Pictured Above: Lottie Moon, Age 30.

Pictured Above: Lottie Moon, Age 30.

A young man should ask himself not if it is his duty to go to the heathen, but if he may dare stay at home. The command is so plain: ‘Go.’” – Lottie Moon, Nov. 1, 1873, Tungchow District, Beijing, China

I first heard the story of Lottie Moon from a dead man.

Specifically, it was a recording of W.A. Criswell’s Whether We Live or Die which was recorded from his delivery to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention , that year (6/10/85) being held in Dallas, TX.

Largely Dr. Criswell told of Moon’s erstwhile fiance, Crawford Howell Toy. Toy was a scholar virtually without peer and a man from conservative Baptist stock but one who, sadly, consigned himself to the role of apostate.

What stuck out about Moon in Dr. Criswell’s telling, however, was that Lottie Moon was a woman who loved Christ, His gospel, and the men and women of China created in His image who yet knew nothing of His saving work. She was a pioneer in women’s missions and, perhaps even more importantly, was used of God to drive forward the funding of international missions in a way rarely seen in church history. This is why, if you are Southern Baptist, you will see her name so often at Christmas time (more on that below).

I was pleased to find today that Dr. Criswell had told Lottie’s story more fully in another sermon of his. You’ll find his account below and I assure you that, if you love Christ, it will be well worth your time to read.

[Lottie Moon] died Christmas Eve in 1912 in a ship riding at anchor in Kobe, Japan. Kobe is a city, as with so many of the cities in Japan, built on the side of a mountain that rises out of the sea. And as you go up the side of the mountain, up there is a missionary’s home. And I was a guest in the missionary’s home. I wanted to be left alone for a while, as I sat there and looked out over the beautiful harbor of Kobe. And I just reviewed in my mind the life of this great, godly emissary of Jesus. Could I review it for you, as I did there in Kobe, looking out over the spacious harbor of blue water below me?

She was born in 1840, in Albemarle County, in the heart of Virginia, not very far from Monticello, the home of Jefferson Davis. . .Thomas Jefferson—I’m a good Confederate still, I tell you—the home of Thomas Jefferson. She was born into an affluent, aristocratic Virginia family. The county seat of Albemarle County is Charlottesville, where Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. And in that day, so long ago, the school for girls, which was a new development then, a school for girls had been founded in Charlottesville. This affluent family sent their daughter, Lottie Charlotte Moon, to the school in Charlottesville.

There was a teacher there by the name of John A. Broadus. He was also the pastor of the Baptist church. Dr. John A. Broadus was the most gifted scholar our Southern Baptist people have ever produced. He later became president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Broadus, in 1859, won this gifted, brilliant young girl to the saving faith we know in our blessed Lord Jesus, and he baptized her into the fellowship of the Baptist church at Charlottesville, Virginia.

She became a teacher and was with Miss Safford, the two of them, teachers in a girls school founded in Cartersville, Georgia. In February of 1873, the pastor of the church in Cartersville, Georgia, Dr. R. B. Heddon, attended a Baptist association, at which a flaming missionary sermon was preached. And when the message was delivered, Dr. Heddon stood up and proposed a covenant of prayer in behalf of all the deacons and pastors there, and the following Sunday that each preacher deliver a missionary sermon at his church and make an appeal for Christ and the foreign field. Dr. Heddon stood in his pulpit the following Sunday and preached on the text, “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields: they are white unto the harvest” [John 4:35]. “Pray ye the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers” [Matthew 9:38]. And when he preached his sermon and gave the appeal, to the amazement of the citizens of Cartersville, their two teachers in the girls school walked down the aisle, Miss Moon and Miss Safford, and gave themselves to God to be missionaries in China.

Christmas that year of 1873, she began her work in Shan Tung, a province of north China, in Ting Chou, an ancient Chinese city with a wall around it; and for forty years, in Ting Chou, as a teacher, and in Ping Tu, an area about a hundred fifteen miles away, as an evangelist, in which field our Southern Baptist people reap our greatest harvest of souls in evangelism; in those two fields she devoted her life for forty years.

There is a devotion in this missionary, Lottie Moon, that has moved my heart to gratitude, to admiration for these years since I first was introduced to her life. She lived, she died, a single woman, alone. She was never married. Why? When she was in school in Charlottesville, there was a brilliant young student and professor who fell in love with her, and her heart responded to him. When she went away to be a missionary to the Orient, she continued to write to him and he to her. And they set a wedding date. And Miss Lottie Moon wrote to her family: she was returning to America to be married, after which both of them would return to the Orient, and either in Japan or in China, live their lives as a missionary couple.

This young man was, I suppose, the most brilliant, the most scholarly intellectual of all of the young men of his generation. As a young man he was invited to be professor of Hebrew on the faculty of our oldest seminary, the Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. In his education he went to Germany; and in Germany he was introduced to German rationalism and German higher criticism. That is a study of the authenticity of the books in the Word of God. And as you would know by the characterization of German rationalism, it looks upon the Bible as anyone would look upon any other antique document: no more of God than Homer; and the stories told in the Bible, no more likely to have happened than the stories of Greek mythology, Jason and the Golden Fleece, the exploits of Agamemnon, or Pericles, or Paris and Achilles of the war in Troy; that’s German rationalism. And this young man opened his heart to that repudiation of the Word of God; and he began to teach it in the seminary, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville, Kentucky.

Dr. James P. Boyce, who was president of the seminary, Dr. John A. Broadus, who succeeded him, those two men talked to the brilliant young professor, “You cannot teach in our seminary believing that the stories in the Old Testament are myths and legends and spiritual parables.” What a far cry from the day when God blessed our Southern Baptist people, and this day, when He is beginning to take away His favor. “You cannot teach,” said Dr. Boyce and Dr. Broadus, “You cannot teach in this Baptist seminary and believe that the Word of God is myth and legend and parable, with no substance in reality; that there’s no Adam and Eve, that there was no garden of Eden, that the laws of Moses in his books are concoctions by a list of unknown authors that they documentize until it becomes a foolish fragment,” on and on.

Dr. Broadus, Dr. Boyce accompanied this brilliant professor, Crawford H. Toy—if you are a theologian, the author of the book on Proverbs, in the International Critical Commentary—they accompanied Dr. Toy to the railroad station in Louisville. Dr. Boyce put his arm around him, and raising his right hand to heaven, said, “Crawford, I would give this right arm if you were as you were when you came to us at the Southern Seminary here in Louisville.” He left, he became a professor of Hebrew at the Unitarian Harvard Divinity School, the Harvard Divinity School that the Unitarians captured. He joined the Unitarian church. Finally he didn’t bother to go to church at all. That’s the man.

Lottie Moon and Dr. Crawford H. Toy set a date to be married. But in those days, as the letters crossed the Pacific Ocean, she learned of Dr. Toy’s German rational acceptance; the repudiation of the Word of God. And in her missionary life, she had come to feed upon the Holy Scriptures, to believe in them as veritably the inspired message of the living Lord. And finding the repudiation of the Holy Scriptures by the brilliant young professor Dr. Toy, she wrote him and said, “I cannot find it in my heart to marry someone to whom the Bible is not the Word of God.”

She broke off the engagement. She lived her life, forty years a missionary, alone. One time wrote, when she drew out of her bank the last savings she had to buy bread for starving Chinese, she wrote across the little book of deposit, “I pray that no missionary shall ever be as lonely as I.” I salute the memory of Lottie Moon.

As I mentioned above, Lottie Moon’s name adorns the Christmas-season offering taking by Southern Baptist churches across the globe. It is fitting, considering Lottie’s own push to see some of the material bounty distributed during this season aimed at spreading the fame of the Lord’s name. In her own words,

Is not the festive season when families and friends exchange gifts in memory of The Gift laid on the altar of the world for the redemption of the human race, the most appropriate time to consecrate a portion from abounding riches and scant poverty to send forth the good tidings of great joy into all the earth? (Sept. 15, 1887, Tungchow District, Beijing, China).

Click the following links if you would like to learn more about this remarkable woman and the missions offering taken in her name. While you are at it, why not read her story to some young listeners?

Here are some of the resources Bro. Jeff mentioned last night in his sermon about baptism as a means of grace.  If you want to dig a little deeper into the subject these are good places to start.


Sermon: Baptism as Means of Grace by Fred Malone (Link to SermonAudio.com)


Stephen J. Wellum
Anyone who is familiar with the history of Christian thought knows that the question of baptism has raised and still does raise a lot of debates and disagreements, rooted not only in ecclesiastical tradition and theological systems,1 but also in the vagaries of church history.2 To think that a resolution of the baptismal debate is possible within the confines of this chapter is to expect the impossible. Instead, my goal in the following pages is much more modest; in fact, it is threefold.
     First, in keeping with the theme and purpose of this book, I want to highlight a baptismal crisis that I see in many evangelical churches today, namely a low baptismal consciousness3 among many Christians. Second, I want to contrast these present attitudes toward baptism with that of the New Testament by briefly reminding ourselves of the meaning and significance of Christian baptism. Finally, I want to give some concluding reflections regarding the urgent need to recover and embrace the importance of baptism for the life, health, and mission of the church. 
As heirs of the Reformation, evangelicals of various traditions have viewed baptism as vitally important for the life, health, and practice of the church. No doubt, after this basic agreement, there is a lot of disagreement and debate regarding the mode and the proper subjects of baptism. However, with that admitted, evangelicals for the most part have viewed baptism as extremely significant—indeed, a beautiful, visible declaration of the Gospel, bound up with the mission of the church.4 The reason for this attitude is quite simple, yet one that must not be overlooked or ignored: baptism is one of the two ordinances or sacraments5 that the Lord of the church has instituted and ordained for the life and health of the church, until the end of the age; and as such, it is to be practiced in our day in obedience to the Lord.
     Of course, this divine institution of Christian baptism6 is found at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, in what has been called “The Great Commission” (Matt. 28:18-20). Here we are presented with the risen Lord, who not only has all authority by virtue of who He is (John 1:1-4; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:3), but now has been given all authority from the Father by virtue of what He has done in His triumphant cross-work at Calvary. At this major turning point in redemptive history, Jesus the Christ, who inaugurated His Kingdom in His coming, has now won victory over all of his enemies, and as a result He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth as God’s sovereign, mediatorial King. And it is now from this posture of authority that He commands and impels His followers forward, to go and make disciples of all the nations, a task that must be characterized by nothing less than instruction in and the proclamation of God’s Word and baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.7
     This Great Commission is significant for at least two reasons. First, as many have noted, baptism “in” (NIV) or better; “into” (eis) the name of the Triune God strongly suggests “a coming-into-relationship-with or a coming-under-the-Lordship-of.”8 Thus, it would seem from our Lord’s institution of baptism that it serves at least a twofold purpose: a Sign of initiation and entrance into Messiah’s community, and a graphic declaration of faith and surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.9 This certainly implies, among other things, that from the perspective of the New Testament, we “can scarcely conceive of a disciple who is not baptized or is not instructed.”10 Baptism, in other words, is not a “take it or leave it” issue for the church or a Christian disciple.

     Second, and underscoring what has already been stated, the authority of baptism rests on the command of the risen Lord. As Beasley-Murray reminds us, “Such a charge is too imperious to be ignored or modified. It behooves us to adhere to it and conform to it as God gives grace.”11
     When we look at the book of Acts, it seems that the attitude and practice of the early church was just that—they obeyed the command of the risen Lord to His church. Thus, we read that on Pentecost all those who repented and believed were baptized, which numbered about 3,000 Jews (Acts 2:41). And as the church continued to proclaim the Gospel, we read that this same pattern continued. Consider the converts at Samaria (Acts 8:12-13), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36-39), Saul (Acts 9:17-18), the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:4748), the household of Lydia (Acts 16:1-15), the household of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-33), the household of Crispus and many other Corinthians (Acts 18:8), and the disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:5).

     Now it is quite evident that when we compare this first-century situation to our own day, one must sadly conclude that, generally speaking, there is a low baptismal consciousness within the church today, no matter what side of the baptismal divide you find yourself on. David Wright, in a very candid article, laments this fact as he reflects upon the state of baptism in the evangelical church.
     On the one hand, Wright admits that those in his tradition (paedobaptist) can come forward to be admitted to the Lord’s Table without even being aware whether they have been baptized or not.12 Even worse, he argues that the practice of indiscriminate infant baptism has done a terrible harm. In fact, that is one of the reasons why, he believes, so many treat baptism so lightly, since “where baptism is so easily given and received, with so little effect, it cannot—so many biblical Christians would reason — amount to very much.”13 On the other hand, Wright points out that the believers’ baptism tradition does not escape a low baptismal consciousness either. Either conversion eclipses baptism as “the moment constitutive of Christian identity” or one finds as a result of mass evangelism that people can become Christians without being related to any specific church—a concept Wright correctly points out “would have been almost incomprehensible to the church of most earlier centuries.”14
     I think you can state the problem in even starker terms—terms that would have been unthinkable to New Testament Christianity: in today’s evangelical church there are many who profess faith in and allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ, but they have either not been baptized or they see no need to be baptized.

     Why is there such a low baptismal consciousness in the church, especially given our Lord’s command and New Testament practice? No doubt there are many reasons that could be given, and it is very difficult to reduce the problem to one or two factors. However; I am convinced that a large part of our problem is due to the pervasive loss of the Gospel and sound theology in the church, which is ultimately rooted in our capitulation to a culture that is becoming increasingly pluralistic. What do I mean by this? Here I am following D. A. Carson’s analysis in his important work, The Gagging of God.15 Carson rightly argues that the great battle we face at the end of the twentieth century is the battle for truth—a battle against what he calls “philosophical pluralism,” i.e., the notion that a “particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong. The only absolute creed is the creed of pluralism.”16
     Carson’s analysis shows that philosophical pluralism has impacted not only society, but sadly, also the church.17 For example, in the religious realm it has brought about at least two debilitating effects: a growing biblical and theological illiteracy (and along with it an increasing denial of biblical authority), as well as an inclusivist attitude toward world religions.18  That is one of the reasons why the weekly exposition of Scripture has fallen on hard times, and with it the knowledge of God and His Word. In the area of culture, which has also impacted the church, a corollary of pluralism is that of secularization—a process, experts tell us, that does not necessarily lead to the abolition of God, but rather to His marginalization in all aspects of our lives. Thus, what is no longer central to us and what no longer drives us to our knees and out to the world is the glory of God and the Gospel. Theological issues that used to captivate us no longer do—so much so that one rarely hears preached the great watershed doctrines such as union with Christ, election, justification, and sanctification. In addition, pragmatism and individualism have brought about a generation of church consumers who remain indifferent to the local church and cavalier about their participation in it.19
     Given our present situation, is it any wonder that there is a low baptismal consciousness among us? Indeed, when the burning realities of the Gospel are far from us, when the glorious work of our Triune God to save us does not move us, when biblical authority does not captivate our minds and hearts and lead us to obedience, is it any wonder that baptism, along with many other things, fades in its importance and significance? For as we shall soon discover Christian baptism marks boundaries.20  It defines us, and it testifies to the Gospel. It speaks of a majestic Lord who has come to save us and our identification with Him and with His people, by sovereign grace. It speaks of a salvation and a Savior who is the only hope of the world, and it speaks of a believer who was once alienated and estranged from God but now, by grace through faith, has been brought nigh, and thus gladly acknowledges and confesses before the world that Jesus Christ is Lord.

     Is this the only reason for the low baptismal consciousness in our day? For me to answer yes, I think would be reductionistic. But I do think it is an important one, and something we must seriously address. With that in mind, let us now briefly contrast these present attitudes toward baptism with that of the New Testament. 
There is certainly much that could be written regarding the meaning and significance of baptism; indeed, the literature on it is abundant. Moreover it is at this point that major differences between baptismal positions begin to surface, and thus what one writes on these matters is never neutral. However with that in mind, it is my goal briefly to unpack four propositions regarding baptism, which I believe are consistent and true to the biblical data as we find it in the New Testament and necessary to affirm, especially given the baptismal crisis of our day.
     First, baptism is one of the primary means God has given us to publicly declare our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Is this not part of what was going on at Pentecost in Peter’s exhortation to the people who cried from their hearts, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)? Peter had just demonstrated that the coming of the Spirit in power was nothing less than evidence that redemption had been accomplished, that Jesus is “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), and that the new age that the Old Testament longed for and anticipated (Joel 2:2 8ff; cf. Ezek. 36:25-27; Jer 31:29-34) had now finally arrived. Thus, Peter proclaimed that a response is necessary to these great, climactic, redemptive-historical events. And what should that response be? It is repentance and baptism, administered in the name of Jesus Christ, signifying a person’s submission to Him as both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:38). Or as Beasley-Murray succinctly states it: “Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus, whatever else it came to imply, was in the earliest time a baptism ‘for the sake of’ the Lord Jesus and therefore in submission to Him as Lord and King.”21
     I think this basic point is important for us to remember in our day. In a time in which altar calls, confirmation, public rallies, and what not have taken the place of baptism in our confessing the Lordship of Jesus Christ, we need to be called back to the beauty and simplicity of this God-ordained rite. This “instrument of surrender”22 graphically and wonderfully portrays our submission to the Lord Jesus; that we were once separate from Christ, without hope and without God in the world, but now in Christ we have been brought near gladly acknowledging, by grace, Jesus as Lord. I think Beasley-Murray is right when he says, “Baptism is peculiarly appropriate to express such a meaning, especially when the Pauline depth of significance is added to it. No subsequent rite of the Church, such as confirmation, adequately replaces it. The loss of this element in baptism is grievous and it needs to be regained if baptism is to mean to the modern Church what it did to the earliest Church.”23
     Second, and probably the most fundamental meaning of baptism, is that it signifies a believer’s union with Christ, by grace through faith, and all the benefits that are entailed by that union. It is for this reason that throughout the New Testament, baptism is regarded as an outward sign that a believer has entered into the realities of the New Covenant that Jesus sealed with His own blood on the cross.24 J. I. Packer captures this point well when he writes:

Christian baptism . . . is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God’s seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7; Colossians 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God’s gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them.25     In fact, so close is the association between baptism and New Covenant blessings in Christ that many have argued that in the New Testament baptism “functions as shorthand for the conversion experience as a whole.”26 Evidence for this is quite apparent.
     For example, in Galatians 3:26-27 Paul says: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ.” The language of being “clothed” with Christ most certainly refers to the fact of our union with Him.27  But what is interesting about Paul’s statement is how Paul can ascribe union with Christ both to faith (v.26) and to baptism (v.27). How can Paul do this? Does he have in mind an ex opere operato view of baptism? Of course, the answer is no. Paul is not referring to those who have been baptized but who have not repented or believed. That would go against the clear statement of verse 26. Rather he is referring to those who have been converted; all such have clothed themselves with Christ and have been united with Him through faith. Thus baptism, by metonymy, can stand for conversion and signify, as an outward sign, that a believer has entered into the realities of the New Covenant as a result of his union with Jesus Christ through faith.28

     We find something similar in Romans 6:1-4, where Paul sees the initiation rite of baptism as uniting the believer to Jesus Christ in His redemptive acts—His death, burial, and resurrection. No doubt, in this text Paul is not primarily giving a theological explanation of the nature of baptism, but is rather unpacking its meaning for life. Paul is deeply concerned to rebut the charge that the believer can remain in sin in order to underscore grace. Accordingly he uses the language of “realm transfer”29 to show how inconceivable this suggestion really is. We Christians, Paul affirms, have “died to sin” (v. 2b). We have been transferred from the realm of Adam (sin) to the realm of Christ (life, resurrection, grace); therefore, it is quite impossible for us to still live in sin; its power in us has been decisively broken due to our union with Christ in His death.
     Now it is quite legitimate to ask: when did this realm transfer take place, this death to sin? It is interesting that in verses 3-4 Paul connects death to sin with our baptism—when we were “baptized into Christ Jesus” we were “baptized into his death” (v.3). We have died to sin because we have become one with the Lord who died and rose for the conquest of sin and death. “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead we too may live a new life” (v.4). In this sense, then, baptism serves as the instrument by which we are united with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.30
     Once again, how are we to understand this? Does the very practice of the rite of baptism unite us to Christ automatically? Certainly that is not Paul’s point. Rather, as in Galatians 3:26-27, baptism functions as shorthand for the whole conversion experience. Thus, Moo is right in concluding that “just as faith is always assumed to lead to baptism, so baptism always assumes faith for its validity. In verses 3-4, then, we can assume that baptism stands for the whole conversion-initiation experience, presupposing faith and the gift of the Spirit.”31 In truth, if we understand Paul’s argument, it is not baptism that is the primary focus at all; rather, it is the redemptive events themselves that Paul is stressing. Baptism is only introduced to demonstrate that we were united with Christ in His redemptive work, and now all the New Covenant blessings that our Lord has secured for us are ours by virtue of our relationship with Him. Beasley-Murray states it this way: “Through the faith expressed in baptism, what was done outside of us (extra nos) becomes effective faith within us. In Christ we are the reconciled children of God.”32
         First Peter 3:21 is further evidence for the close relationship between baptism and New Covenant blessings in Christ. In fact, the relationship is so close that Peter can speak of “baptism that now saves you.” What does Peter mean by this? It is quite evident that Peter is not presenting baptism as a magical rite. He immediately points out that it is not the outward, physical act of baptism that saves, but it serves as an appeal to God for a clear conscience. In other words, we are not saved as a result of an outward, physical act or because we promise to live an obedient life. We are saved when we call upon the Lord for a “good conscience.” Yet, there is even more: “it [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (v. 21b). Not even a request to God for a clean conscience actually provides the basis for our salvation. Peter is emphatic that salvation has ultimately been earned for us by Christ and Him alone. Thus, as Grudem correctly states:

All that baptism represents comes to us not on the merits of any response from us, but through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His resurrection marked his once-and-for-all exit from the realm of death and judgment on sin, and our union with him in his resurrection is the means by which God gives us new life…. Our rising out of the waters of baptism is a picture of our being raised with Christ; by being brought safely through “these waters of judgment” through Christ’s resurrection we are indeed given a clear conscience by God.33     Why is this second point important to stress? For at least this reason: in contrast with the attitudes and practice of many contemporary evangelicals, the New Testament is clear—we cannot stand aloof and indifferent to baptism. Not only is the practice of baptism mandated by our Lord, but the rite is closely linked with the Gospel itself. Hence, in baptism God beautifully testifies in an outward, visible way that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and by Christ alone. In fact, since baptism and conversion are so closely associated in Scripture, it is not enough to say that baptism is a mere symbol or a declarative act. Instead, in the words of Beasley-Murray, it is also a “divine-human event.”34 
     Of course, one must be careful at this point not to move either in the direction of ex opere operato or of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. The New Testament is clear: the benefits that come to us in baptism are bound up with faith. In other words, faith and baptism do not enjoy the same logical status of necessity. But with that said, it is significant that Scripture can link God’s gracious giving of all the believer’s benefits of being united to Christ to the context of water baptism. Surely, this New Testament teaching doesn’t make baptism a trivial matter! That so many Christians can stand as loose to baptism as they do can only reflect the current crisis of the loss of sound biblical theology in the church. That is why it should not surprise us that in a day in which we are consumed with so many secondary issues rather than the Gospel itself, we also find ourselves in a baptismal crisis, for the Gospel and baptism go hand in hand. And thus when the Gospel is recovered in all of its beauty and depth, and people once again seek to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, baptism will once again take its unique role as the initiating rite of the church.

     Third, baptism very graphically signifies a believer’s entrance into the body of Christ, the church. Beasley-Murray bluntly states this reality when he writes: “Baptism to Christ is baptism to the Church; it cannot be otherwise, for the Church is soma Christou, the Body of Christ. “35 So, for example, in Galatians 3:27-28 Paul can immediately move from “putting on” Christ in baptism to the body of Christ in which we are all one. Or in Ephesians 4:22-25, Paul can use the baptismal imagery of “putting on” and “putting off” to speak of the kind of behavior we should have both as individuals and because “we are all members of one body” (v. 25), certainly a reference to the church. In this sense, baptism is similar to an “adoption certificate into the family of God.”36 It is the defining mark of belonging, as well as a demarcation from the world (cf. Acts 2:40-41). Thus, in the act of baptism, not only does the Lord of the church appropriate to Himself the one who is baptized in His name and incorporate him into His body, but the person who is baptized also openly identifies with the Lord and His people.37
     Once again, this is something we need to recapture in our day. Not only do people stand loose to baptism, but also to the church. Indeed the two are intimately connected. Whether it is due to our rampant individualism or our lack of theological reflection (or both!), we live in a generation of Christians who remain loosely attached to the church. Little do we see ourselves as different from the world; little do we view baptism as a defining mark of belonging to God’s people. However, when we look beyond our borders to the church in other countries and discover what it means for a Christian to be baptized, for example, in a Jewish or Muslim context, the significance of baptism becomes much clearer to us. As Green reminds us: “It is extremely costly, and often involves the expulsion of a newly-baptized person from home and country. Sometimes the family holds a funeral service, to show that the baptized person no longer belongs to them in any way. He is, to all intents and purposes, dead.”38 Truly this aspect of baptism has much to say to us today, and if the truth be known, what needs to be recaptured more than anything else is the burning life and death realities of the Gospel, which baptism so beautifully signifies.

     Fourth, baptism is a tremendous promise and anticipation of the fact that all things will be one day consummated through Jesus Christ our Lord. Even though there are a lot of questions surrounding the baptism of John, one thing is clear: John’s baptism was an eschatological ceremony, anticipating the coming of the Messiah, the Kingdom of God, and the whole New Covenant era. Christian baptism too is eschatological, but it distinguishes itself from John’s baptism in the sense that what John anticipated and longed for has now arrived in Jesus Christ; the age of fulfillment has dawned.
     Thus, Christian baptism, as I have sought to argue, signifies nothing less than the fact that the believer has entered into the full realities of the New Covenant. Why? Because Christian baptism is bound up with our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has ushered in the long-awaited Kingdom and has literally inaugurated a “new creation.” That is why Paul can joyfully say: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Cor. 5:17). However, it is also important to stress that Christian baptism not only looks back to the inauguration of the Kingdom and new creation in Jesus’ first coming, but it also looks forward to the not yet—the consummation of all things. We still await the return of our Lord, and as such, we groan with all of creation as we await our full redemption as sons and daughters of the King (cf. Rom. 8:l8ff.).
     Truly, then, a Christian is one who is caught between the times. He looks back to the death and resurrection of Jesus by which the new age has come, and he looks forward in eager anticipation to the realities of the new heaven and the new earth. But in looking back, it is not as if he is a mere spectator. Rather, by baptism the believer participates in the event by which the Kingdom came. Likewise, looking forward is much more than a wishful longing for a place in the consummation. Rather, as Beasley-Murray so well puts it:

We have been united with the Christ who brought the Kingdom in His death and resurrection and shall complete it in his parousia, and we have received the Spirit who mediates the powers of the Kingdom and is the binding link between the two appearings. The forward look of baptism therefore, by reason of its participation in the event that inaugurated the Kingdom, is an anticipation with joyous confidence of the event that shall consummate it. It is a “strong encouragement” for those who have fled for refuge to “seize the hope set before us” (Hebrews 6:18).39     Baptism, then, is an entry into the eschatological order of the new creation. This is what pervades the consciousness of the early church. Indeed, this is what pervades Peter’s preaching at Pentecost. As he seeks to proclaim the meaning of the coming Holy Spirit, he does so by proclaiming that the new age has dawned. Jesus, who has died, is now alive. And as a result of His exaltation, He has poured out the promised Holy Spirit, the down payment of the powers of the age to come. And we participate in that age through baptism, by which we are united with Jesus Christ and sealed with the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30).40
     No doubt, here is an element in the meaning of baptism that desperately needs to be recovered today. In a day when so many in the church seem to flounder without direction, when there seems to be little urgency in the task of gospel proclamation, when moral and theological compromise is on every hand, we need to be reminded of these great realities. In fact, in them we need to renew our hope and confidence because in them we need to see a fresh sight of our glorious Savior-King. In this regard Beasley-Murray’s comments are wise:

Baptism means hope! . . . . Modern Christians would be strengthened by a fresh grasp of this aspect of the meaning of Christian baptism. For men still look for ground to hope and there is no secure basis for it but in Christ. When we know Him to be “our life” (Colossians 3:4) we need no other.41     Certainly more could be said regarding the meaning and significance of baptism, but that, in a summary fashion, highlights much of the New Testament’s teaching regarding it. While much of the biblical teaching above would meet with the agreement of many evangelicals across a wide spectrum of denominational affiliation, one basic point of division still remains. If, as the Scripture teaches, the sacrament is not effective apart from faith, on what grounds may infants who are not capable of faith be baptized? Of course, the debate and divide over this issue is vast, and I do not see a resolution in the near future, though open and candid discussion would help. Ultimately what is at dispute is not an isolated proof text, but whole theological structures. The main point of division centers on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants and the amount of continuity and discontinuity between them.
     Thus, for example, those who advocate a paedobaptist position admit that even though there is no explicit command in the New Testament to baptize infants, the practice is still legitimate due to the following:42 (1) There is an essential unity and continuity of the covenant of grace administered to Abraham, which came to fruition in the New Covenant. (2) Since infants were included in the Old Covenant through circumcision, which was an outward sign of entrance into the covenant community, and since circumcision has been replaced by baptism in the New Covenant, then believing parents are required to administer the New Covenant sign—baptism—to their children. (3) In the Old Covenant, it is quite evident that circumcision did not necessarily mean the child was one of the elect unto salvation; they still needed to exercise faith in order to know and experience God’s salvation. But it did demonstrate that God had ordered the sign before faith was present. So in the New Covenant, baptism does not guarantee that children are the elect unto salvation either; they still need to exercise repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But as in the Old Covenant, it is legitimate to give the child the sign of the New Covenant prior to faith.43(4) Further support for the practice of baptizing infants is found in the household baptisms reported in the New Testament.
     On the other side, those who advocate that baptism should only be administered to believers argue the following:44 (1) In Scripture, baptism is only effectual as an expression of faith, and hence the New Testament pattern—proclamation of the Gospel, believing acceptance of it, and then baptism. (2) No doubt there is a fundamental and underlying continuity between the Old and New Covenants, but there is a lot of discontinuity as well. For example, under the Old Covenant there is necessarily a distinction between the locus of the covenant community and the locus of the elect, with circumcision being the sign of the former. However, under the New Covenant this distinction has been removed. By definition, the people of the New Covenant have the law of God written on their hearts, they have experienced forgiveness of sins, and thus the locus of the New Covenant community and the locus of the elect become one. That suggests, among other things, that baptism as the sign of the New Covenant is only to be applied to those who are in the New Covenant, i.e., believers.45 (3) The examples of household baptisms are arguments from silence. In fact, when we look at the actual examples more closely, we see that in a number of them there are indications of saving faith on the part of all those baptized 46

Where do we go from here? Let me summarize with three concluding thoughts.


First, baptism is important, and as such, we need to be serious about it, again. For not only is it bound up with our Lord’s instruction and command to the church, but it is part and parcel of gospel proclamation—a beautiful outward portrayal of the Gospel itself. We neglect it to our peril.

     Second, in all of our disagreements over baptism, we must never forget what unites us. Most of us are quite content to acknowledge that Christians should be baptized in obedience to God; that baptism is the sign of the great gospel realities of union with Christ and all the glorious benefits of New Covenant blessings; that baptism is related to our incorporation into the church; and that baptism, in contrast to the ex opere operato view of Roman Catholicism, has no magical power, but it is by grace alone, through faith alone, and by Christ alone that we are made right with God. No doubt, there are profound differences among us. I admit that paedo- and believer’s baptism views cannot simultaneously be right. I would even argue that due to the significance of our differences we have the right to establish local congregations that emphasize one of the views to the exclusion of the other.
     However, with that said, we must never lose sight of what unites us. And what is that? The Gospel. Baptism, though it is important, is not the decisive issue of our day, or any day for that matter. And as such, even though we disagree on some very important points, we need to find our commonality in that to which baptism points—the glories of Jesus the Christ and the full realities of the Gospel of sovereign grace. That, more than anything, must captivate our thinking, our hearts, our churches, our very lives, or else all is for naught.

     Third, we need to recover once again the emphasis that baptism, as the initiating rite of the church, is one of God’s means of grace that He has given to His people.47 What this implies, of course, is that in the practice of baptism there is the blessing of God. In our obedience to Christ and our public act of confessing Him, the Lord of the church pours His love and joy into our hearts. When baptism is practiced, as a sign of the believer’s union with Christ, the Holy Spirit strengthens our faith and encourages us to press on. In our celebration of this sacrament in the presence of the body of Christ, the people of God are encouraged in their commitment to the Lord and to each other. Indeed, in the practice of baptism, the full eschatological realities of the Gospel are impressed upon our minds and hearts by the Spirit of God, so that we are challenged once again to view our lives from the perspective of eternity, and thus to live aright as those who have tasted the powers of the age to come. No doubt, even though baptism in and of itself does not bring us into a state of grace, it has been ordained by God as a proper means of grace that we ignore, distort, or downplay to the loss of our spiritual health, life, and mission.


  1. There are many points of disagreement between the two views of believer’s baptism and paedobaptism, such as the status of households in Scripture (e.g., Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8) and Jesus’ blessing of the little children (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). But the heart of the disagreement between the two views is theological; i.e., the main dispute centers on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants and the amount of continuity and discontinuity between them. On this important issue and the arguments given by both sides see the following: Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941), pp. 622-643; Edmund Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), pp. 276-284; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979); Robert R. Booth, Children of Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995); John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.2 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), pp. 1303-1359; Donald Bridge and David Phypers, The Water That Divides: The Baptism Debate (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977), pp. 33-70; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 334-344; Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978); Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Vol.3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1985), pp. 1089-1105; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), pp. 966-984.
  2. See Bridge and Phypers, The Water That Divides, pp. 73-150 for a helpful and concise summary of the historical data surrounding the baptism debate.
  3. The term “low baptismal consciousness” is taken from David F. Wright’s article, “Recovering Baptism for a New Age of Mission,” in Doing Theology for the People of God: Studies in Honor of J. L Packer, eds. Donald Lewis and Alister McGrath (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 54.
  4. Murray J. Harris, in his article “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” in In God’s Community: The Church and Its Ministry, eds. David J. Ellis and W. Ward Gasque (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1978), p.14 nicely contrasts baptism with the proclamation of the Word of God as the Gospel presented to the eye-gate versus the Gospel proclaimed to the ear-gate. Thus Harris states:
  5. “The submersion of the Christian in water is an acted parable of the death and burial of Christ, while his emergence from the water graphically dramatizes Christ’s rising from death and entrance into new life.”
  6. Historically, evangelicals have differed over whether to apply the term sacrament to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Some evangelicals, especially Baptists, have refused to refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments. Instead, they have preferred the word ordinances, primarily for two reasons: (1) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were ordained by our Lord (Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 11:24); (2) They have wanted to distinguish their view from Roman Catholicism, which has historically viewed baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments (along with confirmation, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and marriage), which in themselves actually convey grace to people without necessarily requiring faith from the persons participating in them. This is the notion behind the Latin phrase ex opere operato; that is, by virtue of the work done, grace is actually given, so that it can be said that the sacraments actually confer grace in an efficacious sense, without the need for faith in the recipients. On the other hand, other evangelicals, especially those in the Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions, have been willing to speak of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, though still in contrast to the Roman Catholic view, in the sense that they are outward and visible signs of an inward grace. If one understands sacrament in the latter sense, it does not seem that any momentous point is at issue here. Since evangelicals clearly distinguish their view from the ex opere operato view of Roman Catholicism, it is legitimate to refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as either sacraments or ordinances, and thus I will use the words interchangeably. On one specific Baptist objection to the use of the term sacrament see A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Vol.3 (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1909), p.930. On the Roman Catholic use of the term sacrament see Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), pp. 731-745 and Thomas Bokenkotter, Essential Catholicism (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1986), pp. 170-186. On the topic of sacraments in general see Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2nd edition (Oxford, England: Blackwell, 1997), pp. 494-520.
  7. There is much discussion in the literature on the origin of Christian baptism and its relationship to Qumran, Jewish proselyte baptism, John’s baptism, and the baptism of Jesus. It is certainly not the purpose of this chapter to wrestle with these issues, but they are important ones in ultimately coming to grips with the meaning and significance of Christian baptism. It seems safe to say that Christian baptism emerged out of the ministry of John the Baptist. John administered a one-time “repentance-baptism” for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) in anticipation of Messiah’s baptism of Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus submitted to John’s baptism (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11) to demonstrate His identification and solidarity with sinful humanity and the inauguration of His ministry as the Messiah. But once Jesus’ cross-work was complete, the provisional nature of John’s baptism reached its full and final significance in Christian baptism, bound up with the ushering in of the New Covenant age. Many have noted that due to the close connection between John’s baptism and Christian baptism, one should expect to find the same stress upon personal repentance and faith in Christian baptism that we find in John. In fact, I would argue that attempts to circumvent this connection in order to find a justifiable reason to baptize those who lack personal repentance and faith put John and Jesus (and later the apostles) at odds with one another and disrupt the unique forerunner-Messiah relationship that exists between them in the New Testament. For more on these issues see D. S. Dockery, “Baptism,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), pp. 55-58; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp. 1-92; Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” NIDNTT, ed. Cohn Brown, Vol.1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), pp. 143-150; George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 31-41; Harris, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” pp. 16-17; Bridge and Phypers, The Water That Divides, pp. 15-32.
  8. On the grammatical construction of this verse and issues surrounding it, see D. A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol.8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), pp. 594-599; and Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp. 77-92.
  9. Carson, Matthew, p.597. See also Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp. 90-92; G. R. Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.70.
  10. This is why Paul Jewett, in his article “Baptism (Baptist View),” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan, 1975), p. 466 defines Christian baptism as “that initiatory washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which the risen Lord commissioned His apostles to administer to all His followers as a mark of their discipleship.”
  11. Carson, Matthew, p. 597. Beasley-Murray makes the same point, though from the perspective of the apostle Paul, in his article “Baptism,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p.60. Beasley-Murray rightly notes that Paul’s argument in Rom 6:lff. would be groundless unless Paul assumes that he and all his readers have been baptized.
  12. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p. 92. Also see the strong emphasis on the place of divine authority in the institution and continuing practice of baptism in Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 624; John Murray, Christian Baptism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1962), pp. 4-8.
  13. Wright, “Recovering Baptism for a New Age of Mission,” p. 54.
  14. Ibid., p.55.
  15. Ibid.
  16. D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
  17. Ibid., p. 19. Carson’s observation is very similar to Francis Schaeffer’s assessment that the vital and crucial issue facing the evangelical church at the end of the twentieth century is the battle over truth. See Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1984).
  18. One remembers the often quoted statement of Allan Bloom as he began his work The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p.25: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”
  19. Inclusivism is the view that all who are saved are saved on account of the person and work of Jesus Christ, but that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is not absolutely necessary. Some may be saved, even though they have never heard about Jesus, by responding to the knowledge that they have around them, i.e., responding to general revelation. Others may be saved by responding to Jesus after death, i.e., post-mortem salvation. Exclusivism, in contrast to inclusivism, argues that only those who place their faith in Jesus Christ are saved. Exclusivism has been the historic position of the church. Inclusivism, which has been popular in Roman Catholic circles, especially since Vatican II, has increasingly become popular in evangelical circles: e.g., Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. For more on these issues see Carson, The Gagging of God; Ronald Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994); John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992); Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan, 1992).
  20. For a more in-depth treatment of these issues, refer to Carson, The Gagging of God. Also see David F. Wells, No Place For Truth, or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993); Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Postmodern Times (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994); David S. Dockery, ed. The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995); and, on a more popular level, the essays in John Armstrong, ed. The Coming Evangelical Crisis (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996).
  21. See Wright, “Recovering Baptism for a New Age of Mission,” pp. 56-57. In this regard Wright states the following: “We should not imagine, however, that as the church increasingly finds itself, in Europe at least, in a primary mission field, this recovery of baptism will be straightforward. For inclusiveness is a prominent element in the religious psyche of the ex-Christian West, and baptism always marks boundaries. It is the rite whereby persons are included in the family of Christ, but only by drawing lines between church and nonchurch, between Christian and non-Christian. A baptismal ministry which seeks to be faithful to the New Testament’s presentation of baptism cannot fail to run athwart the inclusivist spirit of the age. In a number of ways the pre-Constantinian experience of the church becomes more and more pertinent at the end of the second millennium. Not least is this the case for baptism.”
  22. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p. 101. Murray Harris, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” pp. 19-21 makes the same point when he emphasizes that “In baptism there is a transference of the rights of possession (‘into the name, eis to onoma, Acts 8:16; 19:5)…. As he submits to baptism in obedience to Christ’s command, the believer gives outward evidence, by an oral and public confession, of his inward belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and his intent to show lifelong devotion and loyalty to his Master with whom he has died, been buried, and raised (Romans 6:1-11).” Also see F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 75-78; Richard N. Longenecker, Acts, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 79-81; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 624-626.
  23. The term is taken from Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p. 102.
  24. Ibid.
  25. One of the important side-issues in the baptism debate is the proper mode of baptism. Even though the purpose of this chapter is not to deal with this issue, it is significant that those who argue for the believer’s baptism position generally argue that immersion is the most adequate way to symbolize our union with Christ. On this see Jewett, “Baptism,” p. 466; and Grudem,Systematic Theology, pp. 967-968. Of course, this is not the only factor in the discussion regarding the proper mode. Much discussion also centers around the word baptize and its meaning. On this see BAGD, pp. 131-132; Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” NIDNTT, pp. 144-146; cf. A. Oepke, “Baptize,” TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Vol.1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 529-546. For a contrary view see Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 629-631 and Murray, Christian Baptism, pp. 9-33.
  26. J. I. Packer, Concise Theology (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), p.212.
  27. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI:
  28. Eerdmans, 1996), p. 355. Moo picks up the suggestion of James Dunn that the early church conceived of faith, the gift of the Spirit, and water baptism as components of one unified experience, what Dunn calls “conversion-initiation.” This is an important observation, and it is crucial to maintain against the ex opere operato view of Roman Catholicism. It is not as if baptism effects regeneration, but it is assumed that faith leads to baptism, and baptism always assumes faith for its validity. Once again, this observation underscores the importance the New Testament places on baptism, without denying the priority of salvation by grace through faith. See James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1970), pp. 139-146; Moo, Romans, p. 366; Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” NIDNTT, pp. 146-148.
  29. See Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 170-175; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp. 146-151; Clowney, The Church, p. 280.
  30. See Fung, Galatians, pp. 173-174. Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 62, states it this way: “The two statements in Galatians 3:26 and 27 are complementary: verse 26 declares that believers are God’s children ‘through faith,’ and verse 27 associates entry into God’s family upon union with Christ, and Christ sharing His sonship with the baptized. It is an example of Paul’s linking faith and baptism in such a way that the theological understanding of faith that turns to the Lord for salvation, and of baptism wherein faith is declared, is one and the same.” On this same point also see Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), pp. 154-156.
  31. Moo, Romans, p.354. Paul often speaks of two realms: that of sin and death, founded by Adam; and that of life and righteousness, founded by Christ. As Moo states, “All people belong in one of these realms or the other; and they are now in the one or the other because God has viewed them as participating in the founding acts of these realms: the sin of Adam and the ‘obedience’ of Christ. Since, in terms of salvation history, the realm of Christ has been instituted after that of Adam, we can also speak in temporal categories and call the realm of Adam the ‘old age’ or ‘aeon’ and that of Christ the ‘new age’ or ‘aeon”‘ (Romans, pp. 351-352). In Romans 6 and elsewhere, Paul often speaks of believers as being “transferred” from the one realm to the other by virtue of being united to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Thus a Christian is one who has moved from the reign of sin and death to that of Christ-righteousness and life. As Moo, Romans, p.352, concludes: “By using this imagery of a transfer of realms, or ‘dominions,’ with its associations of power and rulership, Paul makes clear that the new status enjoyed by the believer (justification) brings with it a new influence and power that both has led and must lead to a new way of life (sanctification).” For a similar view see Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John R. de Witt (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 44-181.
  32. Ibid., pp. 353-367. This still raises the question of the “time” of our burial with Christ. Was it at the time of His burial, or did it occur at the time of our conversion? Moo argues that the text does not allow us to focus on the cross or our own experience as the “time” of our being buried with Christ, but rather it is both. Thus, as Moo states: “We are dealing with a category that transcends time. Our dying, being buried, and being resurrected with Christ are experiences that transfer us from the old age to the new. But the transition from old age to new, while applied to individuals at their conversion, has been accomplished through the redemptive work of Christ on Good Friday and Easter. Paul’s syn refers to a ‘redemptive-historical’ ‘withness’ whose locus is both the cross and resurrection and Christ—where the ‘shift’ in ages took place historically—and the conversion of every believer—when this ‘shift’ in ages becomes applicable to the individual” (Romans, pp. 364-365).
  33. Ibid.,p.366.
  34. Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p.62. Colossians 2:11-12 is another text that is parallel to Romans 6:1-4. On this text see P. T. O’Brien, Colossians and Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.44 (Waco, ~D(: Word, 1982), pp. 114-121.
  35. Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, TNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 164-165.
  36. Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” NIDNTT, p.148.
  37. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p.279. No doubt, in this context the question is often raised: “To which church does baptism give entry—to the local or universal church, to the visible or the invisible church?” Even though these questions are legitimate to ask, one wonders if this kind of question would have been conceivable to the New Testament. On this see the article by P. T. O’Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,” in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), pp. 88-119; and D. A. Carson, “Evangelicals, Ecumenism and the Church,” in Evangelical Affirmations, eds. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), pp. 347-385.
  38. Michael Green, Baptism: Its Purpose, Practice, and Power (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), p.51.
  39. See Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp. 279-284.
  40. Green, Baptism, p.52.
  41. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p. 292.
  42. For the close connection between baptism and the Holy Spirit, see Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit; Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp. 63-64. Once again the connection between baptism and the Holy Spirit is bound up with conversion. As Beasley-Murray states, “Conversion is not only the result of human decision, but it is enabled by the Spirit. He is not only the fruit of conversion-baptism; he is the real baptizer, the agent who makes baptism what it was meant to be: entry upon life in Christ” (pp. 63-64).
  43. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp. 295-296.
  44. For more on these specific arguments, consult the works found in footnote 1. In addition, other helpful resources are: J. I. Packer, Concise Theology, pp. 212-216; R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), pp. 225-229; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Baptism,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 410-415.
  45. There is some dispute over this within the paedobaptist community, especially over the notion of whether infant baptism leads to a kind of presumptive regeneration and the whole nature of the conditional covenant. For an interesting and important discussion of these issues, see David J. Engelsma’s seven articles entitled, “A Candid Confession of the Character of a Conditional Covenant,” in The Standard Bearer (January 1-April 1, 1997).
  46. This is the position that the author takes. Consult the resources in footnote 1 for more specific data regarding the specific arguments presented here for the believer’s baptism view.
  47. See D. A. Carson, “Evangelicals, Ecumenism, and the Church,” pp. 347-385 for the exegetical underpinnings of this argument. Much of the debate surrounds the nature of the New Covenant and its relationship to the Old. For a very helpful article that explores some of these same issues and turns the burden of proof onto the shoulders of the paedobaptist, see R. Fowler White, “The Last Adam and His Seed: An Exercise in Theological Preemption,” Trinity Journal 6:1 (1985), pp. 60-73.
  48. On this see Grudem, Systematic Theology, pp. 976-978; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp. 312-320.
  49. For a helpful discussion of the means of grace, see Grudem, Systematic Theology, pp. 950-965.

Tolkien & Lewis Celebration

September 19, 2015 @ 9:00 am4:00 pm

Tolkien and Lewis

Save the date for Aquinas College‘s Center for Faith & Culture’s inaugural “Tolkien and Lewis Celebration,” an all-day event on the work of the 20th century’s greatest Christian literary figures, J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, on Saturday, September 19, 2015.


Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society and host of EWTN’s Apostle of Common Sense. Dale will speak on “Chesterton, Tolkien & Lewis.”

Joseph Pearce, prolific author and Director of the Aquinas College Center for Faith and Culture, will present on “Unlocking the Lord of the Rings.”

Kevin O’Brien, founder and director of the Theater of the Word Incorporated and host of EWTN’s Theater of the Word. Kevin will perform a one-man show as Tolkien, delivering Tolkien’s famous lecture “on fairy stories.”

Jonathan Thorndike is the Honors Program Director at Belmont University. He teaches interdisciplinary “Great Books” courses and taught an Inklings course at King’s College London for many summers. He was awarded the Presidential Faculty Achievement Award at Belmont in 2014. Thorndike has published two books and over 50 essays on Japanese and British literature. Dr. Thorndike will be presenting on “Peter Jackson and Tolkien: Creative Legacy or Hollywood Disgrace?”

Devin Brown is a Lilly Scholar and Professor of English at Asbury University where he teaches a class on Lewis and Tolkien. He has written nine books, including A Life Observed: A Spiritual Biography of C. S. Lewis and The Christian World of The Hobbit. Dr. Brown will be discussing C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.


Saturday, September 19

Time Speaker Topic
9:00 Registration
9:30 Dale Ahlquist “Chesterton, Tolkien & Lewis”
10:30 Jonathan Thorndike “Peter Jackson and Tolkien: Creative Legacy or Hollywood Disgrace?”
11:30 Tolkien & Lewis Essay Contest Winner TBD
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Devin Brown “C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity
2:00 Joseph Pearce “Unlocking the Lord of the Rings”
3:00 Aquinas Award for Fiction Winner TBD
3:15 Kevin O’Brien One-man show as J.R.R. Tolkien with “On Fairy-Stories”
4:00 Celebration Concludes
4:15 Vigil Mass for travelers This Mass will be offered for the repose of the soul of Jef Murray who passed away on August 3. Jef, a talented artist, was scheduled to deliver at the Celebration on the topic “The Artist in Middle-Earth and Narnia.”

More info: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/calendar-event/tolkien-lewis-celebration/

Rebuilding Marriage Culture: A Fourfold Mission for the Church

Ryan T. Anderson

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, redefining marriage everywhere in the United States, has left many of us wondering: What do we do now?

In my book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, I present a comprehensive roadmap on how citizens of every walk of life should respond to the Court’s ruling.

Here I want to suggest four things the church in particular should do to help rebuild a strong marriage culture. After all, the church – either through action or inaction – will play a major role in the debate over the meaning of marriage.


First, the church needs to present a case for biblical sexuality that is appealing and that engages the best of modern thought. The virtues of chastity and lifelong marriage are enriching, but after fifty years, the church has still not devised a compelling response to the sexual revolution.

The legal redefinition of marriage could take place when and where it did only because the majority of Americans lacked a sound understanding of the nature of man and the nature of marriage.

The church needs to find a way to capture the moral imagination of the next generation. It needs to make the truth about human sexuality and its fulfillment in marriage not only attractive and appealing, but noble and exhilarating.

This is a truth worth staking one’s life on.

In the face of the seduction of cohabitation, no-fault divorce, extra-marital sex, non-marital childbearing, pornography and the hook-up culture, what can the church offer as a more fulfilling, more humane, more liberating alternative? Until it finds an answer, the church will make no headway in the same-sex marriage debate, which is the fulfillment of those revolutionary sexual values.

A proper response to the sexual revolution also requires engaging – not ignoring – the best of contemporary thought, especially the best of contemporary secular thought. What visions of the human person and sex, of marriage and personal wholeness do today’s thinkers advance? Exactly where and why do their ideas go wrong? The church needs to show that the truth is better than a lie. And that the truth can defeat all lies. I provide a philosophical defense of the truth in Truth Overruled; we need theologians to continue developing theological defenses.

In these efforts, we shouldn’t discount the potential of slumbering Christian communities to wake up. It’s easy to forget that, in 1973, the Southern Baptists were in favor of abortion rights and supported Roe v. Wade. Today they are at the forefront of the pro-life movement. Christians who are on the wrong side of the marriage debate today can change their minds if we help them.


The church’s second task is to develop ministries for those who experience same-sex attraction and gender identity conflicts. Such persons, for whom fidelity to the truth about human sexuality requires special courage, need our loving attention. Pope Francis’s description of the church as a “field hospital” after a battle is especially apt here.

These ministries are like the pro-life movement’s crisis pregnancy centers. Abortion is sold as the most humane and compassionate response to an unplanned pregnancy. It is not. And pro-lifers’ unprecedented grassroots response to women gives the lie to that claim. Likewise, those who believe the truth about marriage should be the first to walk with men and women dealing with same-sex attraction or gender identity conflicts, showing what a truly humane and compassionate response looks like.

Young people experiencing same-sex desire can face isolation and confusion as their peers first awaken to the opposite sex. They suffer humiliation if they say too much, but they bear the heavy burden of a secret if they keep silent. Parents and teachers must be sensitive to these struggles. We should fight arbitrary or abusive treatment of them. As relatives, co-workers, neighbors and friends, we must remember that social hardship isn’t limited to youth.

A shining example of ministry to the same-sex attracted is Courage, an international apostolate of the Catholic Church, which has produced the documentary film The Desire of Everlasting Hills. Every community needs groups like this to help their same-sex-attracted neighbors discern the unique life of loving service to which God calls each of them and find wholeness in communion with others.

But this work can’t just be out-sourced to special groups and ministries. Each of us needs to be willing to form deep friendships with men and women who are attracted to their own sex or struggle with their identity, welcoming them into our homes and families, especially when they aren’t able to form marriages of their own.

After all, the conjugal view of marriage – that it is inherently ordered to one-flesh union and hence to family life – defines the limits of marriage, leaving room for meaningful non marital relationships, especially deep friendships. This is liberating. The same-sex attracted, like everyone else, should have strong and fulfilling relationships. Marriage isn’t the only relationship that matters.

As I explain in my book, the conjugal view of marriage doesn’t denigrate other relationships. Those who would redefine marriage as a person’s most intense or deepest or most important relationship devalue friendship by implying that it’s simply less: less meaningful, less fulfilling. The greatest of Justice Kennedy’s errors may be his assertion that without same-sex marriage some people are “condemned to live in loneliness.” His philosophy of marriage is anaemic. And as our society has lost its understanding of marriage, it has suffered a corresponding diminution, even cheapening, of friendship.

We all need community, and those who for whatever reason never marry will know certain hardships that the married are spared. We should bring those left dry by isolation into other forms of community – as friends, fellow worshippers, neighbors, comrades in a cause, de facto members of our families, big siblings to our children, and regular guests in our homes.


The church’s third task is to defend religious liberty and to help conscientious Christians understand how to bear witness to the truth when a radical sexual agenda has become a nonnegotiable public policy. What should bakers and florists and photographers do? What should directors of local Catholic charities or Evangelical schoolteachers do?

There is no one single answer for every circumstance. Each person’s situation will require a unique response, based on his vocation and the challenges he faces. The answers for schools and charities and professionals may vary with a thousand particulars, but the church will need to teach Christians the moral principles to apply to their own circumstances.

The church also has to help the rest of society understand the importance of freedom, particularly religious freedom. The national conversation on this important civil liberty hasn’t been going well, and Indiana revealed how extreme a position the corporate and media establishments have staked out. They have the money and the megaphones. We have the truth. In Truth Overruled, I try to help make the case for a vast future of freedom.


The fourth task of the church is the most important and the most challenging. We need to live out the truth about marriage and human sexuality.

Husbands and wives must be faithful to one another for better and for worse till death do them part. Mothers and fathers must take their obligations to their children seriously. The unmarried must prepare now for their future marital lives so they can be faithful to the vows they will make. And they need the encouragement of pastors who are not afraid to preach unfashionable truths.

Pope Benedict was right when he said the lives of the saints are the best evangelists. The same thing is true when it comes to marriage. The beauty and splendor of a happy family is our most eloquent testimony.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, from which this essay is adapted. You can listen to him discuss the matter of marriage equality further with Fran Kelly on RN Breakfast.

Midway Baptist Church sees the presence of Tennessee Tech, along with the various community colleges and vocational schools, in our community as a blessing and stewardship.  The following article will help us think through how we, as a covenant body of believers, can receive this stewardship-blessing well.

Millennial ministry: It’s time we drop the adjective

And stop trying so hard to attract them.
By Aileen Lawrimore at BaptistNews.com

Collegiate ministry. My Facebook newsfeed is full of articles that have something to say about ministry to or with young adults (often referred to formally as Millennials). And if you read BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post or other current e-zines, you might infer that today’s youth are a new species of humanity and that to minister to or with them, you need specialized training.

Not true. It’s really not that hard. Look. I’ll show you.

First thing, and this is primary: stop trying to attract young people. That’s right. Attracting a certain demographic should never be a primary objective for your church. Really, young people are individuals just like all other humans and they have different preferences. Some like an early worship service, some prefer the later one. Some like worship in a traditional setting, others like a more contemporary atmosphere. You cannot be all these things to today’s college students because you’ll get frustrated and overwhelmed and you won’t look a thing like Jesus. Stop trying to find the latest gimmick to draw young folks to your doors. Instead, try being church to all people, regardless of their ages.

Now, what you do need to do is create an environment in your church that welcomes college students. Start by letting them know you exist. Go to campus events. Eat lunch in the cafeteria. Even have a Bible study there on the campus. Spread the word about times for worship and Sunday morning Bible study. You should do that but not to build up your church’s collegiate ministry. Do it because college students — just like everyone else — need godly community.

Oh, and if you are going to invite them, be sure to prepare for them. Have engaging Bible study and small groups. Consider making these groups intergenerational. Recently a college student told me that at the church she attends, she has made a really close friend who she hangs out with frequently. They laugh together, eat together and have fun together. The friend? She’s well past 80 years old! Offer students quality Bible study and authentic connection, and age won’t be nearly as important as you might think.

Okay, so you are (1) ministering to college students and young adults not to increase your weekly attendance but because we are called to share the love of Jesus. And (2) you are offering classes that are both substantive in content and intentional in relationship building. Now, what else can you do? Here are a few ideas.

1. Get on social media. Facebook appeals to an older crowd these days, but I find most students do have an account. They check it, but not necessarily daily. I interact more with students via Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter. Snapchat is especially easy and — for me — fun to use. Most college students use some type of social media. If you want to connect with them, you should, too.

2. Get their phone numbers and use them. Wait! Don’t actually call them! (That’s so last century). Send a text. Now it depends on your relationship with the student as to what you say. If I am not really close to a student, I might text a quick, “Hope classes are going well,” or “Thinking about you during exams.” For those kids I know really well, I text them things like, “I miss hearing your goofy jokes,” or “It’s the weekend! Make wise choices,” or “You’ll be at church in the morning, right?” Don’t know how to text? Ask a college student (or, hey, a middle schooler) to teach you.

3. Learn their names and remember them. Each young adult who visits your congregation is an individual. You are probably not bombarded with so many college students that you can’t remember all those names. (If you are, then get down on your knees and thank the good Lord for your problem. We should all be so burdened.) So remember each person’s name. I know a student who went (alone) every Sunday she was in town to a very small church near her college. After two years, she quit going. You know why? Because no one in the congregation of less than 75 people knew her name. There’s absolutely no excuse for this. None. It doesn’t matter how old you are, no one wants to be invisible. Remember students’ names. Write them down if necessary. Have them tattooed on your bicep. But remember their names. (Actually don’t do that tattoo thing. That’s kind of creepy.)

4. Talk to them. Many older adults I know feel like they don’t know what to say to people under the age of 40. Here’s what you say to a college student: “Hi. Glad you came today.” Ask them the same questions you’d ask anyone you had just met. Things like, “You from around here?” or “How about this weather?” And if you really want to connect you can say this: “Would you like to join us for lunch today?” But let’s be honest, that’s not only true of people born since 1990. Even Baby Boomers appreciate being included.

5. Minister with them, not just to them. Invite them to sing in your choir, work with your children or help with your landscaping. Include them in local mission projects. Ask them to lead in worship through reading scripture, saying prayers or ushering. Think about it. No one — college-aged or otherwise — wants to be somebody else’s project.

6. Feed them. Take them out to eat or invite them to your home. College students are generally on a tight budget and are weary of cafeteria food. It is the rare college kid who will turn down a good free meal. Unless of course, they suspect a bait and switch scheme. That is, don’t offer food as a sort of bribe or as an exchange for their participation. No. Feed them because, for one thing, you will be meeting a need or at least a real desire; and for another thing, eating together is a great way to build relationships. That’s exactly how Jesus got to know Zacchaeus, and a whole lot of other folks.

7. For students who are away at college, you should definitely connect with them digitally, but also send them real mail. You can mail the church bulletin, a clipping from the local paper about Friday’s football game or just a handwritten note. I’m continually amazed at how much college students appreciate real, paper-in-an-envelope, postmarked correspondence. They love it. Now if you want to, add little gifts from time to time. I buy Starbucks cards — only $5 or so each — and enclose them with a note that says, “Have a cup of coffee on me!” I’ve sent lots of chocolate bars, chewing gum and even silly little toys. One college student I know is still raving about the toy rubber band launcher I sent him. (Don’t know how much his roommates liked it, though.) Of course homemade goodies are always a welcome treat, and if that’s your thing, go for it! But really, you can just send a note. They’ll love it.

Easy, right? It all comes down to three things:

1. Focus on building the Kingdom, not your membership list.

2. Be prepared for people of all ages by offering quality Bible study.

3. Share God’s love intentionally through authentic relationships formed over time.

Plus the food thing. Do that too.

Here are the practical steps Bro. Jeff mentioned Sunday during his sermon on Christian Friendship.  They are excerpted and lightly modified from Joel Beeke and Michael Haykin’s pamphlet  How Should We Develop Biblical Friendship?  Please don’t miss how the helps on Biblical friendship inform the relationships we form in the covenant community of church membership.

Cultivating Christian Friendship

  1. Talk together. Most friendships begin when one person starts talking to another person whom he does not know. Jerry and Mary White write, “New friendships demand a first move from someone. They don’t erupt spontaneously, nor do they grow without words and communication. New friendships depend upon one person’s willingness to step out and approach another.”33 Don’t wait for someone else to talk to you. Go up to someone, ask a few questions, seek a common interest, get to know the person, and share a little about yourself.

If you feel shy around other people and find it hard to start conversations, remember what the Bible says is true about you. As the Whites have said, the Bible teaches that “God has lovingly created every person with valuable qualities—that includes you!” (Gen. 1:27), and, “We have a responsibility before God to extend our lives to others” (Eph. 2:10).34 You have something to give to others and a stewardship from God to share it.

Build relationships through godly conversation. Don’t talk about your life as if you were a practical atheist, but as you talk about life, constantly acknowledge the Lord of life. Sprinkle your conversations with the salty truth of Christ. And share with your closest friends your spiritual experiences, exercises, sorrows, and joys. Richard Baxter wrote, “The most necessary direction for a fruitful tongue is to get a well-furnished mind, and a holy heart, and to walk with God in holiness yourselves: for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak.”

  1. Listen together – We must pay attention to the person speaking with our eyes, ears, and mind… Listen for more than information. Listen to know a person. Try to understand his or her point of view. Open your heart and let your emotions answer your friend’s. “Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15). In so doing, you will become like Jesus Christ, the sympathetic High Priest who is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” for He too is human and has suffered (Heb. 4:15)

Remember A good friend listens, with care, much more than they talk.  This is true at all levels of friendship and is true also within the church.

  1. Serve Together – Christian friendship carries an elevated nobility when it rises above merely personal aims and seeks the good of humanity and the glory of Christ. Holmes writes, “Biblical friendship exists when two or more people, bound together by a common faith in Jesus Christ, pursue him and his kingdom with intentionality and vulnerability.”38 Serving lifts our eyes from our natural selfishness, and in a common cause we come to know each other more deeply in both our strengths and weaknesses and to love each other with greater loyalty.
  1. Enjoy Life Together – Friends multiply their joys by sharing them. One of the most basic ways is by eating together. Don’t overspiritualize Christian friendship; two of its most important tools are a fork and a spoon (or chopsticks for some friends). As Christ’s ministry shows, eating together communicates powerful messages of love and social acceptance. When we invite others into our homes for a meal, the acceptance, vulnerability, and self-disclosure of hospitality deepens the joy even further. Friends become as family.
  1. Think Together – Discussing the truths of God is an important way that friends sharpen each other… Help each other to love the Lord with all your minds.

Also, don’t be afraid to debate ideas with brotherly and sisterly love. Have the humility to admit that you are often wrong and need to learn more, and have the courage to speak up for what you believe. Cultivate the kinds of friendships that allow you to disagree, learn from each other in the process, and end the conversation with mutual respect and affection.

  1. Be together. Never underestimate the power of personal presence. When it comes to friendship, there is no substitute for time together. It certainly involves communication, but it aims for communion —sharing life together. Friendship has been defined as “the personal bond of a shared life.”

True friendships take time: it takes time to build into each other ’s lives. The transparency and trust essential to true friendship cannot be established overnight. Other things, lesser goods, need to be sacrificed to develop and maintain genuine friendships.

In life’s crises, the best gift of friendship is just being there. Hobbies, sports, and entertainment mean little at the graveside. When someone suffers profound loss, we sometimes are tempted to stay away because we don’t know what to say. We forget that in the moment of greatest suffering people do not need words as much as companionship. One man recounts,

“I was sitting, torn by grief. Someone came and talked to me of God’s dealings, of why it happened, of hope beyond the grave. He talked constantly, he said things I knew were true. I was unmoved, except to wish he’d go away. He finally did.

Another came and sat beside me. He didn’t talk. He didn’t ask leading questions. He just sat beside me for an hour or more, listened when I said something, ans answered briefly, prayed simply, left. I was moved. I was comforted. I hated to see him go.”

  1. Trust Together – Build trust gradually by proving yourself faithful and giving opportunities to your friend to prove himself faithful to you. That requires you to make yourself vulnerable by revealing your weaknesses, needs, and flaws. Don’t dump your life story on a new friend all at once, but take small steps over time. By developing a history of mutual faithfulness, you develop a foundation of trust on which to build for the future.
  1. Pray Together – Christians often say to each other, “I’ll pray for you.” Why not say, “Let’s pray together right now”? Few things comfort the heart as powerfully as listening to your friend cry out to your God to obtain grace for you in your time of need. Don’t be intimidated about praying out loud. It does not need to be a long, theologically eloquent prayer, just a sincere prayer offered with love for a friend and with faith in Jesus Christ. Sometimes a simple, “Gracious heavenly Father, please be near to my friend and help her because she’s really hurting,” is all that it is needed.
  1. Repent Together – We need to speak both law and gospel to each other. Robert Kelleman says that true spiritual friends “are like the Puritans who practiced the art of loading the conscience with guilt. Like them, we know that to break the habitual web of sin’s deceit, people need to experience the horrors of their sin against God and others.” At the same time, such friends must be skilled in “the art of lightening the conscience with grace,” for, “forgiveness by grace is the dynamic God uses not only to cleanse our lives, but also to change our love. Christ woos us back to God by grace.
  1. Hope Together – One of the blessings of Christian friendship is to encourage each other to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus and the coming of His kingdom. After Paul described what Christ’s coming will mean for believers, he wrote, “Comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:18). Whether we are old or young, healthy or diagnosed with a terminal illness, we all need to be reminded that this world is not our home, but we have a place in the Father ’s house. We are to be “exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). Hope gives us patience, perseverance, and joy.

The following is an article from Russell Moore, formerly of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and currently the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, from FaithStreet.com‘s blog OnFaith. You can read more from Dr. Moore in his forthcoming Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel.

10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Southern Baptists

Are Southern Baptists even Southern? Why don’t they baptize babies? And more.

  1. Westboro Baptist Church isn’t one of us.

Sometimes people assume when they see Westboro Baptist Church with its hateful signs, picketing, and protesting that this church is one of ours. It isn’t. As a matter of fact, Westboro pickets us, too, most years. They reject what we believe is the core of our belief — that the gospel is offered to all persons — and instead they believe that God delights in condemnation and damnation.

We are a missionary people, who want to see everyone — including people who hate us — reconciled to God through the gospel. That’s why, when I have reason to write about the group, I usually do so with the Westboro Baptist (sic) Church (sic). If I lived in a place called “Westboro,” I would probably add a third sic.

  1. We emphasize hellfire and brimstone, but probably not how you think.

Southern Baptists — like all orthodox Christians — believe in a coming Day of Judgment. Like Jesus and John the Baptist, we warn people of the eternal consequences of their spiritual decisions. But some think that Southern Baptists think the judgment of God is reserved for people who don’t believe or behave like we do. That’s far from true.

One of the first things we learn as children is that “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). That includes us, and when we speak of “sinners,” we are speaking about all human beings (except for One notable exception).

  1. We are defined by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is good news.

We share our faith with our neighbors and send missionaries all over the world because we believe that God has made a way for sinful humanity to be reconciled to God. We believe Jesus took on our humanity, died under the curse we incurred with our sin, was raised from the dead, and stands now as our High Priest before the throne of God.

Our lives are hidden in Christ, so that his cross is our cross, his life is our life. We are forgiven of sin, but this is not just some sort of amnesty for the afterlife. In Christ, God has adopted us as his children, and we are named “joint heirs” with Jesus so that his future is our future — and it is more than we could even imagine right now.

This sort of peace with God is offered to anyone, no matter who that person is or what he or she has done, on the condition of repentance from sin and faith in Christ. When we’re not as joyful as we ought to be, it’s because we need to be reminded of how good it is to be those who were lost and are now found.

This commitment to the gospel is why Southern Baptists, through their International Mission Board, support 4,734 international missionaries around the world and why the North American Mission Board supports 5,611 missionaries, not to mention 3,600 Southern Baptist chaplains who serve in the U.S. military.

It’s why when there’s a disaster — whether it’s Hurricane Sandy or the Nepal earthquake or a famine in Africa — Southern Baptists are among the first in and the last out to minister to those affected.

  1. Southern Baptists are committed to a believers’ church.

We don’t baptize babies because we believe that people come into the Body of Christ not by physical birth but by a new birth that takes place when one is joined to Christ in repentance and faith. Baptism, for us, is a sign of our identification with Jesus in death, burial, and resurrection.

That has implications for how we admit members to our churches — only those who profess personal faith in Christ and who follow him in baptism and in how we hold one another accountable in our churches to live lives that reflect the lordship of Christ.

  1. We don’t agree on everything, but we’re more united than you might think.

Many think Baptists are always fighting, and there’s some truth to that. We were birthed, after all, in dissent from established churches and we’ve lived through all sorts of controversies, so there’s a fighting side to us.

That said, Southern Baptists are unified around a common theology. We believe, for instance, that the Bible is completely true and is the Word of God. Our theological consensus is found in our Baptist Faith and Message statement.

There are lots of other secondary issues where Baptists happily agree to disagree. We all believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, but we don’t all see eye-to-eye on the timing of the Rapture, and so forth. We all believe in both the sovereignty of God and in the responsibility of human beings, but we don’t all agree on how those two fit together.

We gladly join together across such differences to affirm primary doctrines together and to work together through our funding mechanism (we call it the “Cooperative Program”) to send missionaries, plant churches, and train future leaders.

  1. Lots of us aren’t “Southern.”

The name “Southern Baptist Convention” can confuse people who assume that this means we are limited to the states below the Mason-Dixon line. That was true at our founding, but isn’t true at all now. There are Southern Baptist churches in all 50 states. That’s why you might be surprised to meet a Southern Baptist from Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine who doesn’t say y’all or like sweet tea.

Our geographical diversity had led us several times to consider changing our name, but we decided against it because the name “Southern Baptist” has “brand identification” in American life, distinguishing us from some other groups.

Think of it the way you would an airline. Southwest doesn’t just take you to Arizona or New Mexico, and Delta doesn’t just take you to Louisiana or Mississippi. The name tells you about a history, and doesn’t describe boundaries.

  1. There are some things in our past we’re ashamed of.

When I say that we are all sinners, I don’t just mean that all of us individually have a past. Sin expresses itself through structures and systems, too — and the SBC is not exempt from that.

The SBC was founded over the issue of human slavery — precisely over the question of whether slaveholders would be appointed as missionaries. It’s not just that the SBC was on the wrong side of the issue on that, we were on the wrong side of the Bible, on the wrong side of the gospel, on the wrong side of Jesus.

Some brave Christians — some Southern Baptist, many not — prevailed by showing that white supremacy is directly contradictory to what Southern Baptists profess to believe, that all persons are made in the image of God and that the gospel reconciles us to God and with one another.

  1. We’re more ethnically diverse than you might think.

Among the fastest growing demographics in the Southern Baptist life are African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American congregations. The most vibrant of our churches often include many languages and ethnic groups.

Though positive steps have happened, it’s not good enough for many of us, since we believe the church is designed to be a preview of the coming kingdom of God, a kingdom that is made up of those from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language. Most of the Body of Christ, on earth as well is in heaven, isn’t white and has never spoken English.

We celebrate our growing diversity, including seminary programs intentionally training the next generation of ethnic minority leadership, even as we note that we have far yet to go. With every year that passes, we have more and more salsa at our church potlucks, and we like it that way.

  1. We believe in religious liberty for everyone, not just ourselves.

Baptists began as a persecuted people, hunted from our homes in England and later colonial America because of our convictions. Many of our heroes were in prison for preaching the gospel.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is there because of the persistent agitation of those such as Virginia Baptist preacher John Leland, who demanded full religious liberty for everyone — believers and unbelievers.

Because of what we believe about the gospel, we don’t think a state-coerced faith is a genuine faith. And because we believe that each person must give an account, personally, before the Judgment Seat of Christ, we don’t support any king, dictator, legislature, or bureaucrat inhibiting anyone’s free exercise of religion. Jesus taught us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s — and the conscience doesn’t belong to Caesar.

  1. Authority goes to autonomous churches governed by Christ, not a hierarchy.

Some churches and denominations have decisions made at the top — by bishops or other leaders — and these decisions filter down to the churches. Our decisions go the other way. We think every church — no matter where or what its size — is governed by Jesus through his Word and by his gifts and is free from dictation by any other church or by some religious bureaucracy.

This commitment to what we call “the autonomy of the local church” shows up even in our annual meeting. Any “messenger” — someone sent from our churches — can make any motion or come to a microphone and say anything. This leads to unpredictability because our meetings aren’t scripted and choreographed in some “headquarters.”

That’s why the SBC was able to turn around from its direction toward theological liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s toward orthodox, evangelical conviction. The people had the final say.


Here’s a great piece from Michael J. Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.  The focus is on identifying the polity of early churches.  Dr. Kruger’s scholarship is excellent but he has perhaps overlooked the repeated emphasis on the congregation showing their approval of elder candidates through voting (as seen in Baptist churches).

Were Early Churches Ruled by Elders or a Single Bishop?

There is a (seemingly) never-ending debate amongst theologians and pastors about the proper form of government for the church.  For generations, Christians have disagreed about what leadership structure the church ought to use.  From the bishop-led Anglicans to the informal Brethren churches, there is great diversity.

And one of the fundamental flash points in this debate is the practice of the early church.  What form of government did the earliest Christians have?  Of course, early Christian polity is a vast and complex subject with many different issues in play.  But, I want to focus in upon a narrow one: Were the earliest churches ruled by a plurality of elders or a single bishop?

Now it needs to be noted from the outset that by the end of the second century, most churches were ruled by a single bishop. For whatever set of reasons, monepiscopacy had won the day. Many scholars attribute this development to Ignatius.

But, what about earlier? Was there a single-bishop structure in the first and early second century?

The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).

A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.

But, what about the church after the New Testament?  Did they maintain the model of multiple elders?  Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while:

1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops—not a single ruling bishop—and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.”

2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c.96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.

3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3).Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).

In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century.

What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church.

This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself:

The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).

Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate.  While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.