Theology Central

Late last year I was asked to fill the pulpit of a small church that had lost its pastor. After one visit, the church’s pulpit committee asked me to cover the month of January. During my second week, the pulpit committee asked whether I would become the church’s interim pastor. I have now been ministering in the congregation for nearly nine months.

This was a small church to begin with, and COVID cut its attendance drastically. On a very good Sunday the congregation will number in the twenties. The members understand that their church cannot pay a full-time pastor under the present circumstances.

Some might suggest that the church could be closed, since there are a couple of other good churches within a fifteen-mile radius. The members don’t see it that way. They believe that their church has a unique identity and can fulfill a unique calling. Furthermore, the church’s building is located on a major highway that represents one of the growth corridors for the MSP metroplex. That alone is good reason to try to preserve a witness in this location.

As for me, I am happy to do all that I can to help keep the church’s doors open. I’ve been teaching Sunday School and preaching in the Sunday morning service. We have reinstituted the midweek prayer meeting, at which I present another weekly Bible study. The church’s leadership has recently begun conversations about reopening an afternoon service on Sundays.

In addition to the preaching ministry, I’ve tried to become active in the lives of the church’s members. The biggest problem here is distance. The church building is nearly an hour from my home, and most of the members live even further away than that. Still, my wife and I have sought interaction with these folks wherever and whenever that has been possible.

While the membership is small, the church presents the usual challenges that any pastor might expect. Sometimes people pull in different directions. Some have fears for which they need assurance. Some carry hurts for which they need healing and counsel. All need feeding. So far, however, the members of this congregation have shown exceptional deference to each other and to me. No overt conflicts appear to be brooding beneath the surface.

This church prefers to use the King James Bible for its services. While it was not originally planted as a King James Only church, a previous pastor led it in that direction. When I began ministering in January, its confession of faith included a rather strongly-worded assertion of King-James-Onlyism. The church has subsequently amended its confession to remove that statement, which most of the members did not even understand. In the meanwhile, no one (including me) plans to abandon the use of the KJV.

As might be expected, the pulpit committee has asked whether I would be willing to candidate for the pastorate. For the moment, I have taken a rain check on that question. I am leading the church through a series of lessons to try to cultivate a particular philosophy of ministry. This series will acquaint the church with the kind of ministry that I want to have. I am hoping that it will also solidify the congregation’s thinking in terms of the kind of pastor they want to find.

Since this church cannot pay a pastor a full salary, their options are limited. They could find a pastor who is willing to support himself by working an outside job (or whose wife is willing to). Alternatively, they could find a pastor who has some other source of outside income. A retired pastor would certainly be an option. I wish that I knew of such individuals whom I could recommend to the church.

In the meanwhile, I would like to steer the church away from looking for a pastor who will take them back into King-James-Onlyism. My reason is that I have learned to care about these people. I want to see them led in good and biblical directions by a gentle under-shepherd. I want to see them taught well. I want to see them growing in the faith and in their walk with God. I want to see the church prosper under the leadership of someone who can devote more attention to it than I am able.

Because of the distances involved, I cannot really give the church all the ministry that it needs. The situation is further complicated by responsibilities that I must not shirk as a seminary professor. Still, even a partial ministry may be better than no ministry—or, worse yet, a destructive ministry. If no other options present themselves soon, I may well allow the pulpit committee to present me to the church as a candidate, if they are still so minded.

Even if I do, and even if the church calls me, I have told the pulpit committee that I come with an expiration date. I’m not sure exactly when it will be, but I am already at the age when most people retire. Even if called as the pastor, I will in effect continue to be an interim whose main duty will be to find a more permanent solution for this congregation.

As the Lord brings my situation to mind—which is also the church’s situation—I would appeal for your prayers. This is one of those times when both the church and I need wisdom and guidance from the Lord. A bit of providential intervention would not go amiss, either. It’s a small congregation, but it is a church of Jesus Christ, and one that He loves. By His grace I want to see it prosper.

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

With Stately Towers and Bulwarks Strong

Harriet Auber (1773–1862)

With stately towers and bulwarks strong,
Unrivalled and alone—
Loved theme oft for the sacred song—
God’s holy city shone.

Thus fair was Zion’s chosen seat,
The glory of all lands;
Yet fairer, and in strength complete,
The Christian temple stands.

The faithful of each clime and age
This glorious church compose;
Built on the Rock—with idle rage
The threat’ning tempest blows.

Fear not: though hostile bands alarm,
Thy God is thy defense:
And weak and powerless every arm
Against Omnipotence.

It must be hard work to write investigative reporting in the evangelical world. To be sure, evangelicalism has its share of scandals, just as all branches of professing Christianity always have. For example, when Pastor So-and-So runs off with the church secretary, it is a sleazy episode that lends itself to salacious prattle. But it is not news. We have seen so many church leaders manifest goatish behavior that it ceases to surprise us. Reporting the moral failures of Christian leaders hardly requires the persistence, skill, or dedication of a Woodward or Bernstein.

Consequently, most evangelical investigative reporting rarely rises above the level of grapevine chatter. Sometimes it does not even rise that high. One example is a recent report that appeared on an evangelical blog that claims to be devoted to investigative journalism. The report charges that over several years, a particular evangelical institution of higher learning awarded honorary doctorates to people who may not have deserved them. To make matters worse, three of the recipients either were or had been members of the school’s board.

When I saw this “investigative report,” I laughed out loud. That an educational institution awarded honorary doctorates to its own (possibly undeserving) trustees is not news, it is business as usual. To cite only one example, Wheaton College has awarded hundreds of honorary doctorates since 1874. Whether all of these recipients were deserving is a matter of judgment, but in at least some cases the degrees were awarded largely on the basis of who the recipient was related to. For good or for ill, that is how recipients of honorary degrees are sometimes chosen. One college even awarded on honorary doctorate to an evangelist’s horse.

As a collegian I was only dimly aware that some doctorates are honorary. I discovered this fact when I learned that one of my professors (Bernard Bancroft) had been awarded a doctorate, but he refused to allow anyone to address him as doctor. When I asked him why, he told me that he didn’t want to demean that accomplishment of people who had actually worked to earn their terminal degrees.

Discovering the distinction between earned and honorary doctorates was illuminating. I still recall one of my seminary professor’s evaluation of honorary doctorates: “Some schools hand them out like chocolates out of a box.” That was when I learned that most doctorates claimed by evangelical leaders are honorary. For example, the world’s most famous evangelist was regularly addressed as the “Rev. Dr. Billy Graham,” although he had never qualified for an earned doctorate. A short list of other evangelical figures who were (or are) regularly addressed as doctors included James M. Gray, Carl McIntire, Robert T. Ketcham, Stephen W. Paine, Torrey M. Johnson, Josh McDowell, Joseph M. Stowell III, and John M. Frame. I can remember a time when advertisements for the big Sword of the Lord conference would feature a list of speakers, every one of whom had “Dr.” in front of his name, but few of whom had ever done legitimate postgraduate work.

Should recipients of honorary doctorates call themselves doctors? These days, the practice is frowned upon today as a breach of etiquette, somewhat akin to selecting the wrong fork at a formal dinner. Nevertheless, Benjamin Franklin styled himself as Doctor Franklin, and Samuel Johnson did similarly. Heads of evangelical service organizations—especially schools—have regularly used the title doctor, or it has been used of them. Examples include Lewis Sperry Chafer (Dallas Theological Seminary), James T. Jeremiah (Cedarville College/University), Louis Talbot (Bible Institute of Los Angeles/Biola University), Charles U. Wagner (Northwest Seminary; Grand Rapids Baptist College/Cornerstone University), L. John Miles (Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music), Milo Thompson (Baptist Bible College/Clarks Summit University), Roger J. Andrus (Calvary Bible College), David Nettleton (Faith Baptist Bible College), all three generations of the Bob Jones dynasty, including Sr., Jr., and III (Bob Jones University), and William Fusco (Denver Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary). One can always find stuffy academics who object to this practice, but the general public seems more than willing to address most holders of honorary doctorates as doctor.

The founder and first president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis was Richard Volley Clearwaters. He did all the course work toward a doctorate at the University of Chicago, but he never finished the program. Instead, he was given an honorary doctorate from a different institution. For the rest of his life he was customarily addressed as “Doc” by nearly everyone who knew him (he was also sometimes called Coeur de Lion, but not to his face).

Whether these individuals’ use of the title doctor displays poor form is a matter of taste and judgment. Whether it violates any laws or ethical standards is not: people with honorary doctorates have a perfect legal and ethical right to call themselves doctors. There is nothing scandalous in the practice. If they do, it is no more worth reporting than if a gentleman wears the wrong color tie with his shirt.

In theory, honorary doctorates ought to be awarded to individuals who have made contributions that might normally have been expected from someone who had earned a doctorate. Determining what is an equivalent contribution, however, is a subjective matter—especially considering how little some Ph.D. holders themselves contribute. Consequently, awarding these degrees may provoke disagreement over whether a particular recipient was genuinely worthy. These disagreements are not newsworthy, and (with the possible exception of the evangelist’s horse) they are certainly not scandalous.

Some schools simply do not award honorary doctorates. The college from which I graduated has, during the past half century, awarded only one (the recipient was deserving). In the seminary that I presently serve (Central Baptist Theological Seminary), all recipients of honorary doctorates are nominated by the faculty, and we normally award honorary degrees only to people who already have doctorates. We have granted only a handful of such diplomas over the years.

To recapitulate, an “investigative reporter” has discovered that, over a process of years, a college awarded honorary doctorates to individuals who may not have deserved them. Three of these recipients were board members of the institution. At least some of them may have begun to use the title doctor for themselves. This is not news. This is not scandal. Nothing nefarious is happening. There is no story here. Whatever kind of appetite this sort of “investigative reporting” feeds, it is not one that will nourish biblical Christianity.

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

Amid the Thronging Worshipers

Psalter, 1912

Amid the thronging worshipers
Jehovah will I bless;
before my brethren, gathered here
His Name will I confess.
Come, praise Him, ye that fear the LORD,
ye children of His grace;
with rev’rence sound His glories forth
And bow before His face.

The burden of the sorrowful
The LORD will not despise;
He has not turned from those that mourn,
He hearkens to their cries.
His goodness makes me join the throng
where saints His praise proclaim,
and there will I fulfill my vows
’mid those who fear His Name.

He feeds with good the humble soul
and satisfies the meek,
and they shall live and praise the LORD
who for His mercy seek.
The ends of all the earth take thought,
the nations seek the LORD;
they worship Him, the King of kings,
in earth and heav’n adored.

Over the past several weeks I have become aware that something is going on at an important Baptist church in my area—a church that shall not be named. Apparently, the senior pastor and other staff resigned. Members were upset. Accusations were made against other members and against pastors. People left the church, and when they left, they complained to the press. Reporters and pundits picked up the story, which has appeared in blogs and national publications.

People have begun asking me what I think about the church-that-shall-not-be-named. I have an answer to that question. I am now going to state my answer publicly.

I don’t have an opinion.

It’s true. I have opinions about all kinds of things. I have an opinion about Jello (and that opinion is not good). I have an opinion about golf (b-o-r-i-n-g). I have an opinion about J. S. Bach (greatest composer in history). I have opinions about jumbo shrimp, military intelligence, and CCM (all oxymorons). But I do not have an opinion about what’s going on in the church-that-shall-not-be-named.

One often hears that everyone has a right to an opinion. Baloney. To be entitled to an opinion, one must first meet at least three qualifications.

First, one must be addressing a matter that is subject to opinion. A genuine opinion involves a matter of value, not of fact. The sum of one plus one is not subject to opinion. The speed of light is not subject to opinion. The specific gravity of nitric acid is not a matter of opinion. These are matters of fact.

Sometimes a matter of fact is unknown, but it is still not subject to opinion. It is subject to guesses. If these guesses are sufficiently informed, they may qualify as hypotheses. But they are still guesses and not opinions.

Second, to have a right to an opinion one must be correctly informed. An opinion is an informed, reasoned position on a matter of value. People who express themselves on matters of which they are ignorant do not have opinions. They have prejudices. Prejudices are not opinions. They are assertions of uninformed preference. People who demand that such prejudices be respected can rightly be labeled as bigots. Bigotry is not the expression of opinion. It is the forcible assertion of prejudice. Most people who think that they have a right to an opinion really want a right to bigotry. While expressions of bigotry are mostly legal, people who think they have a right to have such eructations heard are badly mistaken.

Third, to have a right to an opinion, one must be addressing an issue in which one has a legitimate interest. In other words, we have no right to an opinion about matters that are none of our business. Prurience is not a legitimate interest. The public has no right to know most things. People who itch with curiosity about things that are none of their business are some of the most destructive people in the world. Expressions of opinion about matters that are none of our business are mere meddling. Meddling in other people’s affairs is like taking a pit bull by the ears. It is never a virtue.

This is particularly true in the case of a local congregation, a church of Jesus Christ. Each individual church is ultimately accountable to Christ as its head. The authority of the head is mediated through the congregation as taught biblically by the pastor or pastors. Pastoral authority comes strictly from teaching and example; it is never fiat authority. Under Christ, the congregation must hear and decide all disputes within the body. None of us has a right to an opinion in the inner affairs of another church.

“But wait!” you say. “Don’t we judge other churches all the time? Don’t we evaluate them by what their pastors preach and by what they do? Don’t we rejoice when they are blessed? Don’t we grieve when they are troubled?”

Indeed we do. But these evaluations always involve one of two things. They are based either upon public words and positions (as opposed to inner church conversations), or else they are based upon information that the church has chosen to make public. If a church decides to change its standards for admitting members, that is a public matter. If a church decides to reframe its doctrinal statement, that is a public matter. If a church asks other churches for prayer or counsel, that is a public matter. The inner struggles and decisions of the congregation, however, are the church’s business alone.

Furthermore, unless some criminal activity has occurred, there is no higher court of appeal than the local church. When the congregation has delivered its decision, the duty of each member is to submit. Members who believe that the decision is seriously wrong must leave peaceably.

Of course, the recalcitrant often look for ways to escape their plain duties. One of the most popular escapes these days is found in the accusation of “spiritual abuse.” Now, I believe that there is such a thing as spiritual abuse, and I encourage people to leave spiritually abusive situations. Nevertheless, about ninety percent of the time, someone who mutters, “spiritual abuse,” really means, “I didn’t get my way and I’m mad about it.” In any event, the legitimacy of this claim can hardly ever be evaluated by those outside the situation itself—certainly not by those who practice “investigative reporting.”

A church member can take no worse action than to carry complaints and disputes beyond the congregation itself. To bring other members into civil litigation is evil. It is inexcusable. To carry complaints to the press—whether secular or religious, whether print or electronic—is worse. It is contemptible. To involve the media in the attempt to sway the internal decisions of a church is worst of all. It is argumentum ad odio, an appeal to bigotry, and it is a shameful thing for a supposed Christian to do.

I do not know what is going on at the church-that-shall-not-be-named. I have no intention of trying to find out what is going on at the church-that-shall-not-be-named. The inner workings of the church-that-shall-not-be-named are none of my business. For me to intrude into them would be to violate the sovereign autonomy of that congregation as a church of Jesus Christ. I have no right to be informed. Because I have no right to be informed, I have no right to an opinion.

Nevertheless, people have bombarded me with copies of articles and links to electronic media, all of which pretend that they are able to opine upon the inner workings of the church-that-shall-not-be-named. These blogs, podcasts, and articles have been thrust into my consciousness, and about them I do have an opinion. These putative expressions of opinion, these “investigative reports,” are one and all of the same moral quality, and that quality is damnable. “The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.”

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

Comfort, Comfort Ye My People

Johann Olearius (1611–1684); tr. Catherine Winkworth (1827–1878)

Comfort, comfort ye my people,
speak ye peace, thus saith our God;
comfort those who sit in darkness,
mourning ‘neath their sorrow’s load.
Speak ye to Jerusalem
of the peace that waits for them;
tell her that her sins I cover,
and her warfare now is over.

Yea, her sins our God will pardon,
blotting out each dark misdeed;
all that well deserved his anger
he no more will see or heed.
She hath suffered many a day
now her griefs have passed away;
God will change her pining sadness
into ever-springing gladness.

For the herald’s voice is crying
in the desert far and near,
bidding all men to repentance,
since the kingdom now is here.
O that warning cry obey!
Now prepare for God a way;
let the valleys rise to meet him,
and the hills bow down to greet him.

Make ye straight what long was crooked,
make the rougher places plain;
let your hearts be true and humble,
as befits his holy reign.
For the glory of the Lord
now o’er earth is shed abroad;
and all flesh shall see the token,
that his word is never broken.

During a recent conversation, a friend and I were reminiscing about some of the hazards we had faced as children. I’ve heard my parents tell about a couple of occasions when, as a baby, I was dropped on my head (which probably explains some things). I can recall being kept home from school for contracting chicken pox, mumps, and measles. I can also remember falling out of the hay loft onto a disc harrow below (I was saved from being maimed by my BB gun, which landed between me and the blades). Then there was the time that I climbed an old beech tree, slipped near the top, and banged into what seemed like every limb on the way down. Oh, and I can recall being in a car crash, long before seat belts were even an option in most cars.

As I recounted these incidents to my friend and he told me his stories, I commented, “You know, we’ve survived a lot of stuff.” He replied, “Aha! That’s survivor bias!” It really wasn’t, because I do recognize the hazardous nature of at least some of the events I survived. Survivor bias, however, occurs when people discount the seriousness of the hazards because they overlook the victims who did not survive. Survivor bias is widespread for one simple reason: survivors are present to talk about their experiences, while no one speaks for those who did not survive.

Failure to recognize survivor bias can skew the evaluation of events and institutions. For example, imagine that a hospital conducts a study of people who have fallen from various heights. It admits patients who have fallen one story and who show minor injuries. It admits patients who have fallen two stories and who show serious injuries. It admits patients who have fallen three stories and who show grave injuries. Yet the hospital admits no patients at all who have fallen from four stories or more. As the result of this study, it concludes that falling from four stories or more results in no injuries at all. Would anyone find this conclusion persuasive?

The answer is obvious. Those who fell from four stories or higher did not survive. They were not admitted to the hospital as patients because they were taken to mortuaries instead. No one is there to speak for them. Any failure to account for the silence of the dead will result in a seriously flawed perception of the risk of falling.

I wonder whether we do not have something of a survivor bias in our ministries. I believe that I have seen it at work in some churches. For example, I once had the opportunity to observe an independent Baptist church in a major Southern city. The preaching focused on three themes: get saved, get right, and get busy. Biblical exposition was considered offensive. The pastor thought that he should lead by telling people what to do, even in their private choices. Every service ended with an attempt to get all attendees to “go to the altar.” Discipleship consisted of being sent out for bus visitation on Thursday night. Members who wearied of the regimen were told that they needed to get right and get busy.

At one time this church managed to attract large crowds. At its high point, one out of every four homes in the city had someone attending its services. It baptized dozens of people some Sundays. The church prided itself on its success, and it put itself forward as a model for other churches to emulate.

After a time, however, I became aware of another dynamic in the church. The church was crowding people in the front door, but at a certain point it began to lose people out the back door just as rapidly. Most people could not stand up to the weekly barrage of high-pressure tactics. They burnt out and left, and when they left, they didn’t just leave that church. Very often they left Christianity altogether.

The church had a core of people who thrived on its vision of ministry. They tended to be Type-A personalities, the sort of people who loved working in management and in sales. They prided themselves upon the apparent success of the ministry. They tended to see themselves as the cause of its success. They were the epitome of survivor bias.

Over the years, this particular ministry damaged far more people than it helped. In fact, it often did some damage even to the people it did help. I would meet former members and attendees all over the community. When it came to spiritual discussions, they were among the most closed people I have ever met. They carried with them a deep hurt and they associated that hurt with Christianity in general.

The example I have chosen is deliberately extreme. I wonder, though, how often we allow survivor bias to creep into our evaluation of our own ministries. We tend to think that people who flourish are being helped to grow because of the excellence of our ministry. At the same time, we tend to think that people who leave have departed because of some defect in them. But what if it’s the other way around?

True, some people make bad choices, even under good ministries. When they do, they alone are responsible for the consequences. But some people also make good choices, even under very bad ministries. Their good choices are testimony to the power of the Word and the Spirit, and not to the validity of the ministry under which they were made. When we wish to evaluate our own ministries, we should never be content simply to point only to the survivors. We must consider the people whom our ministries have failed, hurt, or even destroyed along the way.

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

Psalm 91

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Ye sons of men, a feeble race,
Exposed to every snare,
Come, make the Lord your dwelling-place,
And try and trust his care.

No ill shall enter where you dwell;
Or if the plague come nigh,
And sweep the wicked down to hell,
‘Twill raise his saints on high.

He’ll give his angels charge to keep
Your feet in all their ways;
To watch your pillow while you sleep,
And guard your happy days.

Their hands shall bear you, lest you fall
And dash against the stones:
Are they not servants at his call,
And sent t’ attend his sons?

Adders and lions ye shall tread;
The tempter’s wiles defeat;
He that hath broke the serpent’s head
Puts him beneath your feet.

"Because on me they set their love,
I’ll save them," saith the Lord;
"I’ll bear their joyful souls above
Destruction and the sword.

"My grace shall answer when they call,
In trouble I’ll be nigh;
My power shall help them when they fall,
And raise them when they die.

"Those that on earth my name have known
I’ll honor them in heav’n;
There my salvation shall be shown,
And endless life be giv’n."

The world watches in fascinated horror as the United States abandons its ally of nearly two decades. Enemy fighters are sweeping in, atrocities are being committed, and confusion reigns. Afghan women, non-Muslims, and trapped Americans can expect nothing but terror. The American authorities will not lift a finger to help them.

This is what happens when America betrays its allies. This is a tiny glimpse of what will happen if the United States wavers in Israel, Korea, or Taiwan. Here is proof positive to all of America’s allies that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its promises. It is also confirmation to America’s enemies that our nation no longer possesses the will to persevere in a difficult task.

In terms of America’s security, the clock has been turned back twenty years. Afghanistan is once again a rogue state. Within a short time it will again play host to terrorist organizations—perhaps not Al Qaeda, but to similar bodies bent on the destruction of America. Given a stable base for planning and logistics, these organizations will doubtless attempt further 9/11 style attacks on American interests and eventually on America itself.

There is blame enough to go around. George Bush, partly blocked by Pakistan, failed to crush the Taliban while he had the chance. Barack Obama hardly tried. And as for the Trump administration, let us never forget that Donald Trump was the one who negotiated directly with the Taliban, circumventing the government of Afghanistan. His idea of “winning” was an agreement to pull American troops out of that country.

We will never know whether President Trump could have achieved an orderly withdrawal. In any case, the Biden administration clearly has not. Where exactly the blame lies is not clear. At times the President has given the impression of being non compos menta. If this impression is correct, then the real fault rests with those who have propped him up and then failed to manage this crisis in the President’s name. Whatever the situation, the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan constitutes the worst black mark against any administration since the Nixon presidency. Even Jimmy Carter’s bungling of the Iran hostage crisis does not compare.

Some Americans—including the President—have been whining about Afghanistan being the longest war in American history, but it isn’t. The Korean Conflict has been going on since 1950. The two Koreas are still at war, though they are not presently shooting at each other. The United States has kept troops in Korea through that entire conflict of more than seventy years. On the other hand, the American military in Afghanistan has not suffered a serious number of combat deaths since about 2014. The human cost of continuing involvement in Afghanistan was minimal.

Nevertheless, we have gone. According to some, our absence from Afghanistan comes none too soon. These individuals believe that we never had any business there, that the US presence in Afghanistan was an exercise in imperialism, and that our efforts in that country were a failure from the beginning. For years, they have argued that American involvement in Afghan affairs was not worth the cost.

No doubt a cost has been paid. I knew many people who served in Afghanistan and some who died there. Those who served sometimes returned to America with chronic health issues. Upwards of 2,300 Americans gave their lives in Afghanistan, almost 2,000 of whom were killed in action. Their sacrifice should not be dismissed. Was American involvement in Afghanistan worth this many lives and this much suffering?

To answer that question, we must decide what the American military actually accomplished in Afghanistan. Their first and most obvious accomplishment was to bring retribution upon those who planned, sponsored, and abetted the September 11 attacks. The execution of this sort of retribution is one of the God-ordained functions of civil government (Rom 13:4). When its shores were attacked and its citizens killed, the United States had a duty to bring the perpetrators and their enablers to justice. This result alone justifies the war in Afghanistan. If this result has not been accomplished fully and perfectly, it has at least been accomplished adequately.

Second, the American military presence in Afghanistan brought a rare (if temporary) breath of freedom and participatory government to the Afghan people. During the American presence, people moved about and pursued life with greater liberty than they had for years. Commerce and education flourished, at least by comparison. In particular, women enjoyed unprecedented freedom from oppression. While it will probably never be possible to erect a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan, the American presence allowed the Afghan people to approximate that ideal to a far greater degree than at any time in their nation’s history.

Third, by taking the fight to the enemy, American troops in Afghanistan built a hedge of protection around the American homeland. In the two decades since September 11, 2001, no significant attack against the United States has succeeded. US armed forces in Afghanistan defeated a serious enemy and kept that enemy at bay for twenty years. For that, all Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.

Fourth, the protection provided by American armed forces in Afghanistan has given Americans two decades to repent of their revolt against nature and nature’s God. Granted, the United States has largely squandered that opportunity. Over the past twenty years, American defiance of both divine and natural law has taken on new vehemence. Nevertheless, God is a gracious God who gives people much opportunity to repent (2 Pet 3:9). By holding the enemy at bay, the American troops in Afghanistan were a providential instrument to provide that opportunity.

Other considerations could be mentioned, but I believe these are sufficient. Any one of these would be adequate justification for American military involvement in Afghanistan. I suggest that the presence of United States troops in Afghanistan was an unqualified success both during the hostilities and after the hostilities had ended. Our presence there was not the problem. Our betrayal of our ally (and even of our own citizens) is the problem. In a word: Yes, it was worth it.

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

Lord God of My Salvation

Henry Francis Lyte (1793–1847)

Lord God of my salvation,
To Thee, to Thee, I cry;
Oh let my supplication
Arrest Thine ear on high.
Distresses round me thicken,
My life draws nigh the grave;
Descend, O Lord, to quicken,
Descend my soul to save.

Thy wrath lies hard upon me,
Thy billows o’er me roll,
My friends all seem to shun me,
And foes beset my soul.
Where’er on earth I turn me,
No comforter is near;
Wilt Thou too, Father, spurn me?
Wilt Thou refuse to hear?

No! banish’d and heart-broken
My soul still clings to Thee;
The promise Thou hast spoken
Shall still my refuge be.
So present ills and terrors
My future joy increase,
And scourge me from my errors
To duty, hope, and peace.

As you receive In the Nick of Time this week, I will be traveling in Colorado, but I won’t be on vacation. I will be visiting the old Briargate Post Office in Colorado Springs. Why travel to Colorado just to visit a post office? Well, this post office is special. It is being renamed in honor of Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz.

Dale was both a student and a friend. I met him when I came to teach at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He had graduated from Maranatha Baptist Bible College. He and his wife Christy had moved to Minnesota for seminary. They were attending Southview Baptist Church, and Dale was working at Lyndale Hardware in Richfield.

In the fall of 1998 I had just bought a HUD home that needed considerable repair. Dale volunteered to ask his employer if I could have some of their “mis-tint” paint for my home renovation. A few days later he told me, “There’s good news and there’s bad news. The good news is that you can have the paint. The bad news is that you have to take all of it.” Thanks to Dale we came away with over twenty gallons of various tints, shades, and textures of paint and stain. By judiciously combining them we were eventually able to use them all.

Dale had been in the Air Force before experiencing his call to ministry. With his military background, I asked him to think about military chaplaincy. That avenue of ministry did not seem appealing to him at the time, but he kept it in the back of his mind, and we discussed it occasionally.

After he graduated from Central Seminary, Dale took the pastorate of First Baptist Church in White, South Dakota. He stayed in White for about three years, and it was during those years that his interest in chaplaincy really began to grow. In 2004 he joined the chaplain corps of the United States Army. Over the next six years he deployed to Okinawa, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He served as the chaplain for the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, with the 4th Infantry Division of Fort Carson, Colorado.

Dale and Christy had three sons over the years. Landon was born in Minneapolis after Dale’s graduation. Caleb was born in White, South Dakota. Joel was born in Okinawa, about a year before Dale deployed to Afghanistan. While Dale was in Afghanistan, his family settled in Colorado Springs. On August 29, 2010, they were received into membership at High Country Baptist Church, pastored by Jason Parker.

Dale had a reputation as a soldier’s chaplain. The story is that the troops called him the “chaplain with dirty boots” because of the time he spent in active ministry. His goal was to lead three hundred soldiers to Christ and to see ten of them go into ministry. Dale also longed to see Muslims saved. He regularly prayed for them (he even prayed for the salvation of Osama Bin Laden), and he shared the gospel with insurgents.

On August 30, 2010 (the day after Dale’s family joined High Country Baptist Church), Dale was outside the wire near the Arghandab River valley in Kandahar. He had been in Afghanistan only a month, and he was on his way to minister to soldiers. The HUM-V that he was riding in detonated a roadside bomb. He and four soldiers who were with him died in the blast. Dale became the first American chaplain to die in combat since Viet Nam.

Dale’s memorial service was held in Colorado Springs. I had the privilege of attending it. The service was packed with high-ranking officers and public dignitaries, including Colorado’s governor. In Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton issued a proclamation recognizing Dale’s sacrifice and ordering flags within the state to be flown at half-mast.

More than ten years later, Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn decided that Dale should have a more permanent memorial. He introduced a bill into Congress to rename the old Briargate Post Office the “Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building.” The bill passed both houses with bipartisan support. The honor is fitting for someone who served as Dale did.

Since I was president of Central Seminary at the time of Dale’s death, I was asked to represent the seminary at the dedication of this building. Since I am a chaplain in the Air Force Auxiliary (the Civil Air Patrol) I was also asked to represent the CAP Chaplain Corps and Chaplain (Col.) John Murdoch, Chief of Chaplains. It was my privilege today to fulfill both of those roles.

Dale’s funeral was a sorrowful occasion. The dedication of this post office is a joyful one, because it involves public recognition of Dale’s contributions as a military chaplain. Recognition is cause for rejoicing. Much more joyful will be Dale’s recognition at the judgment seat of Christ. That will be a ceremony worth attending.

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

Now May the God of Peace and Love

Thomas Gibbons (1720–1785)

Now may the God of peace and love,
Who from th’ imprisoning grave
Restored the Shepherd of the sheep,
Omnipotent to save;

Through the rich merits of that blood,
Which He on Calvary spilt,
To make the eternal covenant sure,
On which our hopes are built;

Perfect our souls in every grace,
To accomplish all His will;
And all that’s pleasing in His sight,
Inspire us to fulfil.

For the great Mediator’s sake
We every blessing pray;
With glory let His name be crown’d,
Through heaven’s eternal day.

One might think that creedalism was a thing of the past, but what’s old is new again. I recently encountered a confession of faith posted as a sign in someone’s lawn. If people take the trouble to post their beliefs on their lawn, then they must think that those beliefs are important—perhaps even fundamental. And indeed, the theses on that sign do represent a new kind of fundamentalism. The sign said:

WE BELIEVE
BLACK LIVES MATTER
NO HUMAN IS ILLEGAL
LOVE IS LOVE
WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
SCIENCE IS REAL
WATER IS LIFE
INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE

Several observations are in order. First, this statement is a creed, a confession of faith. It is not a listing of empirical facts, but an assertion of what “we believe.” Its claims fall squarely within the orbit of prejudice.

Second, the creed offers no reasons for its prejudices. Of course, the function of creeds is to define dogmas, not to defend them. All creeds express opinions that the creeds themselves do not support. For a creed to be taken seriously, however, its adherents must provide supporting arguments and evidence. That task necessarily opens any creed to examination and criticism.

Third, the seven theses of this creed block debate by their blunt and dogmatic assertions. The document reads less like a creed and more like a manifesto. Understood functionally, it does not offer an invitation to examine evidence or to consider arguments, but it issues a call to action. For those who confess this creed, no question or hesitation will be welcomed.

Fourth, at the most facile level, every thesis in the creed is true. “Love is love” is simply tautologous. One can only deny that “women’s rights are human rights” by denying that women are humans. The creed asserts that “science is real,” but who ever claimed that science was imaginary? And what sane person is going to proclaim that “Black lives do not matter?” Every thesis is true—but trivial as stated.

Fifth, and this is where things go all 1984, none of these propositions says what it means. Each provides cover for a different prejudice that is much more controversial and damaging. The pious who confess this creed are attempting to smuggle a sensibility into the public consciousness while sparing themselves the trouble of defending it. Each thesis is a slogan, and the confession as a whole is an attempt to sloganeer a social revolution. This tactic becomes apparent when we examine the theses individually.

Black Lives Matter. Of course they do, and the percentage of murder victims who are Black is truly alarming. For the year 2018, nearly 45 percent of all murder victims in the United States were Black, even though Blacks account for only 13.4 percent of the population. Only about 8 percent of these murders were committed by whites; almost 89 percent were committed by other Blacks. While a few highly publicized police shootings are cause for genuine concern, someone who really believed that Black lives mattered would be devoting most of their attention to finding out why Blacks are killing other Blacks at such an alarming rate. The truth is that something matters more to those people than Black lives.

No Human Is Illegal. I take comfort in knowing that it is never illegal to be human. Wherever people pass laws, however, other people break them. People do illegal things, and it is not wrong to note that what they are doing is illegal. People who break laws by committing murder are illegal murderers. People who break laws by stealing are illegal thieves. People who break laws against selling drugs are illegal drug dealers. People who break laws when they immigrate are illegal immigrants. The real question is whether a nation can rightfully establish lawful procedures for immigration—yet the slogan carefully avoids that question.

Love Is Love. Yes, but is every love equally deserving of respect and celebration? A love for Italian cooking is usually innocuous, but it is hardly on a par with those loves that lead mothers to sacrifice for their children or patriots to die for their countries. To say that love is love is not to establish that all loves are equal or even respectable. Might some loves be despicable, such as when love of money turns into grasping greed, or sexual desire is perverted into pedophilia? This slogan really wishes us to deny that some loves are also perversions—but they are.

Women’s Rights Are Human Rights. True enough—but the question is, which rights are those? The expression “women’s rights” has become code for “the right to abort an unborn baby.” To defend abortion-on-demand as anybody’s right is simply to beg the question of whether such a right exists. For those who believe it does not, the attempt to smuggle abortion into this slogan is both absurd and obnoxious.

Science Is Real. Of course science is real, but what constitutes a science? Here is a hint: not every organized body of affirmations is science. The sciences employ a particular method: the observation and quantification of empirical phenomena, leading to the formulation of predictive hypotheses, the verification of which is subject to repeatable experimentation. Remarkably, current speculations about global warming and climate change do not fit that definition, but assertions about the humanity of unborn babies do.

Water Is Life. This is a metaphor: strictly speaking, water is water and life is life. Nevertheless, water is certainly necessary to life, which is what the slogan means. The smuggled message is that human access to potable water is being threatened. Perhaps that is true in places like the Sahara, the Gobi, and the Kalahari. Elsewhere, not so much. In fact, Western nations have made incredible progress over the past fifty years in cleaning up their water supplies. This slogan cannot be used ethically to imply that more Western governmental intrusion and regulation are necessary.

Injustice Anywhere Is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. The word threat is overly strong. If a petty thief in Delhi is permitted to escape, the rate of looting in Minneapolis is not likely to spike. Well, alright, it is likely to spike, but it would have done that anyway, whatever happens to the petty thief. The point is that there are greater and lesser injustices (as we try to teach our toddlers). Furthermore, some injustices cannot be corrected without perpetrating greater injustices. The real threat to justice everywhere is a niggling determination to pursue an unrealistic vision of justice in an imperfect world at any cost.

Humans cannot live without faith. The dogmas of this confession represent a new, secular, and in some circles, fundamentalist orthodoxy. Nevertheless, this new orthodoxy is grounded in a false vision, and when false visions are enforced by the coercive power of the state, they invariably become tyrannical. My response to this creed is, I believe what you say, but what you say is trivial. What you mean by what you say is not trivial, but it is false and profoundly dangerous.

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

Psalm 54

Henry Francis Lyte (1793–1847)

Save me by Thy glorious name;
Lord, that name is love,
Help from Thee I humbly claim,
Send it from above;
Hear, oh hear my suppliant voice!
Hear, and bid my heart rejoice.

Foes to Christ and every good
Fiercely throng on me;
Soon my soul must be subdued,
Without aid from Thee:
But with Thee to make me strong,
Lord, they shall not triumph long.

Lo, He comes, He takes my part,
All my struggles cease.
Rise in praise, my grateful heart,
Bless the Prince of Peace;
God Himself has set me free,
God my worship ever be!

One of the best periods in the history of Central Baptist Theological Seminary unfolded during the first two thirds of the 1960s. With Richard V. Clearwaters as president and Warren Vanhetloo as dean, the seminary assembled a cluster of amazingly bright young professors. These included men like Ernest Pickering, Robert Delnay, and Robert Myrant. While young themselves, these professors brought impeccable academic credentials to the classroom. They also brought a heart for ministry. Both Pickering and Myrant pastored churches while they taught for Central Seminary. Delnay’s teaching reflected his experience as a missionary in Haiti. These were teachers who loved God, loved truth, and loved to serve.

They left their mark on young men who studied under their instruction. When they graduated, these students left Central Seminary prepared to serve in small churches or obscure fields. They knew that they would never become men of reputation, yet they believed that Christ was doing a work and they wanted to be part of it. They threw themselves into ministry, leading souls to Christ, organizing churches, and building up little congregations. During its heyday, fundamentalism was erected upon the labors of men such as these.

Some of those men eventually did gain recognition from their peers. Others just labored on, content to wait until they were recognized by the Lord in His own time. They never became household names even within the small orbit of fundamentalists, but they did leave a legacy of souls who were converted to Christ and growing in the faith.

We at Central Seminary still want to produce graduates like that: men who through faithful labor serve their Lord lifelong, and men who do not constantly need to be propped up with human praise to convince them to remain in ministry. Most of all we want graduates who will be faithful to the end: we want men who will fulfill their ministries by finishing well.

We need such servants because the graduates of that now-distant decade are finishing their tasks. Their ministries are largely behind them, and they are being taken one by one into the presence of their Lord. The revelation of their true significance awaits the completion of the general assembly and church of the firstborn. Yet here and there we can guess at the degree to which the Lord has used them.

One such servant of the Lord and alumnus of Central Seminary passed away just this week. In the following paragraphs he is remembered by his friend, Dr. Fred Moritz. Incidentally, Dr. Moritz is another graduate of Central Baptist Theological Seminary from that same decade.

In Memory of a Friend
Fred Moritz
May 4 2021

We have just received word that evangelist David Baughan (1939-2021) has passed from this life to Heaven. We mourn his passing and extend our sympathy to his wife Bettye, his daughter Traci Baughan Mayes, and his son Torrey Baughan. Although earthly relationships are temporarily broken, we know he is in the presence of his savior, our Lord Jesus Christ. We take comfort in the assurance that when our Lord Jesus returns, we will “…ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17).

David was a West Virginia native, and grew up in the historic Old Kanawha Baptist Church. He graduated from Bob Jones University during the late 1950s. He then enrolled at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, earning the Th.B. degree in the spring of 1963. I enrolled at Central in the fall of 1963 and heard about his ministry.

I was privileged to have him preach on several occasions during my pastoral ministry. He was a gifted evangelist whose preaching was both expositional and expository. His ministry, grounded in the Word of God, was always positive and enduring in its impact on local churches where he ministered. He was a convicted Baptist, fundamentalist, and a separatist.

We also developed a friendship with the Baughan family when our daughters were young. Traci and Torrey are about the age of our girls.

When I began my teaching ministry at Maranatha Baptist University, providentially, I was assigned to be the office mate of his son-in-law, Dr. Preston Mayes. I fondly remember the positive interaction and Christian fellowship with Preston.

A friend has preceded us to Heaven. We thank God for his ministry and anticipate the day when we will see our Lord and renew our fellowship with brothers in Christ for all eternity. “We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:1-2).

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

Blest Be the Tie That Binds

John Fawcett (1740–1817)

Blest be the tie that binds 
our hearts in Christian love; 
the fellowship of kindred minds 
is like to that above. 

Before our Father’s throne 
we pour our ardent prayers; 
our fears, our hopes, our aims are one, 
our comforts and our cares. 

We share our mutual woes, 
our mutual burdens bear, 
and often for each other flows 
the sympathizing tear. 

When we are called to part, 
it gives us inward pain; 
but we shall still be joined in heart, 
and hope to meet again. 

This glorious hope revives 
our courage by the way; 
while each in expectation lives 
and waits to see the day. 

From sorrow, toil, and pain, 
and sin, we shall be free; 
and perfect love and friendship reign 
through all eternity. 

The God of the Bible is infinitely glorious! His glory is beyond comprehension or adequate description. Scripture has far more to say about that glory than this brief essay can reflect, but one concept arrested my interest while reading in the New Testament: the truth that God planned in eternity to share His glory with men.

What is glory? The word group translated glory, glorious, or to glorify in the Old Testament has the basic concept of heaviness or weightiness. However, of the 376 times it occurs in the Old Testament it describes physical weight only twice (1 Sam 4:18; 2 Sam 14:26). Most of its uses are figurative, communicating the honor, magnitude, noteworthiness, or severity of an event, object, or person. When used to describe God, those terms speak of His excellence, His greatness in knowledge and power, the honor (weight) due to Him, His magnificence, and His splendor.

The manifestation of God’s glory is beyond human comprehension or expression. The best the prophet Ezekiel could manage when describing the images which manifested God’s Person and presence was to write that He was “like” a variety of more familiar items (79 times). Isaiah was awestruck when granted a vision of the glory of the pre-incarnate Christ (Isa 6:5).

Scripture reveals that God’s glory is His supreme objective. A. H. Strong wrote, “God’s supreme end in creation is nothing outside of Himself, but is his own glory…, the infinite perfection of his own being.” The OT describes Him as being jealous of His glory in twelve passages (cf. Exod 34:14). He refuses to share that glory with any other being or object of worship (Isa 42:8; 48:11).

Evidently, Adam and Eve observed God’s glory in their original state (Gen 2:15, 19, 22). Genesis 3:8 suggests that they engaged in intimate fellowship with this glorious God regularly. However, Adam and Eve forfeited their opportunity to experience God’s glory when they gave their personal desire greater weight than God. As a result, they were evicted from the Garden and God’s glorious presence. In the process, Scripture teaches that “all sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). “To fall short” means to lack, to fail to experience, to be deficient of something. This verse describes sinful man’s continuing state. As a result of our sin, mankind is impoverished when it comes to God’s glory and incapable of experiencing it. Sinful humans have no hope of experiencing God’s glory!

God revealed His presence in a variety of ways in history but men observed His glory in limited ways. The people of Israel saw it in the pillar of cloud and fire during the Exodus (Exod 13:21-22). God’s glory filled the most holy place in the Tabernacle following its construction (Exod 40:34-35). Later, the glory filled Solomon’s Temple, forcing the priests to evacuate (2 Chron 5:11-14). On Moses’ sixth climb to the summit of Mount Sinai, he asked God to reveal His full glory (Exod 33:18). God responded that it was not possible, “for no man can see Me and live!” (Exod 33:20). Moses would have died if exposed to such glory in its full intensity. Graciously, the Lord permitted him to see a reflection of His glory after His presence passed by. Peter, James, and John saw Jesus undergo a transformation in appearance which reflected His pre-incarnate glory, describable only in terms of the brightness of the sun and the whiteness of light (Matt 17:2). John wrote, “We saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (John 1:14). Few have had that experience.

Where does that leave us? Are we without hope of experiencing God’s glory? No! Paul indicated that God’s eternal plan provided opportunity for sinful man to share His glory. He described the gospel as “the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory” (1 Cor 2:7, emphasis added). Christ’s suffering was an essential part of “bringing many sons to glory” (Heb 2:10). The gospel is God’s invitation to sinners to share His glory (2 Thess 2:14). The apostle Peter affirmed that God invited believers to His eternal glory (1 Pet 5:10). That is no bargain basement version. It is “His own glory and excellence” (2 Pet 1:3). Jude assured his readers that God is fully capable of sharing His glory with believing sinners inasmuch as He is “able to keep you from stumbling, to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy” (Jude 24). The whole purpose of preaching the gospel is that those whom God has chosen “may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory” (2 Tim 2:10).

When and how might that occur? At one level, it is occurring right now in the process of sanctification as believers “are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Cor 3:18). However, the process will be full and final only when believers are raptured at some future date. Though the body of a believer who dies before Christ’s return “is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory” (1 Cor 15:43). At that moment, Christ will “transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil 3:21). In fact, “When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory” (Col 3:4). The believer’s glorious state will be permanent from that point on. God has invited sinners to experience His “eternal glory” (1 Pet 5:10, emphasis added). Every believer “will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17).

A final note: the anticipation of sharing God’s glory is not based on individual performance. Believers who have this hope should always be “abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor 15:58). However, the possibility of glory does not lie in personal effort. It is purely the result of the sinner’s union with Christ, for “the riches of the glory of this mystery…is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27, emphasis added). Glory!

This essay is by Don Odens, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Practical 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 Will My Heart Endure

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

How will my heart endure
The terrors of that day,
When earth and heaven before His face
Astonish’d shrink away?

But ere the trumpet shakes
The mansions of the dead,
Hark! from the Gospel’s cheering sound
What joyful tidings spread.

Ye sinners, seek His grace,
Whose wrath ye cannot bear;
Fly to the shelter of His Cross,
And find salvation there.

So shall that curse remove,
By which the Saviour bled;
And the last awful day shall pour
His blessings on your head.