Changed Forever Ministries

A few years ago (1999) a book was published entilted "A Hill on Which to Die" by Judge Pessler. It was sent to every pastor in Oklahoma (or at least in the metro). Recently some quotes from the book were posted on a blog by Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, OK. I found these quotes interesting as well as Wade's comments.

The major topic of the book was the conservative resurgance (or take-over) in the SBC. Pressler said that "the issue in the convention is not interpretation of Scripture nor the unity of thinking on theological issuses" he also said "An interpretation of Scripture is a derivative issuse and not a primary one".

The point he tried to make was that the issuse between "liberial" and "conservative" was the nature of the Bible (i.e. is it inerrant) and NOT all the other variants of Biblical interpretation. I think this is a true statement in general.

However, the liberials (moderates) fear that once those who have a high and perfect view of scripture are in power they will "clean house" of everyone who doesn't believe exactly the way they do in all theological and interpretative areas. This fear is probably reasonable.

The challenging question for me is, what do I base my Christian affiliation with other belivers on. One hand I want the Gospel to be spread far and wide and if a pentacostal or calvinist is doing the evangelsizing I say more power to them. I love all my brothers and sister in Christ and I firmly believe that there are born again saints in almost every denomination.

On the other hand I question the difference between Christian charity and close affiliation and cooperation. If the Bible is my final source of authority on Christian doctrine, practice and ministry (which it is) then interpretation does matter. How I interpret the scripture based on Biblical hermenutics and logic shapes my doctrine and my ministry. There are some variants of Bilical interpretation (i.e. the charasmatic gifts) that are significant enough that to try and blend the two in a ministry melting pot would be more of a hinderance than a help.

I wish my pentacostal brothers well. I do not believe that our differences are issues of othrodoxy. However, I have a clear and defendable interpretation of the scripture and I must stand by that and that makes me distinctive, it makes me Baptist.

The big issuse today with the IMB is "private" prayer languages. The truth is that this is somewhat of a mystery. There are FEW verses that even refer to such a practice and none of them are explictly clear that there is such a gift and if so how it ought be practiced. (If anyone can give me a good exegesis of a text on this I would love to read it).

Therefore, this practice of private prayer languages is cousin to the practice of non-private tongues speaking. Which the majority of is practiced in non-Baptist church across the world, much of which is practiced in a non-Biblical way. For evidence simply turn on TBN any day of the week.

Althgough I am sensitive not to disenfrancise my brothers and sisters who profess to practice a private prayer language (by the way I have a good missionary friend who does) doctrinally I see it as a slippery slope toward non-private tongue speaking which I and most Southern Baptists believe is not normative today. Our interpretation is our Hill to stand on and if we don't stand for that the future is bleak. You know the old saying "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything." If we continue to muddy the doctrinal water in the name of cooperation we will cease to be what we once were-Baptist!

Historically and doctrinally Southern Baptist have never been tongues speakers. Our intention has never been to degrade or demonize those who do speak in tongues, we simply stand on our Biblical convictions that's what makes us who we are. By the way; I am convinced we have very scholarally and Biblical substance behind our doctrine which can be fortified first by scripture but also by church history and theology. I believe it's a good Hill to stand on.

Furthermore, let me say that a missionary is not autonomous like a church. When an IMB or NAMB missionary takes the feild he/she represents the thousands of SBC churches who gave to the cooperative program and subsequently they MUST represent the general doctrinal concensus of those churches who pay their salary. This is best qualified by the Baptist Faith & Message. If I did not have some assurance that our missinaories were hald accounatble to this I would not give to the CP.

In conclusion. I hope I am clear about a balanace between doctrinal fellowship and general Christian love. The only hill I must die on is the hill of Calvary as I yeild my life to Christ. I believe we can take a firm stand on Biblical and Baptist intrepretation while at the same time encouraging the many other great Christian institutions that are working toward the same goal.