary agency that accredits seminaries, recently produced a study showing that the number of M.Div. students is falling, while the number of future pastors taking the shorter M.A. program is rising. The study was picked up by the Religion News Service, which opined that, while the M.Div. is the “gold standard,” fewer students think that they need—or can afford—the “Cadillac” degree. The story also notes that an increasing number of seminaries are shrinking their M.Div. programs from the traditional 90 hours to 72 hours (and in some cases even less) to compete with the M.A. programs.
This is a wonderful trend for liberal denominations. They do not accept the authority of Scripture in the first place, so their ministers have little reason to spend years learning to handle it with skill. Those churches can be led by ministers who have studied sociology, anthropology, leadership theory, and social justice. Such leadership will continue to produce the results that liberal theologies have produced over the past century—sinners will remain unsaved, class resentments will be inflamed, churches will decline as they are turned into religious clubs, and the seminaries that have produced these graduates will eventually close their doors.
For Bible-believing churches, however, this trend will prove disastrous. We should know that. We’ve been here before.
The first generations of Baptist proto-fundamentalist and fundamentalists leaders were seminary trained. A. J. Gordon went to Newton and later served on its board. Oliver W. Van Osdel was an alumnus of the Morgan Park seminary, which later became the Divinity School of the new University of Chicago. Both W. B. Riley and J. Frank Norris graduated from Southern Baptist Seminary. Whatever their faults and limitations, these were educated men.
The same was not true of many of their followers. By the turn of the twentieth century, most of the seminaries had been captured by theological liberalism. As the seminaries turned away from the Bible, conservatives turned to the Bible institutes, which had originally been created to train Christian workers rather than Christian leaders. More and more pastors were trained (not educated) by being given a synthetic knowledge of the King James Bible, a modest grasp of Bible doctrine, and quick, hard practice at basic ministry techniques such as soulwinning.
Such training is not to be despised, and it was the only alternative at the time. Quickly, however, it became apparent that this model did not provide adequate preparation for Christian leadership. More was needed, and before long the Bible institutes had begun to transform themselves into colleges. The problem was that the Bible colleges were able to add only a fraction of the preparation that seminaries had traditionally offered, and they usually did this at the expense of the liberal education that was expected of undergraduate programs.
Perhaps it is worth pausing to distinguish liberal education from liberalism. Liberalism or modernism was a theological movement that denigrated the Word of God. Liberal education, on the other hand, is education that focuses on the tools of thought (grammar, rhetoric, and logic) while preparing the student to address the perennial questions. By definition, nothing is less conservative than liberalism, but nothing is more conservative than a liberal education.
In short, by the 1950s Baptist fundamentalism was producing pastors who were strong opponents of modernist theology, but who tended to be poor thinkers with a fairly weak ability to study the text of Scripture for themselves and a relatively sketchy knowledge of the system of faith. This weak preparation of fundamentalist leaders resulted in poorly-taught churches led by pastoral impresarios whose ministries more closely resembled circuses and theaters than New Testament congregations. It eventually left the movement open to such debilitating influences as the sham scholarship of a Gail Riplinger, the demagoguery of a Jack Hyles, the ecclesiastical politics of a Carl McIntire, and the sharp decline of skillful expository preaching. Clearly something needed to be done.
To be sure, a few seminaries existed outside of Baptist circles. A young man graduating from college could go to Dallas or Talbot, or later on to Carl McIntire’s Faith Theological Seminary. But the Baptist alternatives were few. By the late 1940s, there was a little school in Los Angeles, and another was meeting in the basement of Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids. Conservative Baptists established a seminary in Denver in 1950, but it quickly abandoned both fundamentalism and dispensationalism.
By the mid-1950s, certain fundamentalist leaders began to see the need to offer seminary-level instruction for the coming generations of fundamentalist leadership. Over the next two decades, fundamentalists established several seminaries, including those in Minneapolis, San Francisco, Clarks Summit, Lansdale, and Detroit. Others were added later on.
These new seminaries faced an uphill climb. By the 1960s, most pastors and their churches believed that four years of Bible college was plenty of preparation for ministry. Young men were eager to get into the work; few wished to spend extra years on further education, and fewer still had the money for it.
Over time, however, churches began to see a difference in those pastors who came out of decent seminaries. Pastors who went through a traditional seminary program had the ability to study the Scriptures for themselves. When they preached, they did not have to echo commentaries but could explain what God actually said. They were able to bring biblical principles to bear upon the issues of life. They were leading churches to be churches and not religious theaters, social clubs, or encounter groups.
Seminary instruction is not a guarantee of effective ministry. Nevertheless, ceteris paribus, a man with seminary behind him will be more effective in ministry than the same man without it. Some men will become useful who would otherwise have been failures in ministry. Furthermore, a good seminary will help to keep some men from becoming effective at doing the wrong things.
In short, seminary instruction—which includes all the components of the traditional M.Div. program—is not a Cadillac. It is not a luxury to be enjoyed only by those with wealth and leisure to acquire it. No, seminary instruction is more like a box full of tools, each of which is essential for the pastor who wishes to lead a church in God’s way. To neglect any of those tools is to cripple some aspect of vital, New Testament ministry.
That is exactly what happens when a future pastor refuses the M.Div. program in favor of the M.A. It is also what happens when seminaries, for the sake of enrollment, drop requirements so that they can shorten their M.Div. programs. It can even happen when a seminary cheapens its M.Div. by shifting the emphasis away from those tools that are more difficult to learn to use skillfully.
What tools does a pastor need? Which of those tools can a seminary provide? How is a future pastor to acquire the remaining tools? I intend to answer these questions, but before I do, I will argue that the usefulness of seminaries depends entirely upon what one thinks pastoral ministry is supposed to be.
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.
Let All the World in Every Corner Sing
George Herbert (1593–1633)
Let all the world in ev’ry corner sing,
“My God and King!”
The heav’ns are not too high,
God’s praise may thither fly;
the earth is not too low,
God’s praises there may grow.
Let all the world in ev’ry corner sing,
“My God and King!”
Let all the world in ev’ry corner sing,
“My God and King!”
The church with psalms must shout:
no door can keep them out.
But, more than all, the heart
must bear the longest part.
Let all the world in ev’ery corner sing,
“My God and King!”

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Eight: Paul Greene
Paul Greene was already into his mid-eighties before I met him. Our relationship remained distant and casual until I began to plant a church near Dallas, Texas. To my surprise Paul and his wife Mildred quickly identified with that small congregation, later becoming charter members of and pillars within the resulting church.
They had been married for nearly six decades. The two of them courted during the Great Depression, with Mildred working in Denver while Paul still lived in Texas. On Friday he would hop a freight train in Dallas, hobo his way to Denver, spend a day with Mildred, then hop another train back to Dallas to be home in time for work on Monday.
After marriage, both Greenes went into education. Mildred taught elementary school for forty years. Paul became a high school football coach, then eventually a principal. God gave them three children, one of whom became a pastor and evangelist.
The Greenes had a gift for encouraging people. I don’t mean simply that they encouraged their pastor, though they certainly did that. They were concerned for people whom they knew to be experiencing trials or who they knew had needs. Paul and Mildred could be counted on to seek these people out, to offer kind words and (as needed) tangible help, and to bolster sagging spirits.
That was partly because Paul was one of the most persistent and determined men I have ever known. I don’t mean that he was stubborn. The word stubborn connotes unreasonableness. Paul was an intelligent, thoughtful man who was always open to persuasion, but he was not a man who would allow obstacles to stand in his way. Once he decided that a thing was worth doing, he would keep after that thing until it was done. He simply did not quit, and he expected the same endurance from those around him. No circumstances, however bleak, could discourage him.
That mindset made him an irreplaceable member of the church planting team. After visiting our little congregation and becoming convinced that a new church was worth planting, he gave himself to the task. Sometimes the congregation lacked a meeting place. Sometimes it lacked resources. Sometimes it faced opposition or even betrayal. Whatever the challenge, Paul Greene would be part of the solution. He made it his mission to permit no discouragement within the church.
Paul also loved to fish, but given his age Mildred refused to let him take the boat out alone. Occasionally he would phone in an evening and ask, “Pastor, do you want to go fishing in the morning?” I always made it a point to accept. Fishing with Paul was an adventure. He knew every old bois d’arc snag in every lake around Dallas. We’d drop the boat in the water at dawn, then he’d be off from one drowned tree to the next. He didn’t just fish, he hunted the fish. And he caught them—enough of them that every year he would host the entire church to a fish fry, complete with his own hush puppies.
Those fishing trips were times when I got to know Paul, to hear his spiritual heartbeat. He would reminisce about the past. He would discuss the challenges of the present, whether for his family, himself, or his church. He would open his heart about his hopes and fears for the future. Those future concerns included his children and grandchildren. One son had a benign but debilitating brain tumor. The other had a proclivity to chase eccentric ideas and wild financial schemes—and that concerned Paul.
It also concerned me. That son was in ministry, and he exercised some influence over members of our church. At one point he tried to get us involved in the “unregistered church” movement, essentially a group of tax protesters. Another time he tried to get our church to “invest” its missions and building funds with a business that was doing arbitrage through offshore banks. Yet another time he encouraged us to donate our surplus budget to an outfit that was minting its own gold coins, assuring us that the mint would donate more than double the amount back to us within six months.
In every one of these connivances, Paul would seek me out and warn me against the scheme. He made it clear that he loved his son, but that he thought no good could come of such hare-brained stratagems. He worried that eventually these maneuvers would cause serious trouble.
That’s why a turn of conversation caught me by surprise one evening. Paul and I had been visiting about other things, when out of the blue he remarked that he had given his son five thousand dollars to invest in his latest obsession. To me, that was a huge sum. Astonished, I asked, “Do you think this one’s going to work?”
Paul replied, “No.”
“They why did you give him the money?” I asked.
“Well, he’s lost most of his own money on schemes like this, and it’s never taught him a thing. But I know he loves me. He’d never do anything that he thought would hurt me. I figure that if he loses my money—and lots of it—it might shake him up enough so he won’t listen to people like this anymore.”
Paul never told me what the result was. I do remember walking away thinking that this was an unusual demonstration of parental love. Here was a father who knew that his child was wrong, but who was willing to let himself bear the hurt so that his child could be made right. I’ve never forgotten it.
The last time I saw Paul and Mildred was when my wife and I stopped in to visit with them on our way through Dallas. We had been warned that he had Alzheimer’s, so we were prepared for the worst. Surprisingly, Paul knew who we were, even if what he said did not always make the best sense. Mildred was trying to protect him by carrying the conversation herself, but she needn’t have bothered. All we wanted was to offer encouragement to them as they had to us. We hoped to be a blessing even if only for a moment. To us, the time was not wasted.
Now they both are in heaven, and we will not see them again until death or the Rapture. Yet decades later, I still bear the marks of knowing Paul Greene. He was the man who showed me just how determined love can be.
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.
Hark! Ten Thousand Harps and Voices
Thomas Kelly (1769–1855)
Hark! ten thousand harps and voices
Sound the note of praise above;
Jesus reigns and heav’n rejoices,
Jesus reigns, the God of love.
See, He sits on yonder throne;
Jesus rules the world alone.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Amen.
Sing how Jesus came from heaven,
How He bore the cross below,
How all pow’r to Him is given,
How He reigns in glory now.
‘Tis a great and endless theme—
O, ‘tis sweet to sing of Him.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Amen.
King of glory, reign forever!
Thine an everlasting crown.
Nothing from Thy love shall sever
Those who Thou hast made Thine own:
Happy objects of Thy grace,
Destined to behold Thy face.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Amen.
Savior, hasten Thine appearing;
Bring, O bring the glorious day,
When, the awful summons hearing,
Heav’n and earth shall pass away.
Then, with golden harps, we’ll sing,
“Glory, glory, to our King!”
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Amen.
Lessons on Preaching from the Internet
This may seem like an odd title for a blog essay, but I hope you will agree that the topic is worth pondering. In the last couple of weeks, a prominent preacher had been challenged to step down from his current leadership position for things that he said decades ago. This seems really odd that a fragment of a sermon delivered nearly twenty years hence should resurface now and be causing turmoil. But it is and it has precipitated a discussion that threatens a rather glorious career.
The sermon itself included comments on a situation of domestic abuse in which the preacher was involved as a counselor. A woman sought out our brother for help on how to deal with an abusive husband. It seems that the abuse was physical. Like many believers today, the preacher held strongly to a “no-divorce-under-any-circumstances” position. Whether or not that is a biblical view is beside the point for this essay. The counsel the preacher says he gave to the woman was to submit to her husband, to stay in the marriage, and to pray for God to intervene. She did stay and the result was two black eyes, courtesy of her husband. The woman came to the preacher with her injuries. When she asked rhetorically whether he was happy, the preacher said yes, . . . ostensibly because the abusive husband had sought him out shortly before she came, repented of his sins, and received Christ. According to our preacher, the marriage was restored.
Frankly, even if the story is true—that the husband became a believer—(and I am not doubting it), the counsel seems bad, at best. No woman should be encouraged to stay in a physically abusive situation in an attempt to win her husband to Christ. It was bad advice when it was given. It sounded bad in the sermon. And it surely sounds bad today in a culture more attuned to domestic abuse than previous generations. Perhaps he did not wish to counsel divorce, but to return to the home and become a punching bag for the husband was simply bad counsel.
What will happen with this brother and his ministry has yet to be determined. His organization will have a board meeting soon to discuss the public outcry that has arisen with the calls for his resignation. Whether the brother will be able to continue in his current position is beyond my ability to predict. The whole situation is tragic.
This brings me to the purpose of this essay. There are a number of important lessons to be learned as we watch this story unfold. We in ministry need to pay attention and be warned. This, theoretically, could happen to us if we do not walk circumspectly with regard to our pulpit ministry. I see at least four lessons.
First, we as preachers, are accountable for our words—the words we say today, the words we will say tomorrow, and the words we said yesterday. Any of us who have ministered in the pulpit for more than fifteen minutes knows that not everything comes out the way we intended. Sometimes what people hear is not what we intended to be heard. Occasionally a preacher will transpose a couple of choice words and the congregation will laugh. I once heard an older man ask God to forgive us of our “falling shorts.” I smile as I remember the gaff. At other times, we say things without measuring the effect or the weight of the words. We actually mean to say things a certain way, but upon reflection we come to realize that what we said could have a meaning beyond what we meant. Or worse, what we said was what we meant, but we did not measure the full impact of the words we would speak from the pulpit. We speak and cause hurt. If and when this happens, and sadly it does, we had better be quick to retract or correct a bad statement. If it was wrong, say so. Do not try to defend it. This will only make matters worse.
Second, we need to think long and hard before we say things from the pulpit. We are not called to be comedians but proclaimers of the life-giving Word of God. How sad it is when our pulpit speech detracts from the message we bear. I am not a fan of writing out sermons, though I have a friend who does this regularly. The great virtue of this sermon preparation technique is that it allows the preacher to carefully measure what is said and how. There is less occasion for a spontaneous, off-the-cuff remark that may go wide of the target. Whether one writes out his sermon or not, care needs to be exercised when addressing delicate matters. This is especially true when we use our own congregation as a sermon illustration. “I had a couple come into my office . . . “ and then we proceed to vaguely sketch the story. This is a dangerous thing to do. We may betray someone’s confidence in an effort to be helpful to others.
Third, never say anything in print or that is being recorded that you do not want to be published from the house-tops. I remember years ago a Canadian pastor who was teaching on child discipline. He used rhetoric that just sounded bad—something like “just beat them if they need it.” The sermon was recorded. A disgruntled attender passed the tape around and he had his children taken away by the province. Now Christians shouldn’t “beat” their children under any circumstances and pastors shouldn’t tell their people to do this, even if they think they are speaking rhetorically. When we get to sensitive topics, we need to choose our words very carefully. Our current brother is also being challenged for another sermon comment he made about a young lady and her aesthetic qualities. Some things just should not be said from the pulpit even if we are quoting someone else. There may be a need to address something obliquely. If so, caution must be used lest our words, however helpful they may be intended, become an unnecessary offense to some.
Fourth, I wonder if our brother could not have kept the debate from starting by simply showing a bit of recognition for the other people’s point of view. Maybe, just maybe, his gainsayers have a legitimate point. I wonder if a simple acknowledgement of “maybe I could have said this better” would not have kept the situation from becoming a conflagration. Or better yet, saying “I gave bad advice” or “I shouldn’t have said that.”
I am sad for the current situation of our brother. I am sad that the woman so long ago was given very bad counsel. I am sad that a teenager was spoken of in a way that suggests a less than respectful attitude on the part of a man of God. I hold our brother in high esteem for how has God used him. I hope that this situation will be used for the glory of God. I have no doubt that it will if we ponder the lessons to be learned. God can use this in our lives to make us better ministers now and in the future.

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Seven: F. Beach Whitson
(NOTE: This essay first appeared in August of 2016 under a different title. It is reprinted here because of the contribution it makes to the topic.)
Every once in a while, God sends a person into our lives whom He uses as a means of grace. A person like that is more than an acquaintance, more than a friend. By their mere presence such individuals show us that God is working in our behalf. They spur us toward greater sanctification and service. They change us, often without our even realizing it. Later on we can look back on such acquaintances and see ways in which God specifically used them.
Beach Whitson was that kind of person in my life. Actually, Beach was his middle name. His first name was Fred, but during the time I was his pastor I never heard anybody call him that. Beach and his wife Chloye were sent into my life at a challenging moment. I was, as it were, sojourning in Egypt, held captive in Babylon, doubting whether I would ever return to vocational ministry. In a very black moment, Beach was the one who said, “Brother Bauder, if you ever decide to start a church, would you please let us know?”
Not long after, the church that we were both attending simply disintegrated. I was left pondering what to do next. In the absence of any alternatives, I decided that the Lord wanted me to plant a church—and that is when I remembered Beach’s request. I could not possibly have envisioned then what the Lord was about to do.
Beach was in his seventies when I met him, and he had lived a colorful life. During the Second World War he had served in the Pacific, where he commanded a tank recovery crew. He also had a hand in raising the Zeros that had been shot down over Pearl Harbor.
At the time of the war, Beach was already a believer. He saw his military mission as more than combat. He used his tanks to transport chaplains to minister in the interior of the Pacific islands, especially New Guinea. Once, when he was reminiscing, Beach told me how a lone sniper began firing at his tank from a palm tree. Perhaps naively, I asked, “What did you do?” Beach replied, “We used the .50 caliber to coax him down.”
Unlike some Texans, from the moment I met him Beach welcomed me. I once asked Beach how he, as a Southern gentleman, could be so cordial to a Northern boy. He replied, “Well, I met a few Yankees when I was in the army. Some of them were alright.”
Because of his responsibilities, Beach came out of the war with a very high security clearance. His expertise gained him a job with Texas Instruments in Dallas. There he held multiple job titles, but his real responsibility was to courier papers and small parts to military installations around the world. He could never tell his family when or where he was going—he might leave for work one morning, then not return for days or even weeks. The one constant in his life was the orange-brown Samsonite brief case in which he carried his materiel. Decades after his retirement from TI, the FBI would still show up at his door. Beach remarked, “They just want to be sure I’m not losing my mind and blabbing any secrets.” He never did.
Among his other interests, Beach was a pilot. In fact, one of the perks of working at TI was that he could take off from work in a Cessna 150, then fly to his home in rural Wylie. He would land on the gravel road, enjoy lunch with his wife, and fly back to work. Beach flew bigger planes, too. He once landed a Convair 240 in Buffalo during the winter. The snow was piled higher than the plane on both sides of the runway. Beach commented, “It was like landing in a canyon.”
I never quite knew what story Beach might hint at. One day at an airshow we were standing in the cargo bay of a C-5 Galaxy. Marveling at the size of the thing, I remarked, “You could drive a truck through here.” Beach replied, “Well, I once had to turn a truck around in one of these things.” For a moment I thought I was listening to Hap Shaughnessy, but Beach was serious. I never did get the story, though.
When he retired from TI, Beach was far from finished with work. He bought a combine and a fleet of semis. His crew would start on the Mexican border and follow the harvest north into Canada. When I got to know him, he had retired a second time and was just selling off the last of his equipment.
Beach and Chloye were present for the second Sunday of what became Faith Baptist Church in Sachse, Texas. The little fellowship started out in northeast Dallas, then quickly moved to Garland. We met in homes for a few weeks, then in a community center for a couple of months. We finally found a small, vacant bank building in Garland. The owners were asking far more than we could afford, but Beach said, “Make them an offer.” We did, and they took it. The vault made a great nursery.
From the beginning, one of our concerns was to have a building of our own. Beach and Chloye donated ten acres in rural Wylie, which we were able to barter for five acres in the (then) small town of Sachse. The church moved into a strip mall in Sachse for a couple of years, then began to put up a church house. Beach was active in the project, swinging a hammer with the rest of us. His Dodge Ram with its Cummins diesel proved invaluable more than once. Beach personally towed the construction trailer to the building site. He even built a platform on the back of the pickup and we stood on it to put the first rows of shingles on the roof.
It was about this time that Beach started to experience heart trouble, which eventuated in bypass surgery. Through the whole process, he was a model of equanimity. That was typical. When crises came, whether in church or in his personal life, Beach was prepared to face them with endurance, faith, and hope. His trust in God had already been tested, and he knew that God was going to do what was best. That is why I knew I could always count on Beach—he was a godly, faithful man.
Two years ago, Beach Whitson went home to heaven. I don’t begrudge it a bit. That heart surgery was twenty years ago. He lived for two decades more than we thought he might. Beach was well into his nineties and ready to go home. He lived a long and colorful life. More than that, he lived what could be called a sacramental life. It was a life that ministered the grace of God to others. God used Beach to lead me into church planting, and I am grateful beyond words.
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.
Lord, I Deserve Thy Deepest Wrath
Basil Manly (1825–1892)
Lord, I deserve Thy deepest wrath,
Ungrateful, faithless I have been;
No terrors have my soul deterred,
Nor goodness wooed me from my sin.
My heart is vile, my mind depraved,
My flesh rebels against Thy will;
I am polluted in Thy sight,
Yet, Lord, have mercy on me still!
Without defense to Thee I look,
To Thee the only Savior fly;
Without a hope, without a friend,
In deep distress to Thee I cry.
Speak peace to me, my sins forgive,
Dwell Thou within my heart, O God;
The guilt and pow’r of sin remove,
And fit me for Thy blest abode.

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Six: Dave Keith
I met David Keith in January of 1974. He had just been discharged from the Army (where, as company clerk, he was reputed to have awarded his whole unit a Good Conduct Medal). He rode his Honda 350SL from Panama City up the Pan American highway through Central America and Mexico, then as far as Kansas City before the engine blew. We spent the spring semester rebuilding the engine in our dorm room. The last day of class, Dave rode that bike down College Avenue, standing up on the saddle and saluting with both hands.
Dave wasn’t really supposed to room with us that semester, but he just kind of moved in. There were already four of us in the room. Dave had a big pillow that he threw on the floor and used as a mattress. Around campus he made quite an impression, wearing an ankle-length, brown leather coat with a double row of brass buttons. For headgear he donned a long-billed straw cap that he’d found in Panama. In the dorm he would occasionally carry a pair of bright machetes that he’d picked up in Guatemala. None of us had ever seen anybody like Dave, but his grin, his quick wit, and his sheer audacity won us over.
I was eighteen and Dave was twenty-three. At that age, five years is a big difference, and Dave took it upon himself to tutor me in certain aspects of masculine maturity. He introduced me to cap-and-ball revolvers, one of which he kept in the dorm. He introduced me to Honda motorcycles and eventually sold me a 350SL—it was a great wheelie machine. He also demonstrated the value of a high quality stereo system with really big speakers, though the music I’ve played over those speakers has changed through the years.
We were in a Bible college, and Dave was training to be a pastor. Most of our peers—and most of the faculty—had trouble believing that Dave was serious about it. For that matter, they had trouble believing that Dave could be serious about anything. I knew better. During my sophomore year we had a room to ourselves, which meant that we had plenty of opportunity to observe each other’s priorities, struggles, and growth. I knew that Dave’s walk with God meant something to him, and I knew that he wanted to see me walking with God in a more consistent way than I was. Years later I came to understand that God was using him as an instrument of grace in my life.
Eventually we graduated, married, and moved in different directions. For a short time Dave was an assistant pastor in a small church. That turned into an unpleasant episode when Dave had to confront the dishonesty of his senior pastor. Dave never returned to the pastorate. I went away to seminary in Denver, then eventually returned to a pastorate in Iowa. During those years in Iowa I saw Dave regularly. He worked a succession of jobs. Among others he brokered equipment for machine shops, then sold accounts for a debt collection agency. He would often stop by my home or call on the phone (he’d always greet me with, “Hey, Kevvy!”) and we would discuss his dissatisfaction with the work he was doing. He seemed unable to find a job where he fit.
Dave took this matter seriously. He wanted to provide well for his family and he wanted a stable occupation. Then he hired on with FedEx Ground, where he discovered his vocation. He started out driving a delivery truck, eventually working his way up to terminal manager and region safety manager. As a driver he set a record for deliveries which, last time I asked, still stood unbroken. Within FedEx Ground, he was Super Dave.
With advancement in the company came moves to Oklahoma, Texas, and eventually South Carolina. During those years his daughters grew and married, his grandchildren were born, and Dave’s hair turned white. Through all the changes, Dave’s heart remained constant. Even though Dave was not a pastor, he never saw his biblical training as wasted. His relationship to God was his priority. Over time it came to be the organizing principle under which the rest of his life was conducted. It is what led him to be a faithful husband, a loving father and grandfather, a steadfast friend, and a loyal employee. David’s love for God permeated and redefined all of his other loves.
Dave had an odd sense of humor—like the time he swiped his wife’s favorite CD, gift-wrapped it, and put it under the Christmas tree. He said he wanted to give her a gift that she was sure to appreciate. On another occasion he joined a queue of husbands who were waiting for their wives in a women’s shoe store. After several minutes, he found a pair of red shoes and began to click the heels together, intoning, “There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.”
Did I mention that Susan was an exceptionally longsuffering wife?
Dave also loved to be the center of attention, and he wasn’t self-conscious about how he got it. He once decided to compete in a roping event at a local rodeo. On his way out of the chute, he managed to lasso the tail of his own horse. The crowd roared—it was the most memorable event of the day. Far from being embarrassed, Dave appreciated the humor of the situation and took his bow with satisfaction.
Over the last few years I heard from Dave less and less frequently. Something was wrong with his voice. Then on January 16, 2016 he texted, “Found out I have Stage 4 cancer. If anything happens to me I am requesting you to speak at my funeral.” My first thought was, “This is a really bad joke.”
Earlier, I had thought the same thing on the day he called and told me that he wanted to leave FedEx and open a hotdog stand. He had a plan to make big money. I thought he was joking then, but he really meant it. And he wasn’t joking about cancer.
Months later, on the day that Dave was told his cancer was terminal, he wrote these words to me: “One thing has not changed. I have always been in Our Father’s hands. As I look back over His grace and mercy in my life I am thankful.”
Dave passed away just over a year ago. He was more than a friend. God used him to challenge me when my Christian commitment had reached a low ebb. Then he was the person who showed me that a believer can be devoted to God, truth, and ministry while also thoroughly enjoying life. Dave was full of the joy of living, but he was even more full of the joy of the Lord. He taught me something about both.
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.
I Hear the Words of Love
Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)
I hear the words of love,
I gaze upon the blood,
I see the mighty sacrifice,
And I have peace with God.
’Tis everlasting peace,
Sure as Jehovah’s name;
’Tis stable as His steadfast throne,
For evermore the same.
The clouds may go and come,
And storms may sweep my sky;
This blood-sealed friendship changes not,
The cross is ever nigh.
I change—He changes not;
The Christ can never die;
His love, not mine, the resting-place;
His truth, not mine, the tie.
My love is oftimes low,
My joy still ebbs and flows,
But peace with Him remains the same;
No change Jehovah knows.

Paul Against the Contextualizers
Central Seminary hosted its annual MacDonald Lectures last February. Dr. Paul Hartog of Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary of Ankeny, Iowa, delivered four addresses. All four are posted on the seminary’s website and are worth your time.
His opening lecture took issue with the popular interpretation of Paul’s pronouncement, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Cor 9:22). The common understanding of this verse is that while the content of the gospel is vital, the form is a matter of indifference. Accordingly, mature devotion to the mission of Christ is demonstrated by our willingness to abandon our preferred forms of ministry to adopt those of the people we are trying to reach.
While Dr. Hartog’s argument was wide-ranging, he offered a piece of evidence against the common understanding that is both concise and convincing. In the very same book in which Paul says he has become all things to all people, he tells us back in chapter 2 that “when I came to you, brothers, [I] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom” (1 Cor 2:1).
The implication is clear: Paul knew how best to contextualize the gospel for the Corinthian audience: to deliver it according to the rules of Greek rhetoric. A competent use of the expected rhetorical forms would certainly have gained a broad hearing for the gospel in Corinth. And yet Paul intentionally avoided conforming to his audience’s preferences, choosing rather “to know nothing among [them] except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” In this case, he refused to contextualize the message.
Paul’s motive is that the Corinthians’ “faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor 2:5). Had Paul preached Christ in the manner of an expert rhetorician, he may well have gained a bigger audience. Indeed, there may have been more professions of faith than Paul saw by his ministry in “weakness and in fear and much trembling.” But Paul’s confidence was rooted firmly in the message rather than the method. Additional results gained through his own brilliance would be, by definition, spurious.
I find Dr. Hartog’s argument compelling. Whatever we take “all things to all men” to mean, it must not contradict Paul’s resolute refusal to contextualize his message in the way we might expect.
But we can go a step further in this line of argumentation. Earlier in the same letter, Paul writes, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:18-25).
Trace Paul’s thought here. He sets before us two audiences for the gospel: the Jews and the Greeks. The Jews, Paul says, seek signs. The signs they seek are the very ones that Jesus offered, the signs which vindicate his claims of Messiahship. Despite seeing those signs, the Jews (through their leaders) rejected Jesus’s call to “repent, for the kingdom is at hand.” The crucifixion became the peak of scandal for those whose only expectation was that Messiah would come to reign in power. For those who desire signs of power, the cross is inexplicable weakness.
Paul’s second audience was the Greeks (often taken broadly as Gentiles, but here likely the civilized Greeks), whose measure of status was wisdom. Their prizing of wisdom endures as a stereotype: to think about Greeks is to think about the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. We have already seen that their standard of evaluation was rhetorical excellence and incisive philosophy.
Paul knows what his audience values. And this point is crucial: Christ is indeed power and wisdom. For Paul to preach Christ as power to the Jews and wisdom to the Greeks would not be an abandonment of biblical orthodoxy. Paul could contextualize his message to his audiences and not say anything untrue.
And yet not only does Paul not contextualize his message in the obvious way, he does the very opposite. Knowing that the Jews seek signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, he purposefully emphasizes Christ’s crucifixion. To those who seek signs and power, he preaches Christ as weakness. To those who seek wisdom, he preaches Christ as folly.
Why would Paul so flagrantly defy our expected application of “all things to all men”? The truth of the matter is that the form and content of the gospel are not so separable as we are led to believe. There are approaches to contextualizing the gospel that must inevitably alter the message.
To gain a hearing for the gospel, our inclination is to ask, “What problems do people have, and how can we present Jesus as the answer to those problems?” But when we attempt to provoke interest in Christ by changing the problem that the gospel solves, we change the gospel. Instead of insisting that our hearers turn “to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9), we make Christ the servant of their idols. This is high scandal in ministry. It is a dereliction of our proper duty as ministers.
Paul tells us what the Jews and the Greeks seek. What do the Americans seek? Family stability. Financial peace. Can Jesus be the answer to those things? Indeed, he can. Are they proper subjects for discipling the people of God? Surely, they are.
But for the unbelieving American, these things are his idols, just as surely as wisdom was to the Greeks and signs were to the Jews. In such a case, to preach Christ as the answer to the longings of the unbelieving heart is to warp the gospel. Such contextualization enthrones idols instead of casting them down. Here, Paul’s example would lead us to preach Christ as the one who has “not come to bring peace, but a sword,” who has “come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matt 10:34-36). Rather than preaching Christ as a financial counselor, we proclaim him as the one who insists we must forsake all to follow him.
The concern with such an approach is that we will discourage people from coming to Christ. But I know this: while I have seen scores and scores of false professions of faith in my life, I have never known anyone foreknown by the Father who was not justified. When the gospel is preached clearly and faithfully (and we must preach it to all!), the sheep will hear the Shepherd’s voice and come.
In every way, we must embrace the scandal of the gospel. The unbeliever’s problem is not what he thinks it is. His problem is that he is condemned in the sight of God, and that he is helpless to rescue himself. We preach the gospel when we proclaim Jesus as the solution to that problem.
To be sure, there are good and necessary forms of contextualization. The gospel should be preached in the language of those we wish to reach, not in Greek. We should indeed adopt restrictions on our own personal liberties in Christ for the sake of reaching those who would be otherwise scandalized. But biblical vigilance demands that we learn to keep watch over our best intentions.
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.
Here Is Love
William Rees (st. 1 and 2; 1802–1883); tr. by William Edwards (1848–1929); William Williams (st. 3; 1717–1791)
Here is love, vast as the ocean,
Loving-kindness as the flood,
When the Prince of Life, our Ransom,
Shed for us His precious blood.
Who His love will not remember?
Who can cease to sing His praise?
He can never be forgotten
Throughout heav’n’s eternal days.
On the mount of crucifixion
Fountains opened deep and wide;
Through the floodgates of God’s mercy
Flowed a vast and gracious tide.
Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
Poured incessant from above,
And heav’n’s peace and perfect justice
Kissed a guilty world in love.
In Thy truth Thou dost direct me
By Thy Spirit through Thy Word;
And Thy grace my need is meeting
As I trust in Thee, my Lord.
Of Thy fullness Thou art pouring
Thy great love and pow’r on me,
Without measure, full and boundless,
Drawing out my heart to Thee.

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Five: David Nettleton
Where is the line between ordinary and extraordinary men? A man may be quite ordinary in most aspects of life, yet quite exceptional in others. If the unique aspects of his life are seldom noticed, he may be remembered only as an ordinary person.
David Nettleton was such a man. I cannot claim that I was Nettleton’s friend—he was already a college president before I reached my teen years. I met him when I was 13 years old, delivered his newspaper for a couple of years, and attended high school with one of his daughters. I later enrolled as a student in the college over which he presided. By the time I had matured sufficiently to appreciate Nettleton’s perspective, geography had divided us. Our correspondence was sporadic and ad hoc (quotations in this essay are from his letters).
Still, I observed David Nettleton rather closely over a span of a quarter of a century. I saw him respond to both success and defeat. I watched him lead and I watched him follow. I witnessed his treatment of people during seasons of sweet agreement and upon occasions of sharp disputation. He embodied the essential qualities of Christian leadership more completely than almost anyone I’ve ever known.
David Nettleton never professed to be a scholar, but his study of the Scriptures gave him an exegetical depth and theological insight such as few pastors possess. He had a unique ability to communicate complicated ideas in simple ways. Those who chose to debate theology with him could rarely maintain the level of discussion that he set.
While Nettleton was not a scholar, he could recognize scholarship when he saw it. He valued the contributions that scholars could make. As president of a Bible college during a decade when student rebellion was widespread, he accepted the responsibility of turning muddleheaded teenagers like me into thoughtful people. He aimed to make his campus a stronghold for conservative Christian scholarship. The young professors that he recruited became the backbone of that institution for a generation.
Nettleton was a man of some culture. His appreciation of both creation and the human capacity for invention showed itself in his varied interests. He had a passion for chess and he collected chess sets. He loved sailing so much that he once planned to navigate the Bermuda Triangle alone (he was providentially hindered). One of my earliest memories of him involves his explaining some fine point of astronomy while allowing me to examine the magnificent telescope in his office. The fact that he played the saw (and played it well) did not preclude his communicating some sense of taste for serious music. At the very least he stood as convincing evidence that one did not have to be a yokel in order to be a good preacher.
Nettleton’s greatest strength was his preaching. Early in his ministry he apprenticed himself to the eminent Presbyterian pulpiteer, Clarence Macartney. Expository preaching became his passion. To declare God’s Word faithfully, to bring out the meaning of the text, to illustrate it gracefully, and to apply it so that it gripped listeners and led them to a decision—that was David Nettleton’s great love. He had few peers among fundamentalists as an illustrator, and none for decorum in the pulpit.
The pastorate was Nettleton’s life. Even when he was a college president he made himself a pastor to his students, and his special burden during those years was to equip men for pastoral ministry. He experienced the heartbreaks that come with leadership and ministry, but he never allowed those things to harden him. He somehow found ways to remain a gentle man even in the face of pressure, difficulty, and opposition. He learned from his failures and used them to make him stronger. After he left the academic world and returned to the pastorate, he became an effective counselor and encourager of younger pastors.
Rarely has fundamentalism produced a more irenic spirit. Nettleton prized the role of a peacemaker. He was grieved by the splintering of the various fundamentalist camps. He thought that leaders who believed the same great truths should learn to walk together peaceably, and he maintained that even the strictest fellowship could leave plenty of room for liberty. He refused to manipulate people or to abuse power to get his own way. That cost him the friendship of some who wished that he would exercise power in a fashion more favorable to their policies. His earnest endeavor was to behave himself as a Christian statesman rather than an ecclesiastical politician. He came near to succeeding.
That is not to say that Nettleton was irresolute in his beliefs. On the contrary, he held strong convictions and he argued for them eloquently. Yet he acted with such fairness and impartiality that he found himself repeatedly thrust into positions of leadership. As he put it, “I am strong on the sovereignty of God and wrote on it. Yet, they elected me as chairman of the [GARBC] council. I oppose cheap worldly music. . . . I try to make my speech as grace but not without salt.”
While strong in his beliefs, Nettleton was temperamentally opposed to adopting extreme positions. When he was a college president, he tried very hard to keep his school “in the middle of the right-hand lane.” But middle-of-the-road situations are hazardous, in whatever lane one travels. Nettleton knew as much. He recognized that a time might come when “healthy discussion is stifled and the only result will be more misunderstanding and even ignorance.” In fact, he lived to see the whole highway lurch to the left. Only his death spared him from having to decide whether he would take the exit ramp.
It would not have been an easy choice. On the one hand, he argued in print that, by the nature of the case, a Christian must limit either his fellowship or his message. On the other hand, he was firmly convinced that Christians should not stand alone. The only way he knew of to avoid isolation was to become involved in some form of organized fellowship. He understood that such fellowships necessarily involved an element of compromise, and argued against some of his peers that compromise was not always a bad word. “We must find enough common ground,” he wrote, “and then agree to disagree the rest of the way. But toleration does not mean silence. If something should be opposed, let us oppose it.”
It was this combination of strong convictions and commitment to toleration within defined limits that made him exceptional as a leader within his generation of American fundamentalists. One need not always agree with such a man in order to respect him. Many did disagree with Nettleton over a wide range of issues, but he held the respect of his friends and his opponents alike.
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.
Sing, My Tongue, the Glorious Battle
Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus (c. 540–600); tr. John Mason Neale (1818–1866)
Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle;
Sing the ending of the fray.
Now above the cross, the trophy,
Sound the loud triumphant lay:
Tell how Christ, the world’s Redeemer,
As a victim won the day.
Tell how, when at length the fullness
Of th’appointed time was come,
He, the Word, was born of woman,
Left for us His Father’s home,
Blazed the path of true obedience,
Shone as light amidst the gloom.
Thus, with thirty years accomplished,
He went forth from Nazareth,
Destined, dedicated, willing,
Did His work, and met His death;
Like a lamb He humbly yielded
On the cross His dying breath.
Faithful cross, true sign of triumph,
Be for all the noblest tree;
None in foliage, none in blossom,
None in fruit your equal be;
Symbol of the world’s redemption,
For the weight that hung on thee!
Unto God be praise and glory:
To the Father and the Son,
To th’eternal Spirit honor
Now and evermore be done;
Praise and glory in the highest,
While the timeless ages run.

The Progress of Temptation
[This essay was originally published on January 18, 2013.]
Christians often make mistakes in the way that they think about temptation. On the one hand, they sometimes see any temptation as an evil in itself, as if to be tempted were already to commit the sin. On the other hand, they can think that temptation is merely the initial inducement to sin (or to sin again), which terminates with the sinning. In reality, initial temptations are less insidious than some suppose, while the later stages of temptation are far more sinister than many realize. Temptation occurs in a series of stages, each of which involves a growing element of implicatedness in the sin toward which one is being tempted. In the following paragraphs, I will summarize the stages of temptation, explaining how each stage brings one more deeply under the domination of the object of temptation.
The first stage of temptation is inclination. At this stage, an individual encounters the object of temptation and is somehow attracted toward it. Neither the object nor the attraction necessarily involves sin in itself. A person simply experiences a desire that cannot rightly be fulfilled under the circumstances. This most rudimentary form of temptation can even be glimpsed in the first temptation of Jesus: He was hungry, and He was tempted to create bread. The desire for food was not wrong, but it could not be fulfilled legitimately under the circumstances. When temptation is dealt with at this stage, no sin is committed.
If inclination is not resisted and dismissed, however, it leads to consideration. In this stage, an individual becomes preoccupied with the object of temptation. It is held before the mind’s eye as an object of fascination or even of obsession. Rather than fleeing from the temptation, the person is now beginning to embrace it. This is the stage at which temptation begins to involve some element of sin, because our minds do not have to dwell upon the object of temptation. Indeed, rightly handled, temptation can become a signal to shift our thoughts to specific objects that are worthy of our consideration.
Unless it is interrupted, consideration will lead to permission. At some point, an individual decides that the object of temptation is worth embracing. The overt act has not yet occurred—indeed, it may never occur, for the individual may never encounter an occasion to follow through on the decision. Nevertheless, by ceding permission to the temptation, the individual is inwardly agreeing to commit the deed whenever it becomes possible. Often, some less obvious act may become a substitute for the full and obvious sin. As Jesus pointed out, character assassination is murder, lust is adultery, and loophole language is perjury. Once the decision is made, an individual is already implicated in the sin.
Naturally, permission is often followed by participation. This is the overt commission of the sin (or omission of the duty), no longer merely as a matter considered in the heart, but as a willful deed. Even for sins of attitude some transition takes place between consideration and participation. Some point exists at which an individual stops struggling against the forbidden attitude and indulges in it. Very often, participation represents a turning point in one’s relationship to the sin. Once one has indulged in deliberate commission, the will is weakened and repeated instances of the sin become easier. Additional indulgence in the sin is likely to follow.
As indulgence continues, temptation moves to the level of habituation. As John Donne noted, inconstancy begets a constant habit. Each indulgence in the sin weakens the will, leading to further indulgence. Eventually, the sin becomes a regular part of life. As the sinner grows accustomed to the sin, it begins to seem normal. It becomes part of the sinner’s environment. It becomes so transparent that it operates as a lens through which the sinner interprets reality. At this point, the individual is not merely a sinner, but a slave. The sin holds the sinner under bondage and begins to color everything.
The last and worst stage occurs when temptation turns into identification. The sin becomes so much a part of life that it begins to shape the sinner’s identity. Sinners reach a point at which they begin to understand their selfhood in terms of their relationship to the object of temptation. It becomes part of them. They can no longer imagine living without the sin. If they lost it, they would no longer know who they were. The sin does not merely characterize their outer conduct, but even their inner frame of reference. At this point, trying to divest one’s self of the sin feels very much like trying to kill one’s self, for the sin has become part of one’s identity.
One other stage may occur, though it occupies no particular place in the order of temptation. It is the step of legitimation. A person who legitimates a sin no longer sees it as a sin, but has found a way to justify it. This stage does not always occur. Many sinners know and acknowledge that they are sinning, even when they have progressed through the stage of identification. Still, some do attempt to vindicate themselves by finding a way to redefine the sin so that it is no longer sinful (at least in their own thinking).
Every temptation must be dealt with at the earliest possible stage. To wait for later stages is to multiply exponentially the difficulty of resisting the sin. It is also to involve one’s self increasingly with the sin itself. The first stage—inclination—brings with it no necessary guilt, but each of the succeeding stages involves growing participation in the sin. At no level is a sinner beyond the ability of God’s grace to deliver, but to presume upon deliverance at some later stage is to put God to the test in the way that Jesus refused to do. Consequently, every Christian must seek God’s grace early and employ those means that God has ordained for securing sanctification in the face of temptation.
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.
How Sad Our State
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
How sad our state by nature is,
our sin, how deep it stains;
and Satan binds our captive minds
fast in his slavish chains.
But there’s a voice of sov’reign grace
sounds from the sacred Word,
“Ho, ye despairing sinners, come,
and trust upon the Lord.”
My soul obeys th’almighty call,
and runs to this relief;
I would believe Thy promise, Lord,
O help my unbelief.
Unto the fountain of Thy blood,
Incarnate God, I fly;
here let me wash my spotted soul,
from Crimes of deepest dye.
Stretch out Thine arm, victorious King,
my reigning sins subdue;
and drive the dragon from his seat,
with all his hellish crew.
A guilty, weak, and helpless worm,
on Thy kind arms I fall;
be thou my strength and righteousness,
my Jesus and my all.
Descartes(’) Remains
I just finished a great book – Descartes Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict Between Faith and Reason. In it, NY Times best-selling author Russell Shorto retells the fascinating tale of Descartes’ remains and compares their history to the philosophical journey of modernity.
On a cold night, in the middle of the Swedish winter in 1650, the French humanist René Descartes died. Descartes was in Stockholm at the invitation of his friend and protégé, Pierre Chanut, to personally tutor the young queen Christina. Since Descartes was a staunch Catholic in a Protestant nation, his remains were quickly and quietly laid to rest in the frozen ground just outside of the capital. 16 years later, after entropy and modernity had begun, his decomposing remains were exhumed and taken to France on the authority of Louis XIV. Upon arrival in France, the skull and the right index finger were missing; the finger being a personal souvenir of the French ambassador to Sweden and the skull inexplicably gone, a literal dualism. In June of the following year, Descartes, sans head, was laid to rest for the second time after much ceremony in the churchyard of St. Geneviève in the center of Paris.
For more than a century, Descartes’ ideas evolved as his bones decayed. The philosophy of doubt lead to the politics of revolution. In 1793, after anti-Catholic and anti-royal mobs prevailed, the story of Descartes’ remains took another twist. By decree of the newly formed De La Convention Nationale, the patron saint of modernity was scheduled to be moved to lay in state in the new, hastily-conceived Pantheon. This decree, like the revolution, the idea of a French Pantheon, and the unfortunate lives of the French la noblesse, was short-lived. Alexandre Lenoir, a purveyor of French art, claimed that he transferred Descartes’ remains from a wooden box to an Egyptian-like sarcophagus. By this time the remains had become mere dust and shards. Lenoir’s collection was on display in the Museum of French Monuments. Many doubted (pun intended) Lenoir’s story and believed that Descartes’ bones were lost to either a desecrating revolutionary mob, the 1807 excavation of the church grounds for a new road, or the cold apathy of natural processes. In 1817, under Louis the XVIII’s authority, Descartes’ (supposed) remains were unearthed once more and ceremoniously reinterred, under the careful watch and honor of the French Academy of Science, just outside the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés.
The tale takes another turn. In 1821, a Swedish chemist named Berzelius, produced a skull (without the jaw) that was had an ink-filled inscription that read, “The skull of Descartes, taken by J. Fr. Planström, the year 1666, at the time when the body was being returned to France.” The front of the skull also had an inscribed poem:
“This small skull once belonged to the great Cartesius,
The rest of his remains are hidden far away in the
land of France;
But all around the circle of the globe his genius
is praised,
And his spirit still rejoices in the sphere of heaven.”
When this skull arrived in France, the famous scientist/zoologist/creationist/devout Christian, Georges Cuvier, one of the premier member of the Academy of Science, embarked on a multi-year examination of the skull. The skull of the man that wrote Discourse on Method was thoroughly examined using quintessentially modern techniques. Interestingly, Cuvier’s method mostly employed the 19th cent. popular science of cranial phrenology and visual/dimensional comparisons and measurements based upon a (possibly fake) portrait by Dutch master Frans Hals. Cuvier was finally convinced and declared the skull authentic. Others, however, were unconvinced. The skull was exhibited in the Academy of Sciences for nearly another century. During that time, Descartes’ skull was repeatedly examined and deductions were repeatedly made. Ideas were inferred and propositions declared. In the end, in another twist of irony, the clarity of some and the skepticism of others boiled down to belief. The cranial examination of the father of modernity become a not-so-living embodiment of the tensions within modernity.
On the morning of January 21 1910, the city of Paris flooded. As the Seine swept into central Paris, the city, a beautiful temple to the accomplishments of man, was overtaken by the sheer power of nature. Much like the Great War a few years later, this event signaled the inevitable collapse of modernity. The philosophy of doubt began to be doubted as Descartes’ skull was nearly lost, once again, as relics and remains were haphazardly stacked and hastily evacuated.
Shorto appropriately ends with this:
“The Cartesian tendency of favoring mind over matter – mind over body- thus has a metaphorical cap. The skull – the representation of mind – having been subjected to repeated and increasingly sophisticated scientific study and judged to be authentic, sits enshrined in a science museum, le Musée de l’Homme . . . . Indeed, as I write, it is a part of a special exhibition at the Musée de l’Homme entitled Man Exposed, sitting beside a Cro-Magnum skull to demonstrate the breadth of human thought and accomplishment over the millennia, once again, serving as the very representation of ‘modern.’ As for the body, the trail ends abruptly, veering sharply into oblivion. And that perhaps as it should be. Dust to dust. In secular seculorum” (pg. 231).
Modernity, like Descartes’ remains, remains enshrined yet decomposing. Its head, like Descartes’ ideas, is both certain and doubtful. Mankind tragically defines itself through itself. To doubt is to know and knowledge is undoubted. This cannot last. Modernity is veering sharply into oblivion. All men and their ideas come from dust and to the dust return . . . To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever.
I highly recommend this book.
Lux in Tenebris
“The light shines in darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.”
Tonight, many liturgical and reformed churches will celebrate the medieval Tenebrae service, or service of darkness. Throughout this solemn event, candles are extinguished until only one is left. Darkness and shadows evoke sobriety, resembling the period of darkness during the crucifixion. Gospel readings, prayers, and meditations punctuate the service until the final candle is extinguished and the congregation erupts in a strepitus, a loud noise that represents the final cry of Jesus, ensuing earthquake, and tearing of the temple veil. After this cacophonous sound the congregation leaves in silence, reflecting on the terrible price of sin.
“The Crucifixion,” as painted by nineteenth-century Russian artist Nikolai Ge, depicts a graphic, non-stereotypical version of the death of our Lord. Ge is one of my favorite realist precisely for that reason. This painting was banned from public display by imperial authorities on the grounds of blasphemy because Christ was shown as too human, too wretched. Ge was masterful with shadows and light and this painting represents a clear juxtaposition of the two. The ghostly Roman soldier, resembling the emptiness of rejecting Christ, disappears into the darkness, darkness that engulfs the painting, darkness that engulfed the entire land. A sign lies on the ground, perhaps falling as the earth shook. Against the black, however is a brilliant light. Its source is unclear and position confusing but its presence unmistakable. How can there be light in such darkness? The light covers the face of the penitent thief and illuminates Jesus. Human agony is on display as the God-Man cries his final cry. Jesus is the only bright figure. He is the man of light and the Light of men. Though the darkness weighs down the painting, light is undeniable.
My own tenebrae is quite similar. Tonight I will solemnly remember the darkness of that terrible day. The weight of darkness is the weight of my sin, crushing the spotless One. My strepitus is loud and dissonant. The crescendo of the climax of rebellion, the murder of the most innocent among us. I hated the light and loved the darkness. Yet, light remained. The dark cries of “crucify” only further illuminated the Light.
If only the soldier would turn away from the enveloping darkness and look at the Light.
“Truly, this man was the Son of God.”
“But while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
God is light, in whom there is no darkness at all.
Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world,
and we loved darkness rather than light.

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Four: Garry Rhoades
In the fall of 1979 I began my first semester as a student at Denver Baptist Theological Seminary. One day the missions professor, Dick Tice, asked if I might be interested in a pastoral staff position. I had been asking the Lord for something like that, and I told him so. That night he drove me two hours south to Woodland Park, where I met Pastor Garry Rhoades.
Garry was a graduate of Denver Baptist Bible College. He had served in a staff position with a prominent fundamentalist pastor in Colorado. The experience soured him on Baptist fundamentalism, so he accepted the pastorate of an evangelical community church. Once in an evangelical, interdenominational environment he began to discover how much of a Baptist fundamentalist he really was. He started to preach and teach along those lines, and he wanted an assistant pastor who could be counted on not to undermine his leadership.
Sitting at his table that evening he went through a verbal job description. He wanted somebody to do youth and music, but also to pitch in wherever needed. He envisioned that my wife and I would drive down after work on Friday and stay in his home through the weekend, returning to Denver after church on Sunday night. The church couldn’t pay much, he said, perhaps not even enough to cover expenses. Still he was convinced that God would make up the deficiency in other ways, perhaps ways that I might never even perceive.
Money was the last thing I was interested in. I was so eager for pastoral experience that I’d have paid the church to let me minister, and that’s what I told Garry. I still remember the surprised look on his face. It was the beginning not only of a staff relationship, but of a friendship that would endure until the Lord took Garry home.
In some ways Garry and I were opposites. He was extroverted and outgoing; I was (and am) an introvert who sometimes tries to act like an extrovert. He was big and tough: he’d trained as a Ranger and a Green Beret, and he’d fought in Viet Nam. I’d never served in the military and had never even been particularly good at athletics. His gifts lay outside the academic realm, while I was beginning to realize that I loved the life of the mind. Opposites though we were in some ways, each of us respected what the other represented. We each saw the opportunity to learn from the other, and we both treasured the relationship.
As my senior pastor, Garry treated me more like a kid brother than like an employee. My wife and I lived in his home every weekend. He took me with him everywhere and let me see everything he was doing. He was as completely transparent as anybody I’ve ever met.
That’s how I learned about giving. I’ve always understood that giving is part of the Christian life, but I confess to being naturally stingy. Garry was the opposite—if anybody ever had the gift of giving, he did. If he owned something and he sensed that somebody else needed it, he’d give it away. Sometimes he gave away money or other things that he really needed for himself. I was the only one (other than his wife) who knew that, but it taught me a lesson. People were blessed when the Lord used Garry to meet their needs. Garry was blessed when he was used to meet their needs. Then he was blessed again when the Lord met his needs. With so much blessing in the air, I decided that I wanted a piece of it—and began to give more, in imitation of Garry, than I’d ever given before. And God blessed.
That pastoral relationship only lasted for about six months before Garry left the church. Our friendship went on for decades. Garry was a Colorado native, and he showed how to make the best use of the Rocky Mountain State. He trained me to hunt coyote and antelope on the high plains. He taught me how to trek into the mountains after mule deer and elk. Later on, when he was a pastor in Alaska, Garry was the one who took me to Denali, then camping in the bush. He exposed me to a rough-and-tumble enthusiasm for life—especially life in the outdoors—that I have seldom encountered elsewhere.
Garry also taught me important lessons about being strong. I watched him when he was deeply hurt and treated contemptuously, saw him forgive, and observed him endure. He was a big man and a trained fighter, but he habitually exercised restraint in the face of challenges, opposition, insults, and even betrayals. There was a rough and tough side to Garry, but he deliberately chose to treat people with great gentleness.
I’d grown up in a fairly narrow circle of Baptist fundamentalism, but Garry introduced me to a wider ecclesiastical world. He was my first introduction to Jack Hyles (who was not yet all that he later became). He took me to my first conference with Bill Gothard. His best friend was evangelist Lloyd Spear. We would occasionally stop by the home of Charlie Clay, a singer whose records featured a Christianized version of cowboy music. It was through Garry that I got to know Bill Anderson, president of the Christian Booksellers Association, and Bob Cornuke, a police officer who would become something of a Christian Indiana Jones. While I don’t identify with the circles in which these people move, I am richer for having known them.
During his service in Viet Nam, Garry was regularly exposed to Agent Orange. As he entered middle age, it became clear that the chemical was beginning to affect him. He developed tumors in his lungs and he began to lose the use of his legs. For the last decade of his life, Garry spent most of his time being helped between his wheelchair and his bed. He continued to pastor and to serve as a Civil Air Patrol chaplain as long as he could. He attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the CAP (the highest rank that chaplains could earn in those days), and his efforts in ministry were recognized with the award of a Doctor of Divinity diploma. He finally moved back to his home town, where I visited him a few times during his last years.
Garry died while I was traveling in Florida. I wasn’t even able to go to his funeral, which was preached by Lloyd Spear. He was laid to rest in his home town of Eaton, Colorado.
Not many people remember Garry Rhoades, but I’ll never be able to forget him. He was an ordinary guy, an average pastor, but his ministry made a tremendous difference in my life. He was a true comrade, the kind of friend one makes only rarely. Friendship with Garry changed me by helping me to refine my vision of what a Christian man and a servant of God ought to be. I thank God for ordinary men like Garry.
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.
My Song Is Love Unknown
Samuel Crossman (ca. 1624-1683)
My song is love unknown,
My Savior’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.
O who am I, that for my sake
My Lord should take, frail flesh and die?
Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.
Why, what hath my Lord done?
To cause this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight,
Sweet injuries! Yet they at these
Are why the Lord most High so cruely dies.
Here might I stay and sing,
Of Him my soul adores;
Never was love, dear King!
Never was grief like yours.
This is my Friend, in Whose sweet praise
I all my days could gladly spend.

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Three: Elmer Jahn
Elmer Jahn went home to be with the Lord on February 10, 2018. He had lived 88 years. I am privileged to have called him my father-in-law, and he had a profound impact on me, his other relatives, and many, many others. How did this man with very humble origins come to be used by God in the lives of so many? In a word—grace. He knew how desperately he stood in need of grace, and once saved, he manifested the gift of grace to everyone he met.
Elmer grew up in difficult circumstances. His parents were nominal Catholics, but his family never went to church. His alcoholic father physically and verbally abused him, his mother, and his three siblings. It is quite a wonder, really, that he graduated from high school. But he did, and he married Joanne, his high school sweetheart, two years later. The Lord gave them two boys, but they had great difficulty carrying future pregnancies to full term. Since they loved kids, they decided to take in foster children and they cared for over 20. But foster care was not the same as having children of their own, so they decided to adopt. And God added two girls to their family, one of whom would become my wife, Elaine.
During those early years of his marriage, Elmer worked at the post office and by his own admission he was a lazy and dishonest worker, taking advantage of the system to gain every possible advantage. Though he and Joanne went to mass regularly, they did so only out of obligation, and their lifestyle as a whole reflected Paul’s description in Ephesians 2:3: “We all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”
But then when Elmer was 43, God came calling. Woodcrest Baptist Church hosted a VBS that summer, and the canvassing efforts of a teenager from the church resulted in Elaine and her sister attending the VBS. Amazed by how much Bible the girls learned at VBS, Elmer and Joanne responded to an invitation to attend evangelistic meetings held at the church. And both Elmer and Joanne heeded the invitation to repent and believe in the gospel.
God’s work of grace in Elmer’s life was evident to all who knew him. The verses God used to save Elmer were Ephesians 2:8−9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works lest anyone should boast.” And he was still quoting these as his favorites as he lay in hospice care prior to his death.
What distinguished Elmer in the years following his conversion? God’s grace filled Elmer’s heart with love which he poured out in service to the church, in care for people, and in dedication to his Savior. His example in each of these areas provided me with a wonderful model in the 35 years I was privileged to know him.
Elmer was an active member in three different churches during his 45 years as a Christ-follower. He was expert in teaching junior age children in Sunday School, often creating vivid object lessons to explain the important truths of the Bible. The pastors at each church appreciated his loyal support and faithful service as a deacon. In his later years he actively participated in small group Bible studies and served as the greeter at the Wednesday evening church-wide meals.
Elmer loved people. When I first met him, I was amazed at how kind Elmer was to me. At first I figured this was special treatment reserved for the man who was dating his daughter. He would regale me with stories about his adventures serving subpoenas (he had purchased a process serving business in his early 40s), and I couldn’t believe that one man could have so many amazing tales. But his accounts and special treatment weren’t just for me. After seeing him interact with other visitors to his home, I realized he treated everyone with Christian grace and love. He had a way of speaking with you that made you feel like you were the most important person in the room.
Space requires that I limit myself to three stories showing his love for others. During my engagement to Elaine, I accidentally drove my car into Elmer’s new fiberglass garage door, creating a large, ugly crack. But Elmer refused to take payment from me to repair it; instead he smiled and said, “As long as you marry Elaine and never leave her, you don’t have to pay for it.” When Elmer sold the house 30 years later, the door with its crack was still there.
Elmer and Joanne showed their love for others in opening their home not only for morning conversations around their table but for extended periods of time. His son’s family of 6 lived with them for nearly a year and his other son’s family of four for several months. When their granddaughter lost her parents, they took her in for five years. Besides the foster children mentioned earlier, they also took in parents with children for months at a time. Yes, Elmer knew how to obey God’s command to be hospitable and to meet the needs of the saints (Rom 12:13).
He also knew how to show concern for the poor and unlovely. Elaine recalls a time when as a young girl riding in the car with Elmer, they drove by a drunk man who was passed out and lying on the roadside. Elmer stopped the car, helped the man into the car, and drove him to a place where he could be helped.
Elmer loved to talk about Jesus and loved sharing new insights he had heard about Him from his favorite radio preachers. He also showed his love for Christ by living out the truth of Ephesians 4:32 when he led his family in granting forgiveness to his other son-in-law, who tragically murdered Elmer’s other daughter in 1995. Despite this horrific act, Elmer extended the grace of forgiveness to this man before repentance could even be evidenced. Furthermore, Elmer loved Christ by caring for his wife of 50 years when she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. He took those five years of her sickness in stride, even smiling when she inadvertently hid his car keys or called the police to report an intruder (him!).
I learned much from Elmer Jahn, an ordinary man who loved and served and was transformed by an extraordinary God.
This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Holy Trinity, Thanks and Praise to Thee
Lorenz T. Nyberg (1720–1792)
Holy Trinity, thanks and praise to Thee,
That our life and whole salvation
Flow from Christ’s blest incarnation
And His death for us on the shameful cross.
Had we angels’ tongues, with seraphic songs,
Bowing hearts and knees before Thee,
Triune God, we would adore Thee
In the highest strain for the Lamb once slain.
Getting Into Bach
If you didn’t know, yesterday was J. S. Bach’s birthday. I didn’t grow up listening to classical music–my clearest childhood recollections are of Tennessee Ernie Ford and Mahalia Jackson. Later on I became a fan of Elton John and of Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. My sole impression of Bach was gained from his Toccata and Fuge in D Minor, a complex and heavy work that was (wrongly) played before the movie Thief in the Night to create a sinister atmosphere.
Now Bach is my favorite composer. Much of the credit for that change goes to Christopher Parkening, whose recordings of Bach’s music helped me to perceive its devotion, beauty, and joy. I can still remember listening astonished for the first time to Parkening’s rendition of Bach’s Praeludium, wondering how only one man with only ten fingers could play those notes so beautifully.
The last thing I want to do is to give you an assignment or to tell you that you “ought to listen to Bach.” Still, if you knew what to listen to, you might discover a beauty and joy that you have never elsewhere encountered. So let me suggest a couple of pathways into Bach’s music.
The first is the one that opened Bach for me, namely, Parkening’s guitar transcriptions. I’d specifically recommend three albums.
Parkening Plays Bach is a solo album that features a few other composers as well.
A Bach Celebration has Parkening playing with the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra.
Simple Gifts is an album of sacred music, including some Bach.
If you prefer a bolder sound, the Empire Brass has recorded A Bach Festival with Douglas Major playing the organ. If you’ve got a good stereo, you’re going to want to turn it all the way up to 11. The “Concerto and Alleluia” will shiver your timbers.
Would you rather hear something orchestral? Then listen to one of Bach’s job applications, the Brandenburg Concerti. I’ve linked to a performance by the Consortium Musicum, but feel free to buy a different album. It’s hard to find a bad version of the Brandenburgs.
Enjoy!

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Two: John Javaux
The first time I met John Javaux was on the gridiron. He was playing linebacker; I was a tight end. We got acquainted when he decided to blitz the quarterback. I met him with a cross-body block, then slipped down into a crab block. He was bigger and stronger than me, but somehow I got just the right leverage, shoved a bit, and sat him down hard.
That’s when I started to worry. I’d never met a linebacker who took kindly to being knocked down, and John was very obviously a bull of a man. As we got up, I braced myself for what was about to come. To my surprise, John shot me a big grin and said, “You’re pretty good at that, aren’t you?”
As I would learn, that kind of relaxed, self-effacing, down-home response was typical of John. We were at the beginning of our freshman year in Bible college. I came from ten miles up the road; John came all the way from Idaho. We were destined to see quite a bit of each other. Our paths crossed in intramural athletic competitions. We shared several classes. We were also in a men’s choir together. The more I saw of him, the more I realized that John was just a genuinely nice and caring guy. When the choir went on tour during the spring semester, John and I shared a room. That’s when we became friends.
At the time I didn’t realize that John was still a new believer. He had trusted Christ as Savior only a short time before coming to Bible college. He accepted the stringent rules that our little college laid down (or most of them), but displayed a talent for finding loopholes. For example, we were supposed to be in the dorms by 10:00 every night, but John noticed that the school had no rule about how early we could leave in the morning. So John began to plan outings that began shortly after midnight.
During our sophomore year, John and I worked together at an auto parts warehouse. When the school year ended, we kept our jobs and roomed together through the summer. I was courting the woman whom I would eventually marry, and John would sometimes join us with a date—though never the same one. John had already decided whom he wanted to marry. He was just waiting for her to catch on. That December John was in my wedding.
Susan eventually consented to marry John, and I was in their wedding the following July. She was the love of his life. He never deviated in his affection for her. Indeed, if one word characterized John, it was the word faithful: he was faithful to his marriage, faithful to his friendships, and faithful to his Lord.
After graduation John and I moved in different directions. He stayed in our college town, found a job, and reared a family. I went away to seminary in another state, then went on to minister in a variety of locations. Distance kept us apart, but whenever John knew that I was in the area he would take the initiative to look me up. His greeting was always warm. He was the sort of guy whose friendship did not require a big investment. I could go years without seeing him, and then he would pick up exactly where we had left off.
I last saw John about six months ago. His pastor invited me to preach in their church. With a crowd of people around, John waited patiently for his turn, and then offered to take Debbie and me to dinner. We were delighted with the opportunity to catch up, and when we arrived at the restaurant we discovered that John had also invited other people from our past. It was a characteristically thoughtful thing for him to do.
About a month ago I was out walking on a cold Saturday morning. While walking I phoned my parents, and my mother answered. Almost the first thing she said was, “Did you know that John Javaux died?” I was stunned—in fact, I thought she must have got the news wrong. But when I reached home and checked, it turned out to be true. John had been diagnosed with an advanced and aggressive cancer only a month before. During the rapid progress of the disease, neither he nor his family had time to let me know what was happening.
I wondered who might attend John’s funeral, and I realized that I knew little of his life since our paths had gone different ways. I’d met his children, of course, and I knew he was proud of them. I also knew that he’d mainly worked blue-collar jobs, usually more than one at a time, to provide for his family. But I didn’t know about other friendships or relationships that he had built.
What I discovered was overwhelming. He had been a member of a medium-sized church in a suburban setting. The crowds for both his visitation (which was the night before the funeral) and the funeral itself were overwhelming. As I talked with people, I began to understand why.
John was gifted at building relationships. He formed friendships easily and he used those friendships to minister to others. He invested time and interest in those around him. He never seemed to be the kind of person who wanted anything from others, but he was always the guy who was willing to go the extra mile. He cared about people and he gave his time and energy to them.
He was especially interested in college students. John would show interest in them, bring them into his home, befriend them, and mentor them. His easygoing ways made them feel at ease with him, and he counseled them as they faced the challenges of coming to maturity.
Furthermore, John’s faithfulness to his local church was exemplary. The skill of his hands and the strength of his back were always available for the jobs that needed to be done. He and Susan loved to work in the children’s ministries. John also served the church as a deacon for years. Again, his life touched people and changed them.
John Javaux was just an ordinary guy. He never had what most people think of as a career. He never won a Nobel Prize and was never a captain of industry. He wasn’t even a pastor or missionary. He was just a faithful man whose life affected an extraordinary number of people. He built himself into others, including me. His life is a testimony to how God can use an ordinary man.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Psalm 91
James Montgomery (1771–1854)
Call Jehovah thy salvation,
Rest beneath the Almighty’s shade,
In his secret habitation
Dwell, and never be dismay’d:
There no tumult shall alarm thee,
Thou shalt dread no hidden snare,
Guile nor violence can harm thee
In eternal safeguard there.
From the sword at noon-day wasting,
From the noisome pestilence,
In the depth of midnight blasting,
God shall be thy sure defence;
Fear not thou the deadly quiver,
When a thousand feel the blow,
Mercy shall thy soul deliver,
Though ten thousand be laid low.
Only with thine eyes the anguish
Of the wicked thou shalt see,
When by slow disease they languish,
When they perish suddenly:
Thee, though winds and waves be swelling,
God, thine hope, shall bear through all;
Plague shall not come nigh thy dwelling,
Thee no evil shall befall.

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part One: Robert Weckle
My parents were led to the Lord by a church planting missionary in Freeland, Michigan. I was only three or four years old. When that missionary left, the church went through a series of pastors. Some were more qualified and some less. The congregation finally called a church planter from the Fellowship of Baptists for Home Missions. He is the pastor who baptized me and who began to train me in the faith. His name was Robert Weckle, but the first time I met him he told me, “Kevin, just call me preacher!”
Preacher Weckle was not a great pulpiteer. His presentation emphasized biblical content over style. But he delivered content! In those days, everybody preached from a King James Bible. Preacher Weckle’s Bible was a Scofield Reference Bible, and he encouraged everybody to get one. He would sometimes announce his text by its page number in the Scofield Bible.
Of course Preacher Weckle was a dispensationalist. He owned a big dispensational chart, painted on canvas. Every few years he would hang it from a wire and stretch it across the front of our church auditorium. Then he would teach through the dispensations, usually on Sunday nights. I was fascinated with that chart, its pictures, and its intricacies. I loved to hear him teach as I kept one eye on the chart and the other eye on the notes in my father’s Scofield Bible.
Preacher Weckle fascinated me. He had more books than anybody I’d ever met. He knew more about the Bible than anyone I’d ever heard. As an adult I was surprised to discover that he had only a three-year diploma from Practical Bible Training Institute. He was one of the few people who could openly correct my father—an impressive feat in my childish eyes. Most of all, he cared deeply about his people and looked for opportunities to help them grow.
For example, he once took me fishing with his son. While we drowned worms in the Quaniccasee River, he spoke continuously of spiritual things. I also got to observe his character when his son accidentally locked the car keys in the trunk.
Our church bought a little bus that Preacher Weckle drove every week to pick up people for Sunday School. He would invite me to go with him, and he let me work the door. I was often in his home and he was often in ours. He taught me far more during those informal moments than I ever learned in church. That is saying something, because between the regular services and the special youth times, I could expect to be in some church activity no less than six hours every week.
During the summers, Preacher Weckle would drive that bus to Bible camp in northern Michigan. The camp had been one of Al Capone’s hideouts during the 1930s. Michigan Baptists bought the property during the 1950s. My father helped to erect the dining hall, many of the original cabins, and many of the first recreational facilities. My parents would take their vacation to work as counselors or kitchen help. When I was old enough, I attended as a camper.
Most of the week at camp was pure fun: games, swimming, handicrafts, and other forms of recreation. Preacher Weckle was almost always there, often volunteering to work in the kitchen. The spiritual emphasis was strong, with both morning and evening chapel services plus times for cabin and personal devotions, missionary presentations, and other spiritual activities. It was during one of those camping weeks that I first understood that the claims of Jesus Christ upon my life were truly absolute. At that point, I made the conscious choice to devote my life to whatever Christ wished. Preacher Weckle was there to take me aside and pray with me (and, as I recall, buy me pop at the canteen).
During the school year, the fundamental Baptist churches in our area would cooperate to sponsor a once-a-month youth rally on Saturday night. Between the camps and the youth rallies I slowly became aware that not all churches were just like ours. In those meetings I heard preaching that could electrify, encourage, and convict, but also some that could wound and bruise. While I couldn’t have described the difference then, many of those sermons were short on biblical content and long on opinions and stories. Some of them were manipulative. A few were even abusive. I didn’t know it, but I was experiencing the tension between different versions of fundamentalism, and these sometimes left me perplexed.
For his part, Preacher Weckle was usually careful about what he would allow in our church. For example, our church would host a one-week missionary conference and an evangelistic conference every year. For two years running, we had an evangelist who was a country-and-western singer and who had starred in a movie or two. He brought Hollywood-style publicity and techniques to his evangelistic meetings, and our auditorium overflowed during every service. People would stream forward at every invitation. Preacher Weckle, however, became deeply uncomfortable with the man’s approach. After the second year, the evangelist was not invited to return. So far as I can remember, none of the people who made decisions under that man’s preaching continued with our church.
Preacher Weckle was just an ordinary guy. He had no advanced academic preparation, little personal electricity, and hardly any showmanship. What he did have was a knowledge of the Bible, a willingness to pour his life into (often ungrateful) people, and a determination to keep on serving the Lord through difficult circumstances. I now know that I probably learned more Bible, more Christian doctrine, more philosophy of ministry, and more Christian character from Preacher Weckle than from nearly any other person. God used this ordinary man in an extraordinary way in my life.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Go, Labor On
Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)
Go, labor on; spend, and be spent,
thy joy to do the Father’s will;
it is the way the Master went;
should not the servant tread it still?
Go, labor on; ’tis not for naught;
thine earthly loss is heav’nly gain;
men heed thee, love thee, praise thee not;
the Master praises—what are men?
Go labor on; enough while here
if He shall praise thee, if He deign
thy willing heart to mark and cheer;
no toil for Him shall be in vain.
Go, labor on while it is day;
the world’s dark night is hast’ning on.
Speed, speed thy work, cast sloth away;
It is not thus that souls are won.
Toil on, faint not, keep watch and pray;
be wise the erring soul to win;
go forth into the world’s highway,
compel the wand’rer to come in.
Toil on, and in thy toil rejoice;
for toil comes rest, for exile home;
soon shall you hear the Bridegroom’s voice,
the midnight cry, “Behold, I come.”
Douglas R. McLachlan, Thirsting for Authenticity
Douglas R. McLachlan. Thirsting for Authenticity: Calling the Church to Robust Christianity. St. Michael, MN: Reference Point Publishers, 2017. 394 pages.
Back in the 1990s Douglas McLachlan published a helpful critique of fundamentalism entitled Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. Not everybody liked the book (Rolland McCune was particularly critical), but it had the effect of stabilizing a generation of younger fundamentalist leaders. McLachlan offered them a vision of fundamentalism and Christian ministry that captured their attention and gave them direction.
Now, more than a score of years later, McLachlan has published a second book, Thirsting for Authenticity. This book spends little time critiquing fundamentalism, though it does begin with a serious look at contemporary American Christianity and civilization. The book is essentially McLachlan’s philosophy of ministry, a call to be first-century Christians in a twenty-first century world.
Thirsting for Authenticity reads less like a work of research (though it has plenty of research behind it), and more like an extended sermon. As he articulates his vision of how Christ’s Church must confront modern decay, McLachlan explores text after text of the New Testament. He expounds the Scriptures with care, drawing out the implications for life and ministry. He offers more than abstract ideas. He was my pastor for a decade, and I watched him put the principles of this book to work in real ministry.
Readers who are looking for a salacious expose of all that is wrong with fundamentalism will be badly disappointed. Those who are searching for biblical principles that will help them to minister to a world that hates God, however, will find rich help. The book is worth reading. You can buy it here.

The Fundamentalists and Billy Graham
Some of you new students may not understand just exactly why we take the position we take in regard to Billy Graham’s ecumenical evangelism…. Billy Graham and I have been for many years personal friends. This is not a personal difference between my father and Dr. Graham—that is what defenders of Dr. Graham’s policies try to imply. There is nothing personal in our stand. I would to God that Billy Graham were following a Scriptural program so we could endorse it. We are against anything unscriptural; and, therefore, we have to take a stand against this ecumenical evangelism, even when it is our friends who are guilty of Scriptural disobedience. It is not because Dr. Graham is involved—it is in spite of the fact that Dr. Graham is involved—that we have to take our stand…. I am not questioning Dr. Graham’s sincerity; I am not questioning his motives. I am only saying that what he is doing is unscriptural; and, therefore, Bob Jones University cannot endorse it.
—Bob Jones Jr.
The fundamentalist movement took shape around two great controversies. The first was a struggle with religious liberalism for control of the old, main-line denominations. Fundamentalists lost that fight almost everywhere. As they exited their denominations, they built up a large, independent network of both new denominations (e.g., the IFC and the GARBC) and non-denominational institutions. These institutions included schools, missions, book houses, magazines, papers, evangelistic agencies, inter-church councils, radio ministries, and youth organizations. By the 1940s this fundamentalist network had become a powerful vehicle through which American fundamentalists were working around the world.
The second great controversy was a contest with neoevangelicalism for the soul of this fundamentalist network. Cracks in fundamentalist solidarity appeared as early as 1941-42, when the ACCC and the NAE took conflicting positions on the practice of ecclesiastical separation. Neoevangelicalism congealed as a party in 1947 with the founding of Fuller Seminary, the launching of Christianity Today, and the organization of the Conservative Baptist Association. The real contest, however, began in about 1956 with the buildup to evangelist Billy Graham’s New York City crusade.
The debate was over Graham’s use of non-Christians (as the fundamentalists saw it) in leadership positions during his crusades. By adopting this policy of “cooperative evangelism,” Graham made himself the de facto captain of the neoevangelical cause. Harsh words and harsher deeds followed on both sides. So stern were the fundamentalists’ words that some assumed they felt only contempt for Billy Graham. Others have suggested that there was bad blood between fundamentalists and Graham from the time that Graham left Bob Jones College as a very young man. Neither perspective is correct.
Below is a photograph taken in 1949, when Billy Graham was the president of Northwestern Schools in Minneapolis. It shows a spoof, a skit during a relaxed moment at Northwestern. In the picture, Richard V. Clearwaters stands as if teaching a class. In the back row of the class sits Marie Acomb Riley (W. B. Riley’s widow) wearing a dunce’s cap. To her left, and hamming it up for the camera, is President Billy Graham.
Clearwaters was the pastor of Fourth Baptist Church in Minneapolis. He was, and would remain until his death, one of the most important voices within separatist fundamentalism. He was also the dean of the seminary at Northwestern. When Northwestern closed its seminary in 1956, Clearwaters (with the blessing of Northwestern) picked up the pieces and reorganized them into Central Baptist Theological Seminary—at almost exactly the moment when Billy Graham was committing to cooperative evangelism. Clearwaters opposed the direction that Graham took, but he never stopped loving Billy Graham.
The next year, the Minnesota Baptist Convention established Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, which called Monroe Parker as its president. Parker had been a powerful influence over the young Billy Graham. At one time Graham claimed to have been saved under Parker’s preaching. He later decided that he had actually been converted earlier, under the preaching of Mordecai Ham—but he still recognized the importance of decisions made with Parker. Parker was a seasoned evangelist who brought Graham along in that calling. Parker was also a leading voice for separatist fundamentalism, and after 1956 he and Graham found themselves opposing each other’s policies. To the time of his death, however, Parker would discuss Billy Graham with a tear in his eye and a tug in his heart. Monroe Parker never stopped loving Billy Graham.
Bob Jones Sr. was one of the most important evangelists of the older generation. Graham attended Jones’s college in Cleveland, Tennessee, before transferring to a school in Florida. Contrary to what some have thought, Bob Jones kept up a relationship with the young Graham, and so did his son, Bob Jones Jr. Over the years Billy was a welcome guest in the Jones home. As he developed into a powerful evangelist, the Joneses believed in and supported his ministry. They only parted ways when Billy chose to pursue cooperative evangelism. For years after that debate began, however, Bob Jones Jr. was still publicly professing his friendship for Billy Graham. As nearly as I can tell, the Joneses never stopped loving Billy Graham.
During the 1950s no fundamentalist was closer to Billy Graham than John R. Rice. Not only was he a significant backer of Graham, but Graham also served on Rice’s board. When Graham committed himself to cooperative evangelism in 1956, no one felt the rupture more deeply than Rice. The older evangelist shed many tears when he found himself opposed to his younger protégé. But John R. Rice never, ever stopped loving Billy Graham.
Anyone who wants to understand the fundamentalist view of Billy Graham has to remember just how deeply Billy was loved in fundamentalist circles and how heavily fundamentalist leaders had invested in his ministry. When Billy adopted the method of cooperative evangelism, they could hardly believe it. Worse, Billy was using his old, fundamentalist connections to draw people into cooperative evangelism after him. That is when disbelief gave way to disappointment, and disappointment to a necessary, public opposition. The difference was a serious one, and these leaders felt the need to say something, since Graham threatened to sweep their followers after him by the strength of his charisma. They felt perplexed and betrayed. But they never stopped loving Billy Graham, even when they disagreed publicly and sharply with his methods.
Those leaders of separatist fundamentalism all went to be with the Lord in heaven long ago, but their young protégé lived to ninety-nine years. Then last week he, too, slipped home into heaven. By now he has embraced Monk, and Doc, and John R., and the Joneses. Fellowship that was broken more than half a century ago has now been healed, and it will never be broken again. We long for the day when that can be said of all of us.
Photo provided courtesy of Drs. Charles and Helen Aling. Taken by Don Nelson at Northwestern Schools in late 1948. Pictured are Richard V. Clearwaters (speaking), Jean Makas, Leroy Gager, Billy Graham, Marie Acomb Riley, George Makas, and Gerry Bevin.
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 Hidden Love of God
Paul Gerhardt (1607–1676); tr. John Wesley (1703–1791)
Thou hidden Love of God, whose height,
whose depth unfathomed, no man knows,
I see from far Thy beauteous light,
and inly sigh for Thy repose;
my heart is pained, nor can it be
at rest till it finds rest in Thee.
‘Tis mercy all that Thou hast brought
my mind to seek its peace in Thee;
yet, while I seek, but find Thee not,
no peace my wand’ring soul shall see.
O when shall all my wand’rings end,
and all my steps to Thee-ward tend?
Is there a thing beneath the sun
that strives with Thee my heart to share?
Ah! tear it thence, and reign alone,
the Lord of ev’ry motion there;
then shall my heart from earth be free,
when it has found repose in Thee.
O hide this self from me, that I
no more, but Christ in me, may live;
my vile affections crucify,
nor let one darling lust survive;
in all things nothing may I see,
nothing desire, or seek, but Thee.
O Love, Thy sov’reign aid impart
to save me from low-thoughted care;
chase this self-will from all my heart,
from all its hidden mazes there;
make me Thy duteous child, that I
may ceaseless “Abba, Father,” cry.
Each moment draw from earth away
my heart, that lowly waits Thy call;
speak to my inmost soul, and say
“I am Thy Love, Thy God, Thy all.”
To feel Thy pow’r, to hear Thy voice,
to taste Thy love, be all my choice!

Freedom of the Will?
Imagine a man who has, somewhere deep within his cranium, a pair of dice. Every time he has to make a decision, a spasm in his brain casts these dice. How the dice roll is what determines the choice. In other words, every decision is pure, random chance.
Would it make sense to say that such a person was free?
Let’s put a label on those dice. Let’s call them his will. This man’s will is completely contingent. It is free from all interference from anything outside itself. Nothing can determine the will. The will is free, but the man is a slave. He is imprisoned by the caprice of arbitrary, random accident. His choices reflect nothing rational and nothing sensible, for however much rationality and sensibility may influence his will, neither is allowed to determine it. In fact, we probably shouldn’t even talk about the will being influenced; that word is virtually meaningless as long as the will is fully free.
Under these circumstances, we cannot rightly speak of the man making a choice. The choice is being made for him, because his naked will is not him. The choosing will is itself nothing more than a random throw of the dice. The decision is made by this contingent will, unshaped and unsupported by either his thought or his feeling. Consequently, only the will is free. The man himself is just along for the ride.
It does not help to object that the decision must be his because the dice are his dice, i.e., the will is his will. By its very contingency the will has been cut off from everything that makes him him. His rationality—what he knows or thinks he knows—must be factored out of the equation. His sensibilities—what he loves and hates—must also be factored out of the equation. If his will is truly free, that is, if his will is genuinely contingent, then neither his knowledge nor his loves can ever be sufficient to determine the will. When everything else has been factored away, only the naked will remains, like dice being cast, choosing randomly for the man.
Nor does it help to object that the will is generating its own choices. These words, “generating its own choices,” are merely a more verbose way of saying, “throwing the dice”—and the dice are still thrown by a mere spasm, unreasoning and unfeeling. If there were more than this to the will generating its own choices, then the will would have to possess some reason or sensibility of its own, separately from the reason and sensibility of the person for whom it is choosing. In other words, the will would become a little, choosing person within the person for whom it chooses. It would become a daemon. Then we would discover that this daemon was making its choices when a spasm in its brain cast the dice.
The suggestion that the will somehow generates its own choices does not free the enslaved person. If the will is a daemon, choosing arbitrarily for the person whom it inhabits, then the person has no freedom. We would rightly consider such a person to be mad. If I were such a person, I would insist upon being locked up in an asylum for the protection of those whom I loved. After all, I could never know when my will might randomly determine that I was to commit some horror, some heinous act, contrary to all that I believed and treasured. I would be better off imprisoned externally as long as my daemonically free will already holds me prisoner internally.
There is no escaping an important conclusion. Whenever the will is truly free (that is, ultimately free to choose contrary to all knowledge and love), then the person is a slave. The will itself is utterly undetermined, but it utterly determines the actions of the person. Otherwise we end up with the contradiction of a man who chooses against his will; in other words, he chooses what he does not choose.
Whenever the will is truly free, then the person is a slave. On the other hand, for the person to be truly free, then the will itself must be subject to determination. Genuinely free persons choose (i.e., will) on the basis of some combination of what they know or think they know and what they love or hate. In other words, for free persons, some combination of rationality and sensibility must always determine the will—and if the will is determined, then it is not free.
Furthermore, only if the will is determined can we say that the person is making the choice. Persons are more than their wills. Personhood includes both rationality and sensibility. When wills make decisions contingently (without determination by rationality and sensibility), then they are choosing for persons. When rationality and sensibility determine wills, then the persons themselves are making the choices. In this case, the will is not a separate thing from the deciding persons; rather, the will is simply whatever choice the deciding persons make.
I do not intend here to trace the balance of rationality and sensibility in genuinely free choices. Rather, I simply wish to note that a person who chooses on the basis of rationality and sensibility is truly free, even though that person’s will is determined. A person whose will is truly free (contingent or self-determining) is always enslaved.
In sum, freedom can be viewed in two ways: either as freedom of the will, or else as freedom of the person. Whichever definition of freedom you think is best, you are going to end up with some form of determinism. The freedom of the will results in the slavery of the person. The freedom of the person demands the determination of the will.
Finally, I wish to observe that there are accepted labels for each of these visions or theories of the will. On the one hand, the notion that wills choose contingently and that they generate their own choices is called libertarianism. As we have seen, if libertarian freedom is true, then the will is free but the person is a slave. On the other hand, the notion that persons choose on the basis of some combination of what they know or think they know and what they love or hate is called compatibilism. If compatibilism is true, then the genuine freedom of persons is fully compatible with determination of the will—indeed, for persons to be fully free, wills must be determined.
Each of us must choose one of these theories. The question is, how will we choose? Will we choose on the basis of what seems reasonable and sensible? Or will we insist that rationality and sensibility be factored out of the equation so that our wills are left naked to choose contingently for themselves?
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.
To God the Only Wise
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
To God the only wise,
Our Savior and our King,
Let all the saints below the skies
Their humble praises bring.
’Tis His almighty love,
His counsel and His care,
Preserves us safe from sin and death,
And ev’ry hurtful snare.
He will present our souls
Unblemished and complete,
Before the glory of His face,
With joys divinely great.
Then all the chosen seed
Shall meet around the throne,
Shall bless the conduct of His grace,
And make His wonders known.
To our Redeemer God
Wisdom and pow’r belongs,
Iimmortal crowns of majesty,
And everlasting songs.
Billy Graham, Revivalism, and the City of Angels
Few deny that the modern American religious landscape has been shaped by revivalism. From Whitefield to Finney, Wesley to Sunday, revivalism has played a vital role in the formation of evangelicalism. In fact, one cannot understand North American evangelicalism without first understanding revivalism. Revivalism, like all religious phenomena, cannot be rightly examined outside its events and personalities. Indeed, one such event and one such man personally contextualizes 20th century revivalism more than most. The man: Billy Graham. The place: Los Angeles. This post will examine the Billy Graham Los Angeles Crusade of 1949 as a definitive event leading to a rebirth of revivalism in the mid 20th century. It will accomplish this by comparing certain distinctives of revivalism to the events that occurred in and the characteristics of the crusade.
The Crusade
A brief overview of the events of the crusade is necessary to begin this comparison. In early 1949, the executive committee of the “Christ for Greater Los Angeles” committee invited Graham to host revival meetings in Los Angeles.[1] This committee hosted annual revival meetings, and always invited a well-known fundamentalist preacher to gather a respectable crowd. The meetings were to be nightly, beginning on September 25 and continuing for three weeks.[2] Although Graham desired a large-scale event, he was faced with apathy and even pessimism. Many churches and pastors did not enthusiastically support the meetings. In one instance, Graham and an associate had visited a local Los Angeles church for the midweek service and, while the pastor cordially asked for prayer concerning the meetings, he closed by saying the possibility for a great revival in that area was, to the learned student, “a lot of nonsense.”[3]
This type of attitude did not deter the zealous Graham however, who sent another associate, Grady Wilson, to Los Angeles to organize a massive prayer effort. As a result, things began to take shape. William Martin states, “For the first time, a Billy Graham campaign began to assume what would eventually become its mature form. Nine months before the meetings began, he engaged veteran revivalists Edwin Orr and Armin Gesswein to conduct preparatory meetings throughout the Los Angeles area.”[4] Graham wanted to begin a grassroots organization that would set these meetings apart from any other. Graham pulled out all the stops by insisting that the Christ for Greater Los Angeles committee spend $25,000 for posters, billboards, and radio announcements. Graham recalls these media spots as having a three-fold purpose: “First, they were to try and broaden church support to include as many churches and denominations as possible. Second, they were to raise their budget from $7,000 to $25,000 in order to invest more in advertising and promotion. Third, they were to erect a much larger tent than they had planned.”[5] As a culmination of his efforts, he met with the Hollywood Christian Group to ask the actors and actresses to use their names and testimonies to influence the campaign.[6]
On the eve of the meetings, Graham was plagued with theological doubts and questions, the most important being the inerrancy of Scripture. After being counseled by friends and spending a night of reflection and introspection in the dry mountains outside Los Angeles, Graham came down refreshed and inspired. Like a modern-day Moses, Graham attacked the pulpit with energy of a zealous prophet. After a rousing musical performance and a plea for financial offerings, Graham opened the meetings with a sermon entitled “We Need Revival.” The thrust of his message was an attack upon the materialism, immorality, and paganism of contemporary America along with a plea for a return to “old time religion.”[7] His message was filled with fervor and his oration was that of an honest backwoods preacher, pleading with his fellow humans. In the end, it was apparent that the audience was spiritually moved, some even visibly shaken. Even so, after two weeks of nightly meetings, not much was happening. Initial press releases only received six inches of space on the back page of the next day’s paper.
Thus far, the meetings were not the success that Graham had hoped for. During the final week however, two events changed Graham’s outlook and the nation’s perception. First, media tycoon, William Randolph Hearst instructed his journalistic minions to “puff Graham,” commanding an army of editors to make Graham front-page news.[8] Instantly, hundreds of reporters and photographers swarmed the crusade, not only reporting nearly every word, but also describing in details the mood and response of the listeners. Overnight, Graham’s revival meetings were transformed into a media frenzy. The second event involved an unlikely ally from among Hollywood’s elite. Stuart Hamblen, a popular radio talk host and known gambler, announced on his radio show that Graham’s ministry had helped him become a Christian and was going to change his life around.[9] The combination of Hearst’s media empire and Hamblen’s popularity made Graham an instant celebrity, propelling him to the popular spotlight with stories in Time, Life, and the Associated Press.[10] After meeting with his team, Graham decided to extend the meetings from three to eight weeks. At the end of the crusade, all expectations and attendance records had been crushed. 350,000 people had attended the 70 meetings and a total of 2,703 made first time decisions for Christ.[11] The numbers, however could not include the thousands of families that were changed and the total spiritual fruition of the work. Graham’s crusade had been a resounding success.
Evaluation
To examine the Los Angeles Crusade in light of normative revivalism, one must first set up parameters to define revivalism. Russell Richey, in his article, “Revivalism: In Search of a Definition,” clearly defined and described revivalism in its American context. [12] Richey proposes that the study of revivalism is not necessarily a portrayal or screen, but a constellation of ingredients. These ingredients form a cohesive unity of characteristics, providing a backdrop on which to examine certain religious phenomena, such as the Los Angeles Crusade.
Richey’s first characteristic of revivalism is that it is founded upon Pietism. He states, “The association of revivalism with Pietism is so close that one can hardly appropriately ask whether revivalism has existed or can exist apart from Pietism. Certainly, we can argue that a pietist-like ethos seems vital.”[13] Pietism’s emphasis upon spiritual expression and experience acts as a direct adhesive to the personal aspect of revivalism. Communal revivalism cannot occur divorced from personal devotion, responsibility before God, and the sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.[14] The Los Angeles Crusade was characterized by a “pietist-like ethos.” For example, in his first sermon, Graham outlined the steps needed for revival to occur in Los Angeles. He said, “First, realization of a need and desire for revival. The second condition for revival is repentance. Do you know what repentance is? Repentance is confession of sin, . . . sorrow for sin, . . . [and] renouncing sin. And then the third is to pray.”[15] It is certainly no stretch to clearly see the emphasis on a deeply personally and spiritual endeavor.
The second characteristic of revivalism is a theology and practice that is conducive to aggressive proselytism.[16] McDow and Reid are quoted as saying, “Every revival in history has produced significant numbers of conversions.”[17] The Los Angeles Crusade was the most significant mass evangelistic event since Billy Sunday’s revivals. The numbers were staggering. Thousands of people eagerly waited on the corner of Washington Blvd. and Hill St. each afternoon to hear the preacher in the “Canvas Cathedral.” Graham even wrote to his friend Luverne Gustavson, “If you could have seen the great tent packed yesterday afternoon with 6,100 people and several hundred turned away, and even scores of people walking down the aisles from every direction accepting Christ as personal Savior . . . .”[18] As stated before, attendance estimates surpassed 350,000 people, and with over 2,000 salvation decisions, the Los Angeles Crusade certainly qualifies as a major revival.
This crowd phenomena produces more than mere numbers, it produces a visible sign that engraves itself into the psyche of a generation. Richey states, “Revivalism proper, . . . does not refer to change that happens piecemeal over time and that might be discernable only after the fact. It is a visible event, a visible happening, and a species of crowd behavior. Revivalism happens. It happens to crowds.”[19] The Los Angeles Crusade was not an unusual causal event in a chain reaction that produced slow growth; it was an explosive event that captured the area by storm. One could hardly ride a Los Angeles cab in late October of 1949 or sit in a beauty parlor without overhearing a rousing conversation about Graham. Harold J. Ockenga later said of Graham concerning a New England revival, “For two hundred years there has been no such movement in New England. George Whitefield was the last man who stirred New England in such a way.”[20] Indeed, all of America opened newspapers and tuned to frequencies to hear news of Graham’s revival. This aggressive proselytism and immediate popular phenomena that characterized revivalism prior to the mid 20th century was now suddenly evident in Los Angeles.
The next characteristic of revivalism to examine as it pertains to Graham’s crusade is its tendency to assume societal and cultural declension.[21] Russell states, “It would perhaps be more accurate to say that revivalism assumes a worldview in which declension is premised – nature is pitted against grace.”[22] He demonstrates that there are two aspects to this characteristic. First, revivalism holds the major premise of a sort of theological entropy; the world will wax worse and worse. The minor premise is assumed that God has judged, is judging, and will judge societal evil on a massive scale. The conclusion; because the world is waxing worse, and God will certainly judge societal evil, then the recipients of the sermon – partakers in the evilness of society – are to repent lest terrible judgment fall upon them.[23] This type of societal damnation preaching had existed well before Graham and is truly indicative of revivalism. Charles Finney is said to have once preached in a small town where he was unknown. During the singing, he noticed that the audience was filled with “wild-looking” men, many in their shirtsleeves. Finney immediately stood up and quoted from Genesis saying, “Up, get out of this place, for the Lord will destroy this city.”[24] He subsequently referred to that particular town as “Sodom.”[25] Leonard Ravenhill, in his passionate plea for revival said, “How right Edwards was! What obligations has God to a people like us whose aggregate sin as a nation in one day is more than the sin of Sodom and her sister city, Gomorrah, in one year?[26]
In a homiletical sense, Graham’s Los Angeles Crusade was classic Finney. In his opening sermon, “We need revival,” Graham began by reading Isaiah 1:1-20. He then immediately posed a choice to the audience, “Remember, the verse we just read, ‘Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom….’”[27] He wasted no time in tearing into the audience by using examples from his recent visit to Europe to tell of the devastation and absolute wreckage that humanity can cause. He stated that the only reason why America escaped such wreckage is because of godly people. However, America would not escape for long! He delved into the topics of moral corruption, crime, sexual promiscuity, gambling, teen-age delinquency, and alcoholism, giving statistics with every subject. He climaxed by disclosing the ever-popular war between Western culture and Communism.
Communism is not only an economic interpretation of life – Communism is a religion that is inspired, directed and motivated by the Devil himself…. Now for the first time in the history of the world we have the weapon with which to destroy ourselves – the atomic bomb. I am persuaded that time is desperately short! Three months ago, in the House of Parliament, a British statesman told me that the British government feels we have only five to ten years and our civilization will be ended.[28]
Certainly, Graham used pre-tested and evidently successful revivalist techniques in his homilies. The presence of direct societal declension and impending judgment were crucial to Graham’s plea.
The next characteristic of revivalism is communication network. Richey defines this as “a means by which the Spirit’s working becomes known, a way by which a specific episode or series of conversions are claimed by the larger community.”[29] There are three aspects to this characteristic: pre-revival communication networking, continuous communication during a revival, and post-revival effect. The pre-revival communication is absolutely essential to the success of revivalism. Originally, pre-revival planning was made up of mainly prayer. A.T. Pierson said, “There has never been a spiritual awakening in any country or locality that did not begin with prayer.”[30] In 1859, D. L. Moody established a group of prayer warriors known as the “Illinois Band” to pray before and during any board or revival meetings.[31] Preparation also included some form of logistical plan. Focusing on laymen and committee involvement, as well as advertisements were prevalent.[32] Graham took this ideology to an extreme. In late summer of 1949, the Christ for Greater Los Angeles Committee shifted the crusade planning into high gear. They were able to get some 250 Protestant churches involved – almost a quarter of the Protestant churches in Los Angeles.[33] As stated previously, Graham insisted that the advertising budget be raised to an unprecedented $25,000. Celebrity endorsement, the full support from a Youth for Christ-style campaign, and even public endorsement from the mayor all helped to spread the message. Prayer teams from churches and para-church organizations were released en masse. This pre-revival communication and advertisement network dwarfed all previous.
Though the turning point did not come until during the crusade – Stuart Hamblen’s radio address and media mogul Randolph Hearst’s simple command to perpetuate Graham propelled the crusade to new heights. These two key events changed the outcome of the crusade and would leave an indelible mark on pre-revival networks for years to come.
Even after the crusade ended, the effects of the pre-revival preparations and the events during the revival itself reverberated throughout the country. This reverberation was carried along on the backs of modern media. The full effects of Hearst’s blessing were now being felt. Newspapers throughout the country ran full-length articles on the “Old Time Religion That Sweeps Los Angeles.”[34] Graham concluded his thoughts on the effect of the revival by saying
When we [Graham and his wife] got to Minneapolis, the press was again there to interview us… Until then it had not fully registered with me how far-reaching the impact of the Los Angeles campaign had been. I would learn over the next few weeks that the phenomenon of that Los Angeles tent Campaign at Washington and Hill Streets would forever change the face of my ministry and my life. Overnight we had gone from being a little evangelistic team, … to what appeared to many to be the hope for national and international revival.[35]
Another key aspect in recognizing true revivalism is its distinct liturgy. While individual liturgical forms may vary in relation to their respective geographical locations and cultures, there is still always a definite ritualistic form that each revival will take.[36] For example, the well-known revivalist Charles Finney introduced the “altar call” during the Cane Ridge Revival.[37] Though people would often rush forward after a service as the result of revival, Finney made this emotional phenomenon normative by issuing an “explicit invitation to come down the aisle as a response to the gospel, a move that was quite effective in bringing about the desired results.”[38] Another example would be Finney’s “anxious seat.” He arranged several pews in the front of church to “assist” people who wanted to get right with God.[39] Emotional appeals and psychological manipulations created an experiential liturgy, which continued to defined revivalism.[40]
Graham’s preaching and invitation style resembled this liturgical form. Dazzling performances, massive banners, emotional pleas, and spellbinding soloists were all part of Graham’s repeated repertoire. [41] Instead of “dry” orthodox church surroundings, Graham’s crusade was held in a massive “Canvas Cathedral” complete with sawdust floor, thousands of seats, and plenty of aisle room for the invitation.[42] Graham not only typified revival liturgy but also set an undeniable precedent. Almost every crusade that followed was patterned after the style and practice of the Los Angeles Crusade.[43]
The final aspect of revivalism is charisma. Revivals tend to center around a charismatic leader or preacher. Richey states, “Specifically, they [revivals] depend upon charismatic leadership. It is the leader, the revivalist, around whom the drama of a revival unfolds. So critical have been the revivalists to the phenomenon that we tend to conflate the two, revivalist and revival.”[44] Often the success or failure of the revival rests squarely upon the shoulders and talents of said individual. This charisma is manifested in several different ways. First, physical language plays a vital role in charismatic leadership. Powerful sentiments and stirring oration are indispensable to the revivalist. C. H. Spurgeon once said of Whitefield’s sermons – after only reading them “In these sermons one perceives the coals of Jupiter and hot thunderbolts, which mark him out to be a true Boanerges (son of thunder).”[45] Another type of language, not merely body language, but also excitement, severity, and action is just as necessary. The famed evangelist Billy Sunday was said to be a “physical sermon.” Describing Sunday, William Ellis said “The intensity of his physical exertions – gestures is hardly an adequate word – certainly enhances the effect of the preacher’s earnestness. Some of the platform activities of Sunday make spectators gasp. He races to and fro across the platform. One hand smites the other. His foot stamps the floor as if to destroy it.”[46]
Though Graham was not an acrobat or “son of thunder” per se, he embodied the physical and oratory excitement necessary for leading a revivalistic event. Stanley High, another early biographer, described Graham’s oral and physical delivery by saying “The way he preached was pretty much in the tradition of the ‘Hot Gospeller.’ His voice was strident. He was inclined to rant. The same sound effects in politics would, in most places, be called demagoguery.”[47] McLoughlin adds, “The drama of Graham’s delivery is heightened by the way he acts out his words. As he retells the old Biblical stories of heroes, villains, and saints, he imitates their voices, assumes their postures, struts, gesticulates, crouches, and sways to play each part.”[48] Graham described his own feelings when he preached the Los Angeles Crusade saying, “I felt as though I had a rapier in my hand and, through the power of the Bible, was slashing deeply into men’s consciences, leading them to surrender to God.”[49] During the Los Angeles Crusade, Graham’s preaching seemed to come alive with fervor. His charisma engulfed his whole body and his physical communication struck every soul. His preaching certainly followed in the steps of past revivalists.
Another aspect to charismatic leadership is popularity. Every era in revivalism can be readily identified with either one individual or a small group of individuals. While this is broadly true for all Christian eras, it is especially apropos for revivalism. Popularity, power of message, and organizational abilities can all contribute to revivalist leadership. Benjamin Franklin once described Whitefield as a leader “who could at any time and anywhere, collect in the open air, an audience of many thousands, with out offering a single heretical novelty.”[50] It is no stretch to think that if Franklin were impressed with the abilities of Whitefield during that era of revivalism, he would be obliged to recognize Graham’s during the Los Angeles Crusade. It was said that, “it would seem to be God’s purpose to choose a man who will sum up in himself the yearnings of his time – a man divinely gifted and empowered.”[51] Graham clearly fit the bill. Not only did Graham precipitate the resurrection of revivalism, he also became its new identity. Popular Graham biographer, James Kilgore even claimed that Graham should “be counted in the company of Charles G. Finney, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, D. L. Moody, and Billy Sunday.”[52] Revivalism had been reborn and rebranded.
Conclusion
The Los Angeles Crusade of 1949 was more than a mere revival; it was the rebirth of revivalism in the mid 20th century. The characteristics of revivalism were all clearly present in Graham. The crusade clearly created a pietistic-like ethos and Graham’s messages were founded in an evangelism that was conducive to aggressive proselytism. Thousands and thousands were emotionally charged and spiritually changed. His message proclaimed cultural digression and impending societal doom. Graham planned the crusade with an aggressive communication network that exploded with growth during the crusade and continued with ramifications well after. The style and practice of the crusade directly emulated the liturgical past of revivalism. Graham began to embody important leadership abilities during this crusade that would soon propel him to international fame and define him as the undisputed guru of modern revivalism.
[1]William G. McLoughlin, Billy Graham, Revivalist in a Secular Age (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960), 45.
[2]Ibid.
[3]Good News in Bad Times (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953), 155.
[4]William Martin, A Prophet with Honor (New York: William Morrow and Company Inc., 1991), 113.
[5]Billy Graham, Just as I am (San Francisco: Zondervan, 1997), 144.
[6] Martin, A Prophet with Honor, 113.
[7] McLoughlin, Billy Graham, Revivalist in a Secular Age, 47.
[8]Ibid.
[9]Fred Hoffman, Revival Times in America (Boston: W.A. Wilde Company, 1956), 173.
[10]Joel Carpenter, Revive Us Again (New York: Oxford Press, 1997), 226.
[11]Orr, Good News In Bad Times, 161.
[12]Wall Street Journal 28 (1993): 166. In this article, Richey explores ten distinctives of revivalism and describes their relationship to historical events. All ten need not be explored because several are subsets of one another.
[13]Ibid., 167.
[14]D. Martin Lloyd-Jones describes these in his chapter on the characteristics of revival. He directly ties personal pietism as foundational to corporate revival. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Revival (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1987), 105-117.
[15]Billy Graham, Revival in Our Time (Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1950), 59.
[16] Richey, “Revivalism: In Search of a Definition,” 285.
[17]Malcolm McDow and Alvin Reid, Firefall (Nashville: Broadman & Holman 1997), 21.
[18]John Pollock, Crusades: 20 Years with Billy Graham (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1969), 59.
[19] Richey, “Revivalism: In Search of a Definition,” 169.
[20] McDow and Reid, Firefall, 304. This is pertinent because the Los Angeles Crusade of 1949 was the model for nearly every following revival until 1960.
[21] Richey, “Revivalism: In Search of a Definition,” 168.
[22] Ibid.
[23]Graham once said, “Just one wrong move by some of our diplomats could plunge us all into eternity by intercontinental missiles and hydrogen bombs. Come and give your life to Christ while there is still time.” Charlotte Observer (Charlotte), 16 October 1958.
[24]John Shearer, Old Time Revivals (Philadelphia: The Million Testaments Campaign, 1932), 57.
[25]Ibid.
[26]Leonard Ravenhill, Sodom had no Bible (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1971), 27.
[27]Graham, Revival in Our Time, 53.
[28]Ibid.
[29] Richey, “Revivalism: In Search of a Definition,” 171.
[30] McDow and Reid, Firefall, 117.
[31]Ibid., 119.
[32]W. A. Tyson, The Revival (Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1925), 60-62.
[33]Carpenter, Revive Us Again, 222.
[34]Billy Graham, Just as I am, 144. This was a November headline for an Indiana newspaper. After such phenomena, Graham said, “Reporters were comparing me with Billy Sunday, church leaders were quoted as saying that the Campaign was ‘the greatest religious revival in the history of Southern California,” 151.
[35]Ibid., 158.
[36]Richey, “Revivalism: In Search of a Definition,” 170. “Revivals are revivals and are recognizable as revivals because they have definite ritual form.”
[37]Douglas Porter and Elmer Towns, The Ten Greatest Revivals Ever (Ann Arbor: Servant Publications, 2000), 102.
[38]Ibid.
[39]Ibid.
[40]See Raymond Edman, Finney Lives On (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1951). The chapter “The Pattern of Revival: The Pew and the Pulpit.” Edman describes Finney’s reasoning for his preaching and service forms.
[41]See Robert J. Wells, “Music and the Revival,” ed. How to Have a Revival (Wheaton: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1946).
[42]William Martin, A Prophet with Honor, 112.
[43]See Pollock, Crusades: 20 Years with Billy Graham.
[44] Richey, “Revivalism: In Search of a Definition,” 171.
[45]Mack Caldwell, George Whitefield, Preacher to Millions (Anderson, Ind.: The Warner Press, 1929), 112.
[46]William Ellis, “Billy” Sunday, The Man and His Message (n.p., L. T. Myers, 1914), 138. One chapter in this book is entitled “Acrobatic Preacher” which includes a fanciful caricature chart of Sunday’s postures and expressions.
[47]Stanley High, Billy Graham (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956), 86.
[48] McLoughlin, Billy Graham, Revivalist in a Secular Age, 125.
[49]Billy Graham, “Biblical Authority in Evangelism,” Christianity Today 1 (1956): 6.
[50] Caldwell, George Whitefield, Preacher to Millions, 112.
[51]James Kilgore, Billy Graham the Preacher (New York: Exposition Press, 1968), 25. Kilgore is quoting Charles Cook in reference to Graham.
[52]Ibid., 16.

Mandate?
Genesis 1:28 is sometimes called the cultural mandate: “And God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” The context is God’s creation of humanity, and this verse is widely assumed to represent God’s commission to the human race, God’s most fundamental commandment to all of humanity, a commandment that all people, saved and lost, are obligated to obey. Some (especially various classes of Kuyperians) have also seen it as an essential Christian duty.
The notion of a cultural mandate is firmly settled among most evangelicals. The person who questions whether Genesis 1:28 contains a mandate at all—well, such a person invites stares of incredulity and snickers of derision. How could the verse be more plain? After all, God speaks, and what He says takes the form of an imperative. Imperatives are commands. Of course, the verse is a mandate.
Except for one thing.
Imperatives are not always commands. The imperative mood can be used in a variety of ways; issuing commands is only one of those ways. For example, imperatives are used to express invitation: “Come over to my house and enjoy a drink!” Imperatives are used to grant permissions: “I see you looking at those cookies—go ahead and take one.” Imperatives are used for offering apologies or pleading for forgiveness: “I’m sorry, excuse me.” Imperatives can be used for purposes of solicitation or advertising: “Step right up here, folks!” or “Drink Pepsi!”
Scriptural uses of the imperative run parallel to these everyday uses. The harlot invites the empty-headed youth into her house with the imperative, “Come!” (Prov. 7:18). Pharaoh gives Joseph permission to bury Jacob with the imperatives “go” and “bury” (Gen. 50:6). Joab deploys the imperative when giving Ahimaaz permission to run (2 Sam. 18:21). David appeals for God’s forgiveness with imperative verbs (Ps. 51:3). God solicits a right response from Israel in Isaiah 1:18, again using the imperative mood.
All of these examples, whether from everyday conversation or from the Old Testament, employ imperatives. None of them, however, issues a command. In ordinary speech, people have little difficulty recognizing that they are not being ordered around when they hear imperatives used in these ways.
Imperatives also have at least one other use, and it is an important one. The imperative mood can be used to express maledictions and benedictions—wishes either for ill (curses) or for good (blessings). So when Commander Spock says, “Live long and prosper,” he is pronouncing an imperative, but he is not issuing a command. When the Chaldeans say to Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever,” they are uttering a benediction, not ordering him around (Dan. 2:4). The same thing is happening with the person behind the counter at the drug store who says, “Have a nice day.” No right-thinking person responds, “Who are you to tell me what to do?” Even ordinary people—those who have no idea what the imperative mood might be—recognize that these are not orders. Yet the language of blessing and cursing is grammatically indistinguishable from the language of command. Both employ imperative verbs.
How does one tell the difference? Simple: context. Context is the key to detecting semantic (as opposed to grammatical) distinctions. Here as elsewhere in hermeneutics, context is king.
So does the context indicate whether Genesis 1:28 uses the imperative to issue commands or do something else? I believe it does. In fact, I think that the context of Genesis 1:28 includes two indicators that God is using the language of blessing rather than the language of command. These clues imply that Genesis 1:28 is not a cultural mandate but a divine blessing.
The first clue involves the similar wording in Genesis 1:22. In this verse God has just made the fish and the birds. The verse says, “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.” The first part of God’s utterance is identical to that of 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply.” In this case, the verse tells us explicitly that the words are a blessing—“And God blessed them, saying.” Furthermore, neither fish nor birds are presented as creatures possessing sufficient sentience to understand and obey a command. Clearly 1:22 communicates a blessing, so we would expect that the parallel language of 1:28 should also express a blessing.
The second clue is even more compelling, and it is found right in Genesis 1:28. As in verse 22, the opening words of verse 28 state, “And God blessed them.” It is as if God, realizing the limited interpretive capacities of human beings and pondering how He could clarify the verse, finally decided just to put a label on it. The verse might as well come with a big yellow tag stating, “THIS IS A BLESSING.” Of course, some people don’t read labels.
Genesis 1:28 does not contain a mandate, cultural or otherwise. It expresses a blessing. It does not give humans a series of orders to obey; rather, it describes certain capacities with which God has bountifully endowed the human race. Human beings have been fruitful and multiplied. They have filled the earth. They have subdued it. They have exercised dominion over the created order. Because they are now sinful, they have done these things imperfectly, but even their sin has not been able to drive out these innate capacities with which their Creator has blessed them.
So, even though braced for incredulous stares and derisive snickers, I insist that there is no cultural mandate. I have no doubt that many, and perhaps most, evangelicals will disagree with me. They will insist that an imperative must connote a command. To them I can only say, “Read the label.”
Have a nice day.
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.
Let the Whole Creation Cry
Stopford A. Brooke (1832–1916)
Let the whole creation cry,
“Glory to the Lord on high!”
Heav’n and earth, awake and sing,
“God is good and therefore King!”
Praise Him, angel hosts above,
Ever bright and fair in love;
Sun and moon, lift up your voice,
Night and stars, in God rejoice!
Warriors fighting for the Lord,
Prophets burning with His Word,
Those to whom the arts belong,
Add their voices to the song.
Kings of knowledge and of law,
To the glorious circle draw;
All who work and all who wait,
Sing, “The Lord is good and great!”
Men and women, young and old,
Raise the anthem manifold,
And let children’s happy hearts
In this worship take their parts;
From the north to southern pole
Let the mighty chorus roll:
“Holy, holy, holy One,
Glory be to God alone!”