As I previously wrote, I do think there is a future for denominations—specifically the SBC—in America. Denominations are inevitable because like-minded people will always find a way to associate with one another. They are inevitable because, although the Great Commission was given to the church, your local church can’t finish it alone—you HAVE to form up a team with others to get to all nations.

And, if you don’t use the tool of the SBC, you are going to need to create another one. Sure, it will look like a sleek network at first (and I am for them), but over time it will start broadening its mission and eventually become a denomination, just like, well, every other network over time in the history of the world.

So, what should we do to be the best denomination we can be? If the SBC and other denominations are to not only continue, but flourish, I believe they must:

1. Be on mission together as opposed to being suspicious of other tribes. Denominations should be made up of churches that look outward rather than inward and help other churches do the same. We don’t need to have different groups circling the wagons, but rather we need them to be partnering in mission.

I could give several examples of such tribalism, but let me address the newest controversy. For example, there are now groups and places where the defining narrative and purpose is Calvinism. There are also groups and places where the defining narrative is baptist theological traditionalism. If that’s our driving purpose, that’s not helping. There are legitimate discussions that need to be had, but forming up tribes is not the way to have them.

2. Partner with confessional consensus. I believe strongly in the importance of confessions of faith. As the SBC works to become more ethnically diverse, partnering together with biblically faithful contemporary, traditional, ethnic, and all kinds of churches, and working through questions of our future in all of our demographic variety, we must maintain a strong confessional consensus in order to partner together.

That means we don’t need agencies and organizations within the convention to have a standard other than the SBC’s standard. We do not need, and we cannot survive, with a balkanized theological system. Instead, the BFM should be the confessional standard for our partnerships—formally, informally, and in every other way. Other standards breed distrust and, in my view, undermine a central promise of the Conservative Resurgence that eventually we’d agree on enough to partner together.

3. Value methodological diversity. Confessions are important but do not answer all of the methodological questions churches will face. Holding a common confession as a denomination gives us the confidence to trust those within the confessional community who differ methodologically from us. One of the signs that tribalism has replaced a missional identity is when we think that the denomination would be much better off if everyone operated “just like our church.”

Cooperating Southern Baptists work together because of common doctrine, not uniform methodology. God forbid we apply the domestic standard some have of a uniform methodology to our foreign missionaries. It would only mean the outsourcing of a bygone era of Americana.

4. Assist local churches, not vice versa. We must remember that denominations are begun for missional reasons and that denominations should continue for missional reasons. The denomination exists to help churches carry out the Great Commission. When we get this backwards, self-preservation becomes the goal. The denomination is subservient to the church. The denomination exists to support the mission of the churches, not to perpetuate a temporary organization. The church carries forth God’s eternal purpose and the denomination assists the churches to do so better, together.

It is this nature that I believe holds the future of denominations. Less political legislation, less cult of personality, and more cooperation, anchored by a confessional consensus, between mission-focused churches lasered in on the mission of God.

There is strength in denominations. In His wisdom, God has allowed for the cooperation of churches in networks and denominations so that the greatest number of people in our world can be most effectively reached with the one thing that brings true unity: the gospel.

“Is there a future?”

That’s always the question around the denominational season.

This summer, I’ll be at a few of those denominational annual meetings. Though they are different denominations, they will all have something in common—they will all be wondering what kind of future their denomination, and denominationalism, holds.

Denominations are having a rough go of it. Some have been weakened by theological controversies over core Christian beliefs. Others are just trying to figure out what the future looks like. And, though the Southern Baptist Convention is driven by a conservative baptist theology, we still have had our share of difficult times.

Many of the well-known, large churches in America have no denominational affiliation, and many church leaders believe the days of denominations are over. A few short decades ago, denominational meetings were some of the most widely attended places to receive training and connect with others in church ministry.

Now, events such as Catalyst, The Gospel Coalition Conference, Passion, Willow Creek’s Summit, and Exponential Conference rival or surpass the attendance numbers of annual meetings of the SBC and have an age demographic that is three decades below that of SBC messengers. Sadly, when I spoke at the Exponential Conference last month, I probably connected with more young SBC pastors than I will see at the annual meeting in a few weeks.

Times, particularly denominational times, are a’changin’ and that means we need to think strategically about the future.

Denominations as a Tool in the Mission

Denominations—yes, I’m talking about the SBC as it is a denomination regardless of what some think—are a tool, a vehicle, to be used to join God in His mission. Unfortunately we often turn tools into goals and our focus becomes the machine instead of the mission.

If our GOAL is the SBC, we’ve missed it.

Actually, I’m concerned about people who make the SBC their goal—those who are driven and impressed by a denominational system. Our focus should be on the REAL goal, the advance of the gospel worldwide. So, I am not driven to maintain the SBC system, I’m driven by the goal of that system– the task of worldwide (local, national, and international) mission.

When I walk out of my house in the morning and get into my car, I do not praise and exalt my car as a miraculous, end-all, be-all creation. To the contrary, my car is a helpful vehicle that assists me in my mission of getting to work and accomplishing all that God intends for me to do. My car doesn’t need a mission statement. I, living a life of gospel purposefulness, am the one with the mission.

So it is with our churches– they’ve been given the mission. A denomination should exist to help its churches live sent and live out that mission, rather than maintain a structure. The denomination can be an extension of the local church’s ministry, but only to the degree the denomination is willing to be the tool and not the goal.

The goal of the SBC now, particularly post-Conservative Resurgence (which promised to get our theological house in order so we could focus on global missions), has to be what the original documents said: “eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the Baptist denomination of Christians, for the propagation of the gospel.”

We will see if Houston feels that way. I’m praying it does.

The SBC and the Mission of God

It goes without saying God does not need the SBC to fulfill His mission.

Yet, the mission is bigger than a mission board, and God’s agenda is working far beyond the SBC, and the SBC should be valued to the degree that it lines up and helps churches and believers participate in the mission of God throughout the world. If denominations are to exist, as I have advocated in Christianity Today, it must be for the purpose of helping churches fulfill the Great Commission and join God in His mission.

I sense the affirming rumblings of a chorus of “Amens” as I write about the priority of the mission, but will it feel like that in Houston?

Will the reports of the mission boards dominate our interest, or will controversies? Will key voices be the mission leaders or the theological warriors? (For what it is worth, my observation is that healthier denominations build their annual meeting programs around their mission boards… but that is for another blog post.)

Perhaps the focus of our denominational meetings will tell us what we really value.

What Happened to Denominational Loyalty?

The SBC is a convention of churches, not a hierarchical organization. We do not have a pope or a college of cardinals. We do not—or should not—blindly follow a cult of personality.

The purpose of the SBC, according to the founding documents, is as a “corporation… created for the purpose of eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the Baptist denomination of Christians, for the propagation of the gospel, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.” That’s a noble purpose.

However, the value of such denominational partnership seems to be increasingly on the decline among churchgoers.

LifeWay Research conducted a study of Protestant churchgoers who had attended more than one church as an adult. We were looking for reasons adults chose their current church when changing churches. The most important factors were the beliefs or doctrine of the church, the preaching, and the authenticity of members. Only half indicated that denomination was important—ranking 13 out of 19 possible factors. Denominational loyalty doesn’t seem very important, and as I talk with leaders from across the spectrum of denominations, they are working hard to discern what the future holds.

When you look at it generationally, the trends don’t look good. In a 2010 study of Protestant pastors, LifeWay Research found the majority were pessimistic about the future of denominations. Only a couple of subgroups of pastors differ significantly. Pastors age 65 and older are less likely to agree that the importance of being identified with a denomination will diminish over the next 10 years. Fifty-four percent of pastors age 65 and older agree with this statement, while 67 percent of pastor ages 55-64 agree.

The strongest differences, however, are seen across responses of pastors of different size churches. Seventy-two percent of pastors of churches with 250 or more in average worship attendance agree with the statement concerning the diminishing importance of denominations. This is compared to 64 percent of pastors in churches of 100-249 attendees, 62 percent of pastors in churches of 50-99 attendees, and 53 percent of pastors in churches of less than 50 attendees.

So, there is a loyalty challenge. No question.

The solution is not berating those that are disconnected, but to provide a compelling vision that draws churches and leaders in.

Later this week, I will share some thoughts about what that might look like.

As many readers will know, the SBC Annual Meeting will gather in Houston on June 11–12, 2013. In conjunction with the Convention, I teach an elective travel course at Southeastern Seminary titled The Southern Baptist Convention. The course is divided into three components. First, we meet on campus for one full day to discuss Southern Baptist history, theology, and polity, as well as specific information related to the upcoming annual meeting. Second, the students read several books and articles and listen to numerous audio resources related to these themes. Finally, the students attend the SBC Annual Meeting itself. While at the Convention, the students attend most of the proceedings, meet a couple of times with key SBC leaders, hobnob at the SEBTS booth, and attend the SEBTS Friends and Alumni Luncheon. Most also attend auxiliary events such as the Pastor’s Conference, Baptist 21 Luncheon, and 9 Marks at 9 events, among others.

I thought I would pass on to you some of the resources I use to prepare students for the SBC Annual Meeting. Obviously, we spend quite a bit of time walking through the Convention program, which, along with numerous other helpful resources, is available online. In addition to my lectures and guided class discussions, the students also watch or listen to several lectures, sermons, and panel discussions. This year, I’ve required them to watch the various Baptist 21 panel discussions from previous years (available at the B21 website), which are a helpful gauge of the “hot topics” in the SBC in recent years. I also required the students to watch one of the panels from last year’s 9 Marks at 9. The panel, which included Mark Dever, Al Mohler, and Danny Akin, discussed Fred Luter’s presidential election, the nature of SBC cooperation, and Calvinism, all of which remain important topics a year later.

I also point the students to four lectures or sermons. They watch David Dockery’s fine sermon “Participants and Partners in the Gospel,” which was preached in SEBTS chapel back in February. The sermon is vintage Dockery, calling for denominational unity around the gospel and basic Baptist orthodoxy for the sake of the Great Commission. Students also listen to Dockery’s lecture “The Southern Baptist Convention since 1979,” which helps to orient them to recent Baptist history. The final two lectures are Timothy George’s “The Future of Baptist Identity in a post-Denominational World,” which remains a timely topic, and Al Mohler’s “The Future of the Southern Baptist Convention,” an address that every Southern Baptist needs to listen to at least once.
The students read two books and over a dozen journal articles or book chapters. The first book is Roger Richards’ History of Southern Baptists (Crossbooks, 2012), which is the most recent history of the SBC. The second book is a helpful collection of essays titled The Great Commission Resurgence: Fulfilling God’s Mandate in Our Time (B&H Academic, 2010), edited by Chuck Lawless and Adam Greenway. The latter volume touches upon most of the current tension points in the SBC from a perspective that advocates unity for the sake of gospel advance.

Unfortunately, for reasons of copyright I can’t make most of the additional essays I require available outside of the class. The students read chapters, articles, and booklets written by SBC leaders and thinkers such as Danny Akin (on the Great Commission Resurgence), David Dockery (on Baptist theology), Nathan Finn (on Baptist identity, Calvinism, and the future of the SBC), Timothy George (on Baptist theology), John Hammett (on regenerate church membership and the ordinances), Chuck Lawless (on Calvinism), Al Mohler (on Baptist identity), Paige Patterson (on the Conservative Resurgence), Ed Stetzer (on missional churches), and Malcolm Yarnell (on the priesthood of all believers).

One resource that I can make available to you is Dr. Patterson’s e-booklet “The Southern Baptist Conservative Resurgence: The History, the Plan, the Assessment ” (Seminary Hill, 2012). In this booklet, was which was originally published as three separate articles in The Southwestern Journal of Theology, Dr. Patterson offers a first-hand account of the Conservative Resurgence. It is a helpful look at recent Baptist history from one of the most important shapers of that history. It is also a reminder that Dr. Patterson needs to publish a volume that brings together his collected articles and essays, a topic I have pestered him about in the past. (And again, now, on a public blog . . .)

Anyway, I hope you find these resources helpful. And I hope that many of you will consider attending the 2013 SBC Annual Meeting in Houston. Perhaps I will see many of you there.

(Note: This post was cross-published at Christian Thought & Tradition)

The theme for the 2013 Southern Baptist Convention has been announced: unity.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this will upset some, because there are still a few Southern Baptists who think our fighting needs to continue. However, most Southern Baptists have decided they are ready to end the fighting and move forward together on mission. The desire for unity has been evident in the last few annual meetings, so don’t be fooled by a few loud bloggers. We’ve had several opportunities to choose division (real or perceived) in our recent conventions, and we have chosen unity. So the theme of this year’s convention is right and timely.

As such, here are a few thoughts on unity as we look ahead to the SBC annual meeting.

Unity in Our Theological Essentials

Theology matters in the SBC.

This is precisely why we had the conservative resurgence. Historically, Baptists have not only been a missions’ people but also a confessional people. Baptist’s have rightly desired to agree upon doctrinal beliefs and commitments before moving forward on mission together. Now, most Southern Baptists are content with the BFM 2000 as a sufficient doctrinal statement as we seek to be obedient to Jesus call in Matthew 28:18-20.

Nevertheless, there have been some cases where entities have drawn smaller doctrinal circles. I don’t think that’s helpful, but I think that message is being received. So, we move on—together.

We are aiming for unity around our shared central doctrines, not uniformity on non-essential theological issues. Let us prayerfully recognize the potential of division and the place of dialogue and disagreement within the confines of our confession, but prayerfully and eagerly fight to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).

Unity in Our Missional Focus

Hopefully, we can come to terms with the condition we are in. The SBC will always be methodologically diverse. Sadly, ignorant stereotyping and prideful dismissal comes from all angles within the camp. We can either build bridges to the field or build walls around our troops.

Perhaps a brief history lesson is helpful here.

The initial agenda of the SBC was simple: to combine the efforts of autonomous churches for “one sacred effort” – the propagation of the gospel. Baptists have always placed a priority on missions. The original constitution of the SBC clearly reflects this: “It shall be the design of this convention to promote foreign and domestic missions, and other important objects connected with the Redeemer’s Kingdom.”

Let us do whatever it takes to refocus our missional aim for the glory of God.

Unity in Our Representational Body

The SBC is struggling with generational transition and multiethnic representation. First, we have a crisis of younger leaders–still.

Those of us who pointed out (before we were ready to make friends with the demographic facts) were criticized for daring to question the involvement and existence of our younger leaders. But then, people began actually looking around during the convention and saw that it wasn’t “graying” – overwhelmingly, it was gray.

Secondly, we also have a convention that is primarily white in a country that is increasingly more diverse. Simple math shows where we are headed if those two problems are not corrected.

Reality should inspire us to greater diversity. Not everyone is going to go with us on this journey. In fact, we have already preached out many of our visionary, but non-conformist leaders and pastors. With the people who have stayed, we need to step forward as a unified coalition for healthy transition.

The election of Fred Luter, Frank Page’s work with the ethnic advisory council, the platforming of younger SBC leaders last year, and more are good steps. But the change our convention needs must grow out of our local churches.

We need to begin making intentional decisions to train the younger generations and attract/reach and welcome ethnic diversity to our church families.

Finally, we need the leaders from previous generations to share their wisdom and experience with the up-and-coming leaders and for our primarily white churches to reach out to their increasingly diverse communities.

Only then can we build a physically diverse but spiritually unified community that presses forward together for a common mission.

Concluding Thoughts

Unity is a good theme for our annual meeting, and an even better vision for our convention as a whole.

It is a vision we can, by the grace of God, achieve if we take a posture of humility and understanding towards one another. Here’s the thing, the Lord of the harvest is, and will be, sending out workers (Matt. 9:38). We are all in unified agreement with God’s Word here. But my fear is that we are spending too much time in the shed arguing about the harvesting process, advocating for our harvesting methods, and fighting over the right tools for the harvest.

Let’s be a convention united around our shared theology, joint mission and coming King to go into the fields together for His glory. My prayer is that unity becomes not just our theme, but our reality.

Should the theological school be considered an “academic” enterprise? Or is it a “churchly” endeavor? Yes and yes. Or, so says Richard Mouw in his recent monograph, The Challenges of Cultural Discipleship. In the next-to-last chapter, “The Seminary, the Church, and the Academy,” Mouw argues that the theological school is an academic manifestation of Christ’s kingdom, and yet it is a manifestation closely related to the church.[1]

Mouw begins the chapter by providing a concise overview of the struggles within the Christian Reformed Church in the late 19^th century, in which the Free University of Amsterdam (associated with Abraham Kuyper) promoted an essentially non-ecclesiastical model while Kampen Theological Seminary (where Herman Bavinck spent the large portion of his career) operated under ecclesiastical control. Kuyper was anti-ecclesiastic because of his doctrine of sphere sovereignty, which argues that each sphere of human culture (e.g. the academy) has its own unique integrity and should not be controlled by another sphere (e.g. church).

Mouw notes that the “theological school” is an interesting case study for proponents of sphere sovereignty (of which Mouw is one), and argues that the theological school’s ontology is of the academy and for the church. For him, the theological school is an academic manifestation of Christ’s kingdom. It is a kingdom manifestation not because it is a church, or is essentially churchly, but because it honors God in the way it conforms to God-given principles and norms for academic-type work.

He further argues that both churches and theological schools are manifestations of the same kingdom of Christ. “To emphasize,” he writes, “that the church and the theological school are together accountable to something larger than either of them is to guard against the impression that either entity exists simply to serve the other’s interests. A theological school may be accountable to a specific ecclesial body, but it also has other accountability relationships—not the least being its relationships to the larger world of theological education.” For this reason, there exists a special pattern of accountability between theological schools and the church: “the theological school is indeed in the academy; but it exists there to make the benefits of academic life available to the church, and out of a deep love for the church’s life and mission.”

Theological schools, Mouw argues, should be accountable to church bodies because ecclesial concerns necessarily should shape and inform its curricula. Although the theological school might also focus on other constituencies such as relief organizations, occupation-specific laity groups, parachurch organizations, etc., its most significant focus should be on the struggles and challenges of congregational life. In exactly this manner, the theological school is “more than” an academic institution. The church should expect its theological schools to complement the church in spiritual formation, community involvement, psychological training, etc. In fact, in doing these “more than” activities, the seminary can impress upon the broader academic world the significance of such matters.

Toward the end of the chapter, Mouw provides a nice summary and distillation of his view when he writes, “Theological education needs to be free to pursue its unique functions in the context of the kingdom of Christ. In insisting on this I am not espousing an unbridled ‘free inquiry.’ As an evangelical Calvinist I am convinced that theological education will be at its healthiest only when it is grounded in a deep commitment to biblical orthodoxy. I firmly support the maintenance of confessional boundaries that define and safeguard that commitment to evangelical institutions. Theological educators ought not to lust after a promiscuous intellectual freedom. We are bonded to the Word of God, and to the cause of the Savior whose cosmic redemptive mission is infallibly revealed in that Word. This means that our academic callings can never be pursued in a way that distances us from the church over whom the Savior reigns as Lord.” For Mouw, the theological school is “an academic manifestation of the rule of Christ” which is accountable to the church.

My response will be limited to a brief reflection on the hybrid nature of theological schools such as the institution at which I am employed, the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Although we are indeed an academic manifestation of Christ’s kingdom, the seminary is essentially church-related.  We exist at the pleasure of the SBC and in order to train ministers for SBC churches, missionaries for the IMB, and leaders for the convention entities. We operate faithfully and gratefully within SBC confessional boundaries. We want our education grounded in the worship and witness life of the redeemed community. For this reason, we require our students to be meaningful members of their churches. Further, we build “churchly” elements into the seminary’s life and curriculum: we have chapel services, promote spiritual formation, community life, and evangelism.

And the seminary is not a church. A seminary is distinctively different from a local congregation. We do not baptize or administer the Lord’s Supper. We do not endow any members of the seminary with pastoral authority. Unfortunately, however, seminary students can (either consciously or unconsciously) allow seminary to replace church. The chapel services become congregational worship, the professors become functional pastors, and a student’s peers become the members of their “covenant” community. If and when a student allows seminary functionally to become his church, he warps and distorts God’s purposes for the seminary and does so to his own detriment.

Although the seminary is church related, it is an academic manifestation of Christ’s kingdom. SBC seminaries are called forth by Southern Baptist churches in order to serve the church in the academic aspect of its discipleship and leadership training. Our education includes academic elements: we deliver lectures, administer exams, seek accreditation, publish journals, require Chicago style for our papers, and participate in conversation with the broader academy. These are essentially academic elements of seminary life; they are not “churchly,” and yet they count as “kingdom work.” For each aspect of the seminary’s life is to be brought under the Lordship of Christ and normed according to his word.

And yet the seminary is not purely academic. It is called forth into existence by the church and in turn serves the church. It does not bow to secular norms for the academic disciplines. For each academic discipline which has a counterpart at state universities, we ask at least three questions: What is God’s creational design for this discipline? How has this discipline been corrupted and misdirected by human idolatry? In what ways can we bring healing and redirection to his discipline? By asking these three questions, we are able to transform (or in some cases, reconstruct) disciplines such as biblical studies, counseling, or ethics in light of God’s normative word.

I’ve limited myself to a few brief reflections, and wish to hear our readership’s reflections on this significant topic. Do you agree with the basic thesis of the blog? Is there anything you would add or modify? Do you see further dangers of misunderstanding the seminary’s place in between church and academy?

On a regular basis I am asked about my views on Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Calvinism and Arminianism. Sometimes the question asked is, in light of all the talk, blogging, conferencing, etc., “Have you changed your views on any of the relevant subjects?” There is an easy answer to that question: No. My views of these important biblical doctrines are the same as they were in 1988 when Paige Patterson hired me to teach at Criswell College. They are the same as they were in 1992 when Paige Patterson hired me to teach at Southeastern. They are the same as they were in 1996 when Al Mohler hired me to teach at Southern. And, they are the same as they were when I was called to be the president of Southeastern in 2004. My Systematic Theology Notes are available at danielakin.com for anyone to freely access. They will bear witness to my claim. And, in April 2006 SBC Life invited me to write an article showing how we might navigate this theological minefield while being true to Scripture, faithful to our BF&M 2000, and finding a way to cooperate together for the glory of God and the good of the nations. I still believe the article charts a way forward, and so I share it again for review and critique. Of one thing I am certain: we will either find a way forward together or we will find ourselves vanishing into obscurity. May the way be forward!

In recent years, the subject of altar calls has been sometimes hotly debated among Southern Baptists. If you don’t know the term, altar calls are a form of public invitation wherein attendees are urged to walk to the front of a worship center or other gathering place to discuss spiritual matters, normally near the conclusion of a worship service. Evangelists such as Billy Graham give altar calls at the conclusion of their evangelistic meetings. In many churches, pastors invite attendees to the front to seek counsel related to conversion, to express a desire to be baptized and/or join the church, and to discuss any number of other spiritual matters. Many churches also invite folks to pray at the front of the worship center, even if they do not discuss these prayers with a pastor or other spiritual counselor.

Altar calls have been common among American evangelicals for about two hundred years. During the Second Great Awakening, frontier Methodists first used this practice in their camp meetings. Some Baptists in the South also adopted the practice, which they almost certainly learned from the Methodists, since these two groups frequently cooperated in camp meetings in the Carolinas and Georgia through the 1810s. In the 1820s and 1830s, Charles Finney popularized the view among Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists in the urban Northeast. Though he was accused of introducing “Methodist” practices among these more Calvinistic churches, altar calls (along with his other “new measures”) became popular among many evangelicals.

Though it is impossible to determine with certainty when altar calls became a part of the weekly liturgy of most Southern Baptist churches, the practice was common after the Civil War and nearly uniform by the early twentieth century. This more or less coincides with the same period that Southern Baptists almost universally embraced “protracted meetings” (revival meetings) as a means to evangelize their communities. Though I can’t prove it, I suspect the two trends are related, since both reflect practices that emerged during the Second Great Awakening.

Back to the present. In my opinion, the debate about altar calls is “much ado about nothing.” I put altar calls in the category of what Augustine calls adiaphora: the “indifferent matters” that various Christians might disagree about without breaking fellowship. Simply put, altar calls are a particular strategy, born out of a particular context, that may or may not work in other contexts. Though open to various abuses (what strategy isn’t?), I don’t believe altar calls are inherently anti-biblical or manipulative. Though helpful in some contexts, altar calls aren’t biblically mandated means of encouraging spiritual decisions. As a mostly itinerant preacher, when I preach, I adapt my practice to the tradition of the church or other context in which I’m preaching. I would estimate that I extend an altar call about 75% of the time.

In taking this approach, I’m deliberately pushing back against two tendencies that I think are extremes and that frequently shoot at each other in this particular debate. On the one hand, I reject the argument that altar calls are (almost) always inappropriate. Some folks who make this argument are Calvinists who believe the practice is out-of-bounds because of its roots in the more Arminian wing of the Second Great Awakening. Other Calvinists reject altar calls because of their particular understanding of the regulative principle of worship; since altar calls aren’t in the Bible, we shouldn’t employ them today. Still others, from a variety of soteriological perspectives, reject altar calls for methodological reasons. Altar calls are seen to be relics of a bygone era of revivalism and cultural Christianity that simply do not work in a more postmodern, urban, post-Christian world.

On the other hand, I reject the view that altar calls are (almost) always necessary for one to be an evangelistic preacher or church. Some folks who make this argument are vocal non-Calvinists who are reacting negatively to the theological critiques that some Calvinists have advanced concerning altar calls. Others are simply pastors and other leaders who have found that altar calls useful in their contexts and seem to have a hard time understanding that the strategy might not work in other contexts. I suspect that still others defend altar calls for experiential reasons; they have expressed their own significant spiritual decisions in part by responding to altar calls.

I suspect that much of the debate isn’t about altar calls per se, but rather is about concerns each extreme has about the other extreme. Therefore, I want to offer some constructive advice to those who are strongly for or strongly against altar calls.

If you are strongly in favor of altar calls, be sure that you don’t require altar calls for individuals to seek spiritual counsel. To say it a different way, make sure that altar calls are but one avenue through which an individual can seek counsel, make spiritual decisions known, etc. Second, when it comes to conversion in particular, make sure that the altar call doesn’t replace baptism as the public profession of faith. This elevates the altar call, which is simply a human strategy, and downplays baptism, which is an ordinance commanded by our Lord. Finally, don’t turn altar calls into a sacrament by implying that one is saved through walking an aisle. I know that no pastor really teaches this, but I also know that many folks seem to hear this. (I did throughout my teenage years.) Pastors need to be extra careful to be as clear as possible that an altar call doesn’t convey any sort of grace, but is simply a way to encourage folks to share what the Lord has already done in their lives or to seek spiritual counsel from pastors or other leaders.

If you are strongly against altar calls, be sure that you are being intentionally evangelistic in your corporate worship gatherings. Press the claims of Christ upon sinners and plead with them to repent and believe—in that very moment. Provide them with avenues to make spiritual decisions known or to seek spiritual counsel. In my church, where we don’t regularly extend altar calls, we always remind folks that elders are standing at each door and are eager to talk and pray with anyone who desires to do so. Much of what happens in other churches during an altar call happens in our church after the service as individuals talk to a pastor about spiritual matters. Second, don’t assume that just because altar calls were popularized by folks with theological convictions that Southern Baptists reject (Methodists; Finney) means that altar calls are, by definition, theologically suspect. There are good and bad forms of altar calls; give your brothers the benefit of the doubt on this unless you have clear evidence that someone is being manipulative.

There is much in the Southern Baptist Convention that is worthy of debate and discussion, provided we are Christ-like and extend brotherly love towards one another. But I don’t think this issue is worthy of too much debate (discussion, perhaps). Let’s extend each other Christian charity in methodological strategies that don’t conflict with biblical teachings, since churches are free to adopt these strategies or dispense with them. This includes the altar call. For readers who want to consider appropriate ways to extend an altar call, check out Danny Akin’s chapter “Giving an Invitation: Soul Winning from the Pulpit” in Engaging Exposition (B&H Academic, 2011).

(Image Credit)

Recently, I was accused of “treason” in an online comment by an employee of a Cooperative Program-supported college in Georgia.  My crime? I’m general editor of The Gospel Project, a curriculum that quotes Wesleyans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. Apparently, in this person’s mind, quoting people from other denominations is sufficient evidence to deem one a traitor (according to Webster, a traitor is “one who commits treason”).

Now, to be sure, this is certainly not the first time that I have been criticized. And I don’t feel that it is necessary to respond to every statement of disagreement or expression of disdain that is sent in my direction. But in this case, both the use of strong language with the word “treason” as well as the charge itself seemed to warrant comment. When we start to say that looking outside our own convention walls as we learn is disloyal and should not be done, we are only hurting ourselves. Banning non-Baptist books to “protect” lay people does not bode well for our future.

This kind of Southern Baptist isolationism and elitism does not serve the mission of the churches of our convention, and it certainly does not serve the kingdom of God well. Pastors and leaders in our convention have always benefited from books and commentaries written by Biblical scholars from other traditions. We glean insight from people throughout church history, and we can learn biblical truths from people in other denominations.

A great example of this kind of respect of others and humility to learn from others comes from Southern Baptist statesman, and a hero for Southern Baptists, Dr. Paige Patterson. Recently B&H Publishing Group published his long-awaited commentary on Revelation for the New American Commentary series (and I mean long-awaited).

As I have perused this magnificent offering, I noticed he interacts with scholars from across the denominational spectrum– sometimes citing them to make his point. These quotations do not make me question his motives. They don’t make me think he is less than Southern Baptist in his affiliations or convictions. In fact, they provide evidence of how thorough his work was to write such a helpful commentary.

Dr. Patterson is certainly not a “traitor” to the SBC. Instead, I believe this kind of work makes him a better Southern Baptist. Dr. Patterson is willing to glean truth– wherever it is found– and to interact with the Body of Christ at large in a way that strengthens and bolsters his (and, ultimately, our) Baptist convictions.

Some might say that this example is different, as it refers to an commentary where such interaction is expected and appropriate. After all, pastors and scholars need to be aware and exposed to the thoughts of others. A few might think that a different standard should be applied to a bible study curriculum.

First of all, let’s be clear. When The Gospel Project does quote a non-SBC thinker, it is a quote that builds up universal Christian doctrine and biblical truth, not one that undermines our distinctives. But we need to address something that I believe is even more important. At LifeWay, we believe that we do not need to treat laypeople like children. We believe that it’s important to educate our people theologically, and we are grateful for the insights of Christian believers that can point us to the truth. We are not afraid to use them, and we do not condescend toward laypeople as if they can’t handle them.

The Gospel Project starts with theology and goes deep– and we think that laypeople can handle it. Actually, based on the response, we think they are handling (and loving) the depth.

Even with respect to the NAC series, we target not only ministers but also “Bible students” of all kinds, and work to make it helpful for all who want to study and expound the Scripture. Lots of laypeople are buying and interacting with Dr. Patterson’s, and all the other, New American Commentaries.

It is sad that a vocal minority from a few Baptist institutions advocate for a view that can lead to denominational isolationism and elitism. I, for one, am thankful that it’s not treasonous to listen and learn from Wesleyans (like Charles Wesley, whose hymns are in the Baptist hymnal) or Anglicans (like J. I. Packer, who helped us see the importance of inerrancy), or Presbyterians (like D. James Kennedy, who inspired some of our own evangelistic strategies).

The good news is that most Southern Baptists know better– most but, apparently, not all. But, that’s part of being in a family. We don’t all have to agree, though perhaps accusing others of denominational treason is not the best way to be in a family together. We just disagree about what laypeople can and should handle. That’s OK.

People like Paige Patterson, and others who have benefited from the wisdom and faith of non-Southern Baptists, are not traitors to the SBC if they quote non-Southern Baptists. To even insinuate such quotes are disloyal shows an elitist or sectarian spirit that is just not helpful. Thankfully, I believe most Southern Baptists already know that.

If you have not yet read Dr. Patterson’s new commentary in the NAC series—order it now, read its fine scholarship, and read some quotes from people who are not Southern Baptist. You can order it here. It has great reviews on Amazon and makes s strong case for a pre-tribulational, pre-millennial view, while still treating other views with clarity and fairness.

Also, if you’d like to join in with the hundreds of thousands of “traitors” learning weekly through the Gospel Project, written in accordance to the Baptist Faith and Message, and occasionally quoting from well-known Presbyterians, Wesleyans, and Anglicans when they give additional insights in accordance with that faith statement, you can find out more about the Gospel Project here.

Several summers ago, I was serving as the youth minister in a little country church. Our small youth group had piled into a fifteen-passenger van and were on our way to church camp. I was driving the van while one of our adult volunteers, a middle-aged woman, was riding shotgun. During the drive, she shared with me her conversion testimony. She had been raised in a theologically liberal Lutheran congregation. She remembered being forced to memorize a catechism as a young child, but claimed she never heard the gospel until she was in her twenties. As she concluded her testimony, she exclaimed, “I sure am glad that Baptists don’t do catechisms!” I cringed.

Over the years, I have met many other Baptists who feel this way about catechisms. Around Southeastern Seminary, there is a great story about a former church history professor who was asked by a student how parents can help their kids to memorize basic doctrine while avoiding “the dangers” of catechism. I have also heard a few folks argue that it is legalistic to teach children to memorize doctrine before they understand the gospel (of course, these folks rarely make the same argument about children memorizing Scripture, even “legal” passages like the Ten Commandments). Some simply identify catechisms with pedobaptists; catechesis is the sort of thing that Presbyterians and Lutherans do. We Baptists stick with Bible Drill and Vacation Bible School.

You might be interested to know that there was a time when Baptists did, in fact, “do” catechisms. In fact, Baptists have written numerous influential catechisms over the years, including many Southern Baptists from bygone days. Though Baptists have often had an awkward relationship with other Protestants because of our fusion of both radical and reformational tendencies, the latter traditions bequeathed to the earliest Baptists an emphasis on catechesis. In fact, perhaps more consistently than at least some of our pedobaptist friends, earlier generations of Baptists embraced a dual commitment to both catechesis and conversion. Baptist children often learned basic doctrine and ethics via catechisms, though as they grew into their teenaged years they were also urged to personally trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, submit to believer’s baptism, and become a member of the church. Sometimes pastors catechized the church’s children in what was an early version of “youth group” (Richard Furman is one noteworthy example). More often, parents taught their children the catechism. It wasn’t until the latter half of the nineteenth century that catechesis began to wane among Baptists.

Thankfully, Baptists have begun to recover an emphasis on catechisms over the past generation or so. Many noteworthy Baptist catechisms have been compiled in edited volumes by authors such as Tom Nettles, Timothy George, Jim Renihan, and Tom Ascol. First Baptist Church Tallassee, Alabama has published a catechism based upon the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. My friend Steve Weaver is working on a new edition of the Orthodox Catechism, a Baptist revision of the Heidelberg Catechism first published in 1680. John Piper published an updated version of the famous Baptist Catechism of 1693. Solid Ground Christian Books has reprinted Benjamin Beddome’s Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism, first published in 1752. Jim Scott Orrick has recorded an album that puts the 1693 catechism to music. Greg Nichols has edited a Baptist revision to the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1648). No doubt there are others of which I’m not aware. The texts of many Baptist catechisms can also be found on the internet at such websites (let Google be your guide).

If you want to know more about the importance of catechesis in general, check out Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way (Baker, 2010), written by Gary Parrett and J.I. Packer. Even if you aren’t convinced that using catechisms are a helpful way to teach your children the basics of the faith, consider purchasing this book, which is more about the importance of deliberately forming young people and new believers in the faith than it is an apologetic for using formal catechisms. If you want a more sustained Baptist apology for the use of catechisms, Tom Nettles has written two articles for Founders Journal: “An Encouragement to Use Catechisms” and “An Encouragement to Use Catechisms, Part 2,” both of which are available online.

(Note: This post is cross-published at Christian Thought & Tradition)

During the Reformation era, different Christian groups were wrestling with the best way to think about the biblical covenants and their relationship to ecclesiology. Though there was some diversity early on, as a general rule Reformed thinkers argued that all of the biblical covenants were historical administrations of a single covenant of grace. From this presupposition, most of the Reformed argued that covenantal infant baptism was a better baptismal theology than the sacerdotal pedobaptism of Catholics and many Lutherans. Covenant theology continues to be the dominant view of Reformed pedobaptists and, with some significant baptismal variations, some Calvinistic Baptists.

Orthodox Anabaptists took a different route than the Reformed pedobaptists. Most Anabaptists denied the existence of a covenant of grace and focused on the uniqueness of each individual biblical covenant. Some Anabaptists also advocated a form of covenantal credobaptism by arguing that confessor baptism represented a binding covenant between the believer and God wherein the believer pledges himself to God and His church through the obedience of credobaptism. Though the covenant language is rarely invoked, the spirit of this idea lives on in many Free Church traditions, including among many Southern Baptists. (I’ve often heard baptism referred to as the new Christian’s “first act of obedience.”)

The English Separatists embraced the covenant theology of the wider Reformed tradition, but they were more radical in their ecclesiology because the earliest Separatists rejected the concept of a state church. (Unfortunately, they snuggled up with Caesar after migrating to New England.) This rejection helped contribute to the development of a covenantal ecclesiology among the Separatists. The Separatists agreed with the Anabaptists in advocating a believer’s church comprised of presumably regenerate individuals, though unlike the Anabaptists the Separatists continued to embrace covenantal pedobaptism. The unique Separatist contribution was organizing their churches around written covenants that obligated members to walk together under the lordship of Christ for the sake of their individual and collective sanctification.

A growing number of Separatists began embracing credobaptism in the generation between 1609 and 1650. These Separatists-turned-Baptists maintained their commitment to a covenantal ecclesiology, including the General Baptists who rejected belief in an eternal covenant of grace. By the mid-seventeenth century, there were at least four distinct groups of English Baptists: the Calvinistic Particular Baptists, the Calvinistic Independent Baptists (who embraced open membership), the Arminian-leaning General Baptists, and the soteriologically diverse Seventh Day Baptists (who worshiped on Saturdays).  Each of these groups advocated not only a regenerate church membership, but following their Separatist forebears they also embraced a covenantal membership.

A commitment to a regenerate church membership organized around a written covenant also characterized most Baptist churches in America, especially by the turn of the eighteenth century. Though early on most churches adopted their own unique covenants, after the publication of J. Newton Brown’s Baptist Church Manual in 1853 (still in print today), the model covenant he included in his influential volume became the most widely used covenant among Baptist churches in America. This is the church covenant that Broadman Press reproduced in poster or plaque form that still adorns the sanctuaries and fellowship halls of thousands of Southern Baptist churches. Unfortunately, the very ease of adopting Brown’s standard covenant contributed to the downplaying of a covenantal ecclesiology among two or three generations of Southern Baptists.

Over the past decade or so, my own church, First Baptist Church of Durham, has reemphasized a covenantal view of membership. This is demonstrated several times a year during our corporate worship gathering when a new group of prospective members stands before our church body, introduces themselves, and publicly expresses their desire to join our church. At some point prior to the gathering, these individuals have already met with one of our pastors and participated in a prospective member class. After the introductions, all of our members stand and recite our church’s covenant in unison while the prospective members publicly sign a copy of the covenant. It is always a meaningful time in the life of our church. Within a couple of weeks after the public covenanting, we have a member’s meeting where we vote to formally receive these brothers and sisters in Christ into our church’s membership.

I’ve been greatly encouraged in recent years to see the recovery of a covenantal, regenerate church membership among many other Southern Baptist churches besides my own. I suspect that even more Southern Baptist churches will (re-) embrace a covenantal ecclesiology as we continue to emphasize greater clarity in gospel proclamation, the centrality of both evangelism and discipleship, and the importance of redemptive church discipline. By God’s grace, these seem to be areas where Southern Baptists of many different stripes and emphases are in substantial agreement. We should rejoice in this trend and labor together to advance it further for the sake of the health of our churches.

(Note: This post is also published today at Christian Thought & Tradition.)