1 The elder: To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth—and not only I, but also all who know the truth— 2 because of the truth that remains in us and will be with us forever. 3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
4 I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, in keeping with a command we have received from the Father. 5 So now I ask you, dear lady—not as if I were writing you a new command, but one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. 6 This is love: that we walk according to his commands. This is the command as you have heard it from the beginning: that you walk in love.
7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world; they do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves so that you don’t lose what we have worked for, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who does not remain in Christ’s teaching but goes beyond it does not have God. The one who remains in that teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home, and do not greet him; 11 for the one who greets him shares in his evil works.
12 Though I have many things to write to you, I don’t want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to come to you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete. 13 The children of your elect sister send you greetings.
~2 John 1-13
Title: On Christian Living in the Last Hour Text: 2 John 1-13 Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: September 24, 2023
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will: To the faithful saints in Christ Jesus at Ephesus. 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
~Ephesians 1.1-2
Title: On a Historical, Literary, and Theological Overview of Ephesians Text: Ephesians 1.1-2 Series: The Letter to the Ephesians Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: April 30, 2023
Cooperation between local churches has long been a hallmark of Baptist identity. Going all the way back to the earliest English separatists, Baptists have always understood that, though local churches are autonomous, we are better able to accomplish the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations when we partner together. Our history is filled with example after example of local churches that have worked together to fund, train, and send missionaries around the world. In many ways, these precedents are the foundation for the denominational structures that exist today. Whether it is the national convention, the state conventions, or the local associations, all of these entities exist to facilitate the cooperation of like-minded churches for the advancement of the global cause of Christ.
Of course, it goes without saying that the strength and effectiveness of these entities is directly dependent on the participation of local churches. This is particularly true at the level of the local Baptist association; their ministry suffers drastically when local churches do not participate regularly. One factor that has contributed significantly to the weakness of associational ministry is the rise of the mega/multisite church. The overabundance of people and resources in these churches enables them to operate as independent self-sufficient organisms, essentially negating their need to cooperate with other churches in the area. In my own local association, there is a relatively large church, a mega church by all comparative measurements, and while their name appears on the association roster, their participation therein is practically nil save a token monthly financial contribution.
Whatever the reasons, when local churches do not participate in the ministry of the local association, all of the churches that partner with that association suffer. Local associations, especially those in more rural areas, have largely become weak, ineffective, and irrelevant due to the widespread apathy that characterizes attitudes in most local Baptist churches. It has come to the point that we might even begin to wonder why these entities still exist and whether they should continue at all. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”. The point is that we desperately need to recover the value of local association ministry, and in the space that remains, I would like to highlight just a few of the ways that participation in the local association benefits the local church.
First, the local association provides pastors the opportunity to build relationships with other pastors. More often than not, pastors cannot find the kinds of relationships that sustain long term ministry success in their own congregations. This should not be the case, of course, but being a pastor can sometimes feel very lonely. Building relationships with other pastors through the local association can help to alleviate that isolation; it is a place where pastors can turn for encouragement, accountability, and mentoring. The latter of these is particularly important for younger first time pastors. The value of being mentored by seasoned, experienced, faithful pastors is a resource that will bear fruit long after those pastors retire. Older pastors have the opportunity to invest in and influence the next generation of pastors through meaningful self-giving relationships, and the best place for these to develop is through the local association. Or to put it more simply, pastors need each other.
A second way in which participation in the local association benefits the local church is by cooperative mission efforts. The simple fact of the matter is that the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations, while it is certainly not less than, it is so much more than the isolated ministry of one local church. Most local churches, the vast majority of which average less than 100 in weekly attendance, simply do not have the financial or people resources to develop an effective mission program. However, when those resources are pooled together with other churches through the local association, we are better able to reach not only our Jerusalem, but our Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth. This is essentially what the Cooperative Program is all about; in the Southern Baptist Convention, churches pool their resources through the cooperative program primarily for the purpose of national and international missions and theological education. If we truly care about the cause of Christ, then this kind of cooperation must begin at the local level.
Lastly, participation in the ministry of the local association helps churches cultivate a kingdom first mentality. This may be more of a result of the first two, but the point is that participating in the local association reminds us that Christianity is bigger than our little slice of the pie. The Kingdom of God is much more than our particular sphere of influence. However, it is all too easy for churches, particularly those that are experiencing seasons of meaningful ministry, to begin to believe that the work of the Kingdom revolves around the ministry efforts of their particular church. Pride begins to spring up in our hearts, and we develop a kind of competitive attitude where we measure our successes and achievements against other local churches. But, the fact of the matter is that local churches should not be in competition with each other. We are all on the same team, all striving for the same goal, and local association ministry helps keep this reality at the foreground of our ambitions.
I love the local church; I believe in the ministry of the local church. The local church is the primary avenue of God’s work in the world to bring people to faith in His Son and transform them into His image. But the Kingdom of God is bigger than individual churches; the Great Commission is bigger than individual churches. And denominational organizations from the local association all the way up to the national convention exist to facilitate and support the cooperation of likeminded churches for the cause of Christ. Denominations are not perfect, because they are made up of people that are not perfect. They can be frustrating, ineffective, and even disappointing at times, but when local association ministry is done well, it makes it all worth it.
Note: This post was originally posted at SBCvoices, here.
In my previous post, I began to outline the general contours of a biblical ethic for theological discourse. The ability to discuss questions of theology and biblical interpretation Christianly, especially where there is disagreement, is a primary indication of a person’s maturity in Christ. However, so often in this current cultural climate, godly virtues like humility, gentleness, kindness, love, and grace are glaringly absent from most (online) theological discourse. In addition to that, the proliferation of social media has created a practical cacophony of voices making it nearly impossible to know which ones are faithful and true. As Christians, we are called to contend passionately for the truth, which necessarily includes calling out those errors which are in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of the Bible. And so, the question remains, how can we contend for theological truth without being unnecessarily contentious?
The fact is that false teaching has always been a plague on the people of God. From Mosaic prescriptions that lay out the consequences for those making false prophecies to the writing prophets and their warnings about those who offer false promises of peace and security in the face of judgment to the warnings of the New Testament Gospels and epistles even to Revelation’s descriptions of an eschatological false prophet, the Bible is consistent in calling the people of God to be on guard, always watching our lives and our doctrine closely. However, we are also responsible for the lives and doctrine of each other within the community of faith. We bear a mutual responsibility for each other’s souls as we pursue biblical faithfulness, and when a brother or sister wanders off the path of truth, when they are swept up by the deceptions of false teaching, then we are called to the ministry of a loving rebuke that we may point them back to faithfulness.
The challenge, however, comes in identifying exactly what is and what is not false teaching. It has become common practice it seems to label our theological opponents with ideological and emotionally charged epithets that end up causing more confusion than clarity, which results in even more division. Labels like false teacher, heretic, liberal, etc. simply cannot be thrown around carelessly. Merely holding a different theological conclusion than someone else does not mean that they deserve to be identified as a false teacher. This is why we need a clear definition of what false teaching is. False teaching is any teaching that contradicts the primary and essential truths of the Bible. It is any doctrine that stands contrary to the fundamental essence of the Gospel. This has been the common understanding throughout the history of the church, but it would seem that in the current cultural climate many people have forgotten how to distinguish between friend and foe.
We desperately need to recover the discipline of theological triage. The ability to appreciate what is primary and what is secondary or tertiary is an ability that seems all but lost in most theological discourse. The threat of false teaching only applies at the level of the primary, those core truths that if compromised place one outside of the Christian faith. Historically, these primary doctrines have been defined by the classic creeds of the early church. These creeds (e.g. Apostle’s, Nicene/Constantinopolitan, Athanasian, etc.) were forged in the crucible of theological controversy, so they are helpful in identifying what does and does not constitute false teaching. Of course, they do not replace or supersede the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, but they can be helpful in clarifying the contours of Christian orthodoxy. Clearly, as it was then so also now, any teaching or doctrine that falls outside of these bounds is rightly called heresy or false teaching, and anyone who holds, affirms, or promotes this kind of doctrine must be rebuked for their error. With that being said, in what follows, I would like to outline a few biblical priorities that we must keep in mind as we engage each other in these matters.
The first priority is the priority of the local church. The local church is the primary locus of God’s redemptive and sanctifying work, and this includes the ministry of rebuke. It is in the local church that we are taught sound doctrine. It is in the local church where we submit to pastor-elders who keep watch over our souls. It is in the local church where we hold each other accountable and consider how we might provoke one another to love and good deeds. All of the commands that instruct us to correct and rebuke false teaching are addressed to the local church. This means that the local church is the right and proper context for hammering out our theological differences, for wrestling with the text of Scripture. It should be a safe place where people can ask questions, where they can express their understanding of particular issues and questions without fear of judgment or ridicule, and when necessary, where they can be pointed back to the way of biblical truth by correction or rebuke. In other words, it is not our job as pastors or as church members to police the theology of all Christians everywhere. Rather, it is our job to maintain biblical faithfulness within the context of the local church community where God has placed us.
The second priority is the priority of relationships. Relationships matter. What we must realize is that the Great Commandment to love God and to love people is not two but one. These are two sides of the same coin, to halves of one whole. Loving God necessarily includes loving others, and we can only do this in personal intimate friendships. When these relationships are grounded in mutual love for God and for each another, then and only then can we be assured of a person’s intent, that they are for our good and not for our harm, that they only wants what’s best for us. This unwavering trust is the currency that must be spent in speaking words of rebuke to one another. Outside of this basic assurance of a person’s good intentions, our rebukes will almost always come across as harsh, demeaning, belittling, and divisive. This is why the greater the relational distance that exists between us and our theological opponents, the greater amount of grace we must be willing to show them. This means giving the benefit of the doubt; it means taking our opponents at their word. And it means attributing questions or concerns first to misunderstanding, differing emphases, or lack of clarity before immediately impugning, slandering, and mischaracterizing someone’s biblical fidelity and devotion.
The third priority in the ministry of rebuke is the priority of repentance. Repentance, restoration, reconciliation. This must be the guiding principle, the primary purpose, in every church discipline situation. This is especially so when it comes to the ministry of rebuke. There may be occasions where a stern rebuke is necessary and warranted, but we are not simply trying to win arguments for the sake of being right. We are not engaged in a game where we need to win theological points to defeat our opponents. If false teaching is any doctrine or belief that would invalidate the Gospel, then we cannot pretend that these questions have no consequence. We are engaged in a spiritual battle for the soul, that we might turn them to Christ. This is why doctrine matters; this is why we must contend for the faith. It can never merely be a question of who is right and who is wrong. Every theological conversation must be guided by the primary desire of both parties to be more like Christ, to submit more to Christ, to trust more in Christ. This is why we must be ready and willing to repent and seek forgiveness, and it is why we must engage our theological differences in ways that invite others to do likewise.
And finally, the fourth priority for our theological discourse is the priority of Christlikeness. We are called to demonstrate the virtues of Christian character in every situation, in every interaction, in every conversation. Even when we must speak hard words, we are not permitted to speak them harshly. We cannot give into attitudes like hate, bitterness, or pride. We cannot treat our theological opponents, no matter the severity of their error, with derision or disregard or contempt. We must always seek to “speak the truth in love” even when that truth is confronting. Of course, there are plenty of examples in the Gospels where Jesus had to deliver hard words, and to our ears, his confrontations with the Pharisees may seem downright combative or argumentative. I will consider these examples and how they relate to theological discourse in my next post; however, suffice it say here that tone matters. Even when we must confront those who are descending into grave theological error, we must endeavor to deliver our rebukes with the virtues of Christ-like character, not the least of which are grace, humility, and love.
Faith seeking Understanding 