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.Straub on Building a Theological Library
A Requiem for Friendship
Anthony Esolen writes eloquently for Touchstone Magazine about pansexualism, philosophy of language, and how contemporary sexual openness has brought an end to serious male friendships. This essay is a bit longer to read, but its implications are profound.
By now the reader must see the point. I might say that of all human actions there is nothing more powerfully public than what two consenting adults do with their bodies behind (we hope) closed doors. Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign—whether he is on the political right or the left, whether he believes in biblical proscriptions of homosexuality or not.
Jacques Barzun on Toleration
Toleration–allowing freedom of expression–has no logical limits. In religion it includes ritual, which is action as well as words. But does it include burning the country’s flag? Law in the United States says yes. What of behavior onstage that many consider obscene? Or sacrificing animals for a ritual purpose? Facing such questions, reason shrinks back and is mute. Nor is this all. The facts compel us to make a distinction between Toleration, a public policy useful to the secular nation, and tolerance, the very rare individual state of mind that “lives and lets live.” When found it is decried as “lukewarm,” “latitudinarian,” “Laodicean,” “lacking in principle.” Words beginning with l seem indicated for the charge; the human intellect is imperialist. In spite of the occasional, perfunctory “I may be wrong,” all assertors defend their position like wolverines their cubs. And they can defend the defense by saying that all social progress depends on the aggressive promotion of right ideas, theirs.
Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, 273.
It is also interesting to read Barzun’s treatment of Oliver Cromwell, which is far more charitable than that of, say, Winston Churchill.
21 Theses . . .
. . . on submission in Marriage. From Doug Wilson. Since Wilson labels these as “theses,” we assume that they are intended as propositons for debate. Here’s a sample:
The Bible does not require a universal submission of women to men, or the necessary submission of any given woman to any given man. The Bible requires women to be submissive to their own husbands, which is a protection against having to submit to men generally. Further, because no one can serve more than one authority, this scriptural teaching amounts to a prohibition of a woman submitting to other men. Nor does Scripture require a new absolute submission to her husband. No authority in this fallen world is absolute, and includes the authority of a husband. When the authority of a husband turns rancid, a wife should receive the help of fathers, brothers, friends, and/or elders to help her stand up against it.
Jeff Sessions: Full Text
The text of the attorney general’s speech to the Alliance Defending Freedom has been reprinted by The Federalist. Read it here.
America has never thought itself to be a theocracy. Our founders, at least the most articulate of them, believed our government existed as a protector of religious rights of Americans that were essential to being a created human being.
The government did not exist to promote religious doctrine nor to take sides in religious disputes that had, as they well knew, caused wars and death in Europe. Nor was it the government’s role to immanetize the eschaton, as Bill Buckley reminded us. The government’s role was to provide the great secular structure that would protect the rights of all citizens to fulfill their duty to relate to God as their conscience dictated and to guarantee the citizen’s right to exercise that faith.
The government would not take sides, and would not get between God and man. Religious rights were natural rights, not subject to government infringement, as the Virginia Assembly once eloquently declared.
Richard Weaver on “Humanism in an Age of Science”
Richard Weaver was one of the three or four most important founders of modern conservatism. His Ideas Have Consequences is probably the most important work in defining a conservative outlook. His notion of “metaphysical dream” is priceless.
The Imaginative Conservative reprints an address by Weaver, “Humanism in an Age of Science,” delivered to the Newman Club at the University of Chicago. Weaver died in April of 1963. Like most of his work, however, this address remains as vital today as it was when he delivered it.
As one looks over the scene and tries to decide his policy, two alternatives are almost certain to suggest themselves. Either one can immerse himself in the element and strive to be just as brutal as it is; or he can detach himself, cutting down to the minimum his point of contact with it. That is to say, he can try to fight it by its own means, or he can run from the fight.
I think a little reflection is needed to show, that both of these have unacceptable or certainly undesirable consequences. By trying to compete in brutality, you make yourself a brute, and this man is commanded not to do. Brutality is in its essence a lack of discrimination, a lack of regard for distinctions and susceptibilities and rights. It is the action that smashes or levels or obliterates while remaining contemptuous of qualifying circumstances. This is the bestial attitude and the antithesis of humanity. On the cultural level, it is fatal to what we respect as the humanities. But detachment too, while it seems to preserve intellect, draws bad things in its train. It results in isolation, a decrease of sympathy, eventual loss perhaps of any vital idea of brotherhood; and it is certainly likely to engender pride. The man who is self-consciously perched above the fray comes to have a sort of disdain for those who are wrestling with the world’s intractability, and that too tends to be inhumane in the way that it divides us off. We are all here to be proved, and it seems that a man should not try to save himself by individual withdrawal.
The Closing of the Muslim Mind
Joel Zartman reviews the book by Robert R. Reilly. The discussion ranges from Al Ghazali’s Incoherence of the Philosophers to Christian Presuppositionalism.
A Riddle for Your Amusement
It’s an easy one. From Middlingpoet.
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 Christian Century on Baking Cakes
The ecumenical Christian Century asks, “Does Baking a Cake Count as Protected Speech?” The answer is the one given across the Left. It is also shared by some on the Right.
Only In Minnesota . . .
. . . The world’s only gas station designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.
Well said!
Here is one last (?) word on the Eugene Peterson debacle of last week that is particularly well written.
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.
A Man’s Guide to Wearing Rings
Hey, knowing this stuff is part of being a gentleman. And we need more gentlemen–especially Christian gentlemen.
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.
Miroslav Volf, “Free of Charge.”
Miroslav Volf’s treatment of forgiveness, Free of Charge, isn’t–but it’s only 99 cents on Kindle!

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.
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.
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.
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.
The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
You can download PDF versions of back issues here.