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.

An Introduction to Thomas Sowell

I first read Thomas Sowell back in the late 1980s. It was his book on The Economics and Politics of Race. It was a great book and Sowell became one of my favorite writers.

Sowell recently retired and we are all poorer for it. Andre Archie at The American Conservative has written a retrospective on Sowell’s work that is also a pretty good introduction. If you haven’t read anything by Sowell yet, start here.

The topic of cultural capital and its diffusion has figured prominently in several of Sowell’s books. In Wealth, Poverty and Politics he elaborates on the concept as it applies to various ethnic groups. He points out, for example, that in places as distinct as Australia, Russia, France, and England, Germans have excelled at building pianos. They were the first to pioneer advances in optical instruments and cameras. They also excelled in military skills in countries around the world. The Chinese, Jews, and Lebanese, despite having been discriminated against, thrived economically wherever they migrated due to their cultural capital. Sowell’s discussion of the Germans and other ethnic groups underscores his argument that more than skills are involved in differentiating these various ethnic groups. Behind the skills are cultural values that make the acquisition of new skills a priority, and values that make the shedding of obsolete skills imperative.

The Body of Christ

The body of Christ is meaningful in so far as individual Christians have Christ as their collective head. It is not individual local churches of which Christ is the head. It is not even individual Christians who are members of local churches. Rather, all Christians of the church age are those who comprise His spiritual body of which He is the spiritual head. No allowance is made in the New Testament for an unbaptized Christian, one who is not a member of a local church. The regular pattern is regeneration, baptism, and local church membership. However, if a believer is not a member of a local church, he is still a part of the body of Christ. He may well be out of order as a Christian in this age, but he is not out of the body Church.

Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 209.

David DeBruyn on “Authority, Soul Competence and Vocation”

African theologian David DeBruyn offers a clear and important biblical reason to reject populist objections to special knowledge.

God has so made the world and limited man that we each need to specialise in some domain of human life. We need some to give themselves to knowing the human physiology, so as to become experts in medicine and healing. We need some to give themselves to the physics of motion, so as to become engineers. We need some to give themselves to understanding the market, so as to become experts in economics. And we need some to give themselves to the study of music, painting, poetry, literature and architecture, so as to become experts in the arts. No one can master all the realms of knowledge in the short lifespan appointed to us. It is one of God’s mercies to the world: forcing interdependence, trade, and learning.

Eugene Peterson, a postscript

I’m not sure what to make of Peterson’s view on homosexuality. He affirmed homosexuality, reversed his comments, and now his interviewer suggests that, at best, his retraction was disingenuous. This is the worst sort of spiritual confusion. Perhaps Lifeway should think a little longer about what to do. Should we be so quick to give our spiritual heroes a pass? Lord, help me know when to retire, lest I undue what I have spent a lifetime trying to do. It’s really too bad he didn’t quit five years ago! Or maybe ten. What a sad way to end, IMO.

The Beginnings of the New Testament Association

The Beginnings of the New Testament Association

By the early 1960s three issues divided the Conservative Baptist Movement. First was the question of separation, especially in view of neoevangelicalism and Billy Graham’s tactic of “cooperative evangelism.” Second was eschatology—many Conservative Baptists had moved away from pretribulationism, and some had abandoned premillennialism. Third was the relationship between the agencies (such as the seminary in Denver or the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society) and the local churches. Of the two parties, the “hard core” favored stricter separatism, pretribulational premillennialism, and local church priority. Those who favored the “soft policy” were willing to work with Graham in spite of his promotion of anti-Christians on his platform; they were also willing to accept greater breadth in eschatology, and they were less bothered by the agencies’ attempts to dominate and manipulate local church pastors.

Another issue was added in about 1963, when a church with unbaptized members was received by the Conservative Baptist Association. The hard core attempted to block the CBA from seating messengers from this church. The attempt succeeded temporarily, only to be reversed. The CBA also refused to reaffirm either its original statement of purpose or the Portland Declaration of 1953, both of which committed Conservative Baptists to a separatist direction. By 1963 it was clear that a seismic shift was occurring in the Conservative Baptist Movement.

In 1963 a committee of reconciliation, including both hard core and soft policy leaders, issued a report that could have stopped the conflict. That report, however, was blocked by soft policy sympathizers and never presented to the Conservative Baptist constituency. About that time calls began to come from the soft policy for the hard core to “get out and leave us alone.” Then in 1964 the CBA voted to void the election of representatives from the Central Regional, which was dominated by the hard core. Clearly a division was imminent.

The hard core still hoped for reconciliation, but began to prepare for the worst. At some point a group of hard core spokesmen requested a meeting with leaders from the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. They suggested that they could induce most of the hard core churches to join the GARBC as a bloc if the GARBC could guarantee them a certain number of seats on its council of 14. Robert Ketcham replied that the GARBC was a fellowship of churches; consequently, congregations had to vote in one at a time. The hard core leaders responded that it would take years for some of them to get on the council that way, and they left in dismay. Ketcham remarked to the other GARBC men, “It’s been thirty years, and they still don’t understand how we work.”

In October of 1964, Bryce Augsburger invited the hard core leadership to Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Chicago to take the first steps toward forming a new fellowship. Nearly 200 attended. Besides Augsburger, Richard Weeks (pastor in Oak Lawn, Illinois) and R. V. Clearwaters of Minneapolis were prominent in this meeting. Clearwaters moved and Monroe Parker seconded that a meeting be called for May of 1965, to be held at Beth Eden Baptist in Denver, for the purpose of organizing the new association. In the meanwhile, a committee of 21 (chaired by Weeks) would work out the details and bring a proposal.

To protect the name of the “New Testament Association of Baptist Churches of America,” members of the committee immediately took out incorporation papers in the state of Minnesota. Early in 1965 the committee received a communication from the board of the CBA asking for a meeting to try to resolve the conflict. In response, the committee prepared a nine-point proposal for reconciliation. When the proposal reached the CBA board, however, it was merely read and filed. That ended the last hope for reconciliation between the two groups. At the same meeting of the CBA board, B. Myron Cedarholm (who was still the general director) presented a seven-page statement describing what would have to happen to return the CBA to its original position. He may as well have been reading his resignation.

Over 300 individuals representing about 150 churches registered for the Beth Eden meeting. Another 200-300 attended without registering. The assembly voted to organize the New Testament Association of Baptist Churches, and then it adopted a provisional constitution. This constitution clearly defined the new fellowship as an association of churches. Voting messengers would have to be authorized by their churches. To send messengers, the churches would have to vote to affiliate with the new association.

The new constitution spoke clearly to the issue of dual affiliation, which had been a sore spot in the old CBA. To affiliate with the NTA, a church could “not be in affiliation with any other national association of churches.” This measure was aimed not only at the old Northern (now American) Baptist Convention but also at the CBA. Some suspected that it was also calculated as retaliation against the GARBC.

No officers were elected in Denver. Instead, the planning committee was expanded to 25 and appointed as trustees of the new association. A second organizational meeting was planned for Eagledale Baptist Church of Indianapolis in 1966.

In October the Ravenswood Baptist Church of Chicago invited the committee of 25 to a “Central Area Rally.” The rally featured preaching by several of the hard core worthies, but the high point was an open forum in which key leaders discussed the issues and responded to questions. These leaders included Bryce Augsburger, R. V. Clearwaters, Warren Dafoe, Chester McCullough, and Peter Mustric. At this point, the way seemed clear for the new association to be finalized.

A problem arose in April, however, when Weeks sent out an informational letter in behalf of the committee of 25. Weeks’s letter stated that all messengers invited to the Eagledale Baptist meeting would be allowed to vote on matters concerning the formation of the association. Weeks had forgotten, however, that the provisional constitution limited franchise rights to messengers from churches that had voted into the NTA. This misunderstanding would create a disruption at Indianapolis.

Because of Weeks’s letter, all messengers arrived at Eagledale Baptist Church (pastored by Warren Dafoe) expecting to vote on association business. Only 21 churches, however, had voted to affiliate with the new group, and only their messengers were constitutionally permitted to vote. This episode was more than an embarrassment. It brought to the surface a difference of opinion as to the kind of organization that the hard core leaders thought they were founding. That difference will be traced in greater detail in the next issue of In the Nick of Time.

divider

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.

divider

Prayer for Patience
William Cowper (1731–1800)

Lord, who hast suffer’d all for me,
My peace and pardon to procure,
The lighter cross I bear for Thee,
Help me with patience to endure.

The storm of loud repining hush;
I would in humble silence mourn;
Why should the unburnt, though burning bush,
Be angry as the crackling thorn?

Man should not faint at Thy rebuke,
Like Joshua falling on his face,
When the cursed thing that Achan took
Brought Israel into just disgrace.

Perhaps some golden wedge suppress’d,
Some secret sin offends my God;
Perhaps that Babylonish vest,
Self-righteousness, provokes the rod.

Ah! were I buffeted all day,
Mock’d, crown’d with thorns and spit upon,
I yet should have no right to say,
My great distress is mine alone.

Let me not angrily declare
No pain was ever sharp like mine,
Nor murmur at the cross I bear,
But rather weep, remembering Thine.

Download Bulletin Insert

Mark 16 in Codex Sinaiticus

Did you know that you can browse the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) online?

King James Only advocates sometimes insist that the shorter ending of Mark removes the resurrection of Jesus (this argument was made in one of those ridiculous Pensacola videos back in the 1990s).

You can see it for yourself. Go here: look at Sinaiticus for yourself. If you can’t read the old, uncial orthography, there’s a copy in modern Greek to the right. If you can’t read Greek at all, there’s an English translation below that.

Mark 16:6. It’s right there: the resurrection of Jesus.

An Introduction to Marcus Borg

Christians ought to know their opponents. In recent years, one of those opponents has been Marcus Borg, now deceased, formerly professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University. Borg’s life was a constant journey toward the theological Left. I heard him lecture when he was in Minneapolis in 2011. He was an engaging and fascinating speaker whose views were well beyond the liberal mainstream.

If you want a nice little introduction to Borg, here is a piece in the Christian Century by Thomas G. Long. It’s a good summary with a focus on Borg’s last contribution.

Facts, Interpretation, and Reality

The boys over at Westminster Seminary are fond of saying that there are no brute facts. They are correct. That does not mean, however, that there is no reality to which all truth claims are corrigible.

And now comes a reflection from Arminian theologian Roger Olson. He rejects the suggestion that we can know brute facts. He also rejects anti-realism. He favors a version of critical realism.

If these are unfamiliar categories to you, then you owe it to yourself to read Olson’s piece. He’ll give you a bit of recent intellectual history. Then he’ll apply it.

Here’s the point and the “rub.” My own experience and observation of my culture—North American academia—leads me to believe that many people with tremendous influence—even where their names are never heard or known outside of academia—have adopted the belief that because of the sociology of knowledge, critical realism or even anti-realism (belief that “knowledge” never even comes close to matching reality-as-it-is if such even exists), because of the “social construction of reality,” all that’s left to us is rhetoric. The traditional ideas of “facts” and “arguments” are simply “old school thinking.” Since that is the case, many movers and shakers of culture believe, there is really no “line” between argument and rhetoric.

Ooops!

“On further reflection and prayer,” (and perhaps great pressure from the internet), popular evangelical author Eugene Peterson retracted his hypothetical willingness to do a gay marriage. “To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything,” Great, . . . I think. One wonders how a seasoned man like Peterson could make such gaff. But at least he changed his mind.

Sliding further into the abyss

Popular evangelical author Eugene Peterson, in an interview with Jonathan Merritt of Religious News Service, stated that the issue or homosexuality and the church may be over. If he were pastoring today, he would preform same-sex unions. This has caused numerous comments across the evangelical spectrum. See here, here, and hereLifeway may pull all of his books, some 135 titles, from their shelves. Good for them! It is sad when a Christian leader of the influence of Peterson makes such a stunning reversal. Lovers of biblical truth will weep over this news.

Michael Kruger Challenges False Claims about Early Christianity

Labeling these claims as “fake news,” the president of Reformed Theological Seminary explains why certain popular beliefs about early Christianity are false.

  1. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
  2. The divinity of Jesus was not decided until the council of Nicea in the fourth century.
  3. Christians did not have a “Bible” until the time of Constantine.
  4. The “Gnostic” Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas were just as popular as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
  5. The words of the New Testament have been radically changed and corrupted in the earliest centuries.