Monopoly is a fascinating piece of game history. The game was invented during the Depression by Charles Darrow. Initially Parker Brothers turned the game town citing design errors. Darrow produced his own copies of the game, and after its initial success, Parker Brothers picked it up. By 1935, the New York Times reported it as the most popular game in the country.

Interestingly, despite changes in society (not many people wear top hats these days, and those who do tend to be a little weird) and updates to the game, the top hat has remained a popular game piece.

Most of us are familiar with the concept of the game: accumulate property; improve your assets with houses and hotels; and hope for frequent visits from your opponents from whom you charge ever-increasing fees when they happen to grow your business by the chance of the dice.

Maybe you have a favorite game piece. Mine is the car. Another perennial favorite is the top hat, which symbolizes the sort of wealth to which many people aspire. Interestingly, despite changes in society (not many people wear top hats these days, and those who do tend to be a little weird) and updates to the game, the top hat has remained a popular game piece.

Now, one’s willingness to play the game of Monopoly depends on a few conditions. For instance, there must be a predictable number of “pay income tax” and “go-to-jail” cards. These risks seem manageable when you know in advance that there are only a limited number of risks and the potential rewards seem to outweigh them. It is the enticement of a free market system.

In addition, the banking system must be reliable. There is a set amount of money that the bank possesses. The bank is entrusted to operate under accepted and predictable standards with little or no independent discretion. If the bank runs out of money due to overextending credit to players who cannot afford their houses and hotels and now wants to raise taxes for all who play the game, or worse, if the bank wants to change the rules of the game despite what the rule book states, players quickly lose faith in the banker and lose interest in the game.

Suppose the bank raised the taxes on the wealthiest Monopoly players so as to even out the game for those who have the least amount of property, or declare that Free Parking is no longer free and the tolls charged for parking go to the bankers, or maybe the bank determines that properties that were never intended to constitute a Monopoly may now be partnered together under a new domestic partner arrangement, such that Boardwalk could now partner with Baltic to form a new Monopoly or a railroad and a utility can now merge. Wouldn’t the game lose some of its challenge, and don’t you think players would lose their motivation to try?

Even worse, suppose the bank determined that the value or life of some players was not as high as the value of others. Would we not stand up and say that the bank has gone too far?

I think you see my point.

Monopoly may parallel our lives, but it doesn’t parallel our ministry. See, the curious thing about faith is that you and I don’t get to set the rules. Indeed, the game is not controlled by a roll of the dice but by the game’s creator. I don’t get to hold up a rule book and demand that God work in my life in the way that I think He should. Instead, when I choose to enter into a relationship with Him, I relinquish my rights as owner, banker, and even rules official. And when I commit my life to His service, I give up the pursuit of my own plans for the greater purpose of pursuing His will for my life.

In the meantime, with confidence that His Word never changes, take comfort in the fact that He never defaults on a promise, never mismanages what you entrust to Him, and never overextends His inexhaustible supply of grace.

May I suggest to you that before you seek to find the place that God has for you to serve, that you discover the servant whom God desires you to be. You will notice that there is more in Scripture about who a minister is than what a minister does (see 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). And, by uncovering who it is that God wants you to be, He may in the process begin to reveal what it is that He wants you to do. In the meantime, with confidence that His Word never changes, take comfort in the fact that He never defaults on a promise, never mismanages what you entrust to Him, and never overextends His inexhaustible supply of grace.

Parents often struggle with the commercialism of this sacred holiday season. Easter eggs, bunnies and candy can easily grab a child’s attention. How can Christian parents refocus their children’s attention? Family traditions and activities create unforgettable memories in the lives and hearts of children and parents.

Step into the Bible (published in 2007) is an adaption of Ruth Graham’s book First Steps in the Bible. Graham’s book is a superb devotional guide for families. She highlights 100 Bible stories, uses open-ended questions encouraging family conversations, suggests memory verses and provides tools for parents to use with their children. Graham does an excellent job of unwrapping the story of the cross in short daily doses.

Celebrating Biblical Feasts in Your Home or Church by Martha Zimmerman is a book that aids Christians in understanding the Jewish Heritage. As Zimmerman states, “Matthew 1:1 reminds us that Jesus was Jewish. “ Her book explains Jewish traditions and celebrations. This a tool for parents, Sunday school teachers, ministers, and others interested in celebrating traditions like the Passover. After defining the Passover, she explains the traditions surrounding the celebration. Then, Zimmerman gives a list of needed supplies and instructions on how to celebrate the holiday season as Jesus did as a child. A wonderful family Easter tradition can include the Passover Seder!

Speaking of the Passover Seder, the local Target stores are currently selling a Passover Seder plate. This is a visual tool for children and families. It is colorful and attractive to the eye, with the elements of the meal listed. This plate is a great addition to a family’s Easter celebration.

Other Passover educational resources:

1. http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Easter-do-not-pass-over-the-passover
2. http://www.lifeway.com/n/Product-Family/Feast

Resurrection Eggs are another tool used in telling the story of Jesus’ journey to the cross, grave and resurrection. These eggs are memory-makers for the child who learns from hands-on activities. With the words from the parent and the props from the eggs, a child will learn the life-changing story of the resurrection.

My personal favorite activity that we experienced in our home involved the use of crayons and white paper. Our oldest child is an artist. (My son is 25 years old presently.) When he was in the first grade, we were drawing and coloring. I asked Jerrod to draw a picture of Easter. He drew a hill and three empty crosses. As a mom and parent I was thrilled at his interpretation of this sacred holy day because Jesus is no longer on the cross. Jerrod continued to draw this picture over and over. We had one of these pictures framed. It is hanging in our family room.

Easter is the most important time of the year for Christians. Children of all ages need to hear and understand the resurrection of our Savior. Family traditions and activities are an enjoyable way for children to learn about their Savior and His love for them.

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me (Rom. 16:7, NKJV).

I am willing to guess that you probably have not spent a lot of time pouring over Romans 16:7. In fact, much like the genealogies with lists of unfamiliar names in portions of the Old and New Testaments, a person could find herself racing through the “greetings” section in Romans 16 without spending a lot of thought on its significance.

In Romans 16, Paul sends greetings to specific people in the church in Rome, and several of the people found in the list are women. However, this chapter where Paul is essentially just giving “shout outs” to noteworthy believers laboring in the Roman church has become a virtual battleground between complementarian and egalitarian biblical interpreters. One particular disagreement occurs over Romans 16:7 and a person named Junia (or Junias, as some biblical scholars have argued). Why the controversy over this short verse and little-known person? There are three reasons:

• Is the person named Junia (feminine name) or Junias (masculine name)?
• Is the phrase following the names best translated “outstanding among the apostles” or “well-known to the apostles”?
• What is the meaning of the Greek word translated “apostles”?

What is at stake with the answers to these questions?

If, indeed, Junia is a woman and Paul calls her a capital “A” Apostle as egalitarians believe, then it would mean that a woman held the highest leadership position in the early church. However, in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, Paul gives some boundaries for women in exercising leadership roles within the church (i.e., women are allowed to pray and prophesy in the church as long as they do so in a way that demonstrates an attitude of submission and women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the church). So, if the egalitarian understanding of Junia is correct, then either Paul contradicts himself or you must find a different understanding of the passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

Scot McKnight, an egalitarian professor at North Park University, criticized complementarians’ treatment of Romans 16:7 in a recent article called “Shifting Footings” in the Christians for Biblical Equality Arise e-Newsletter on February 2, 2012.  In his conclusion he pleads with complementarians to “let the Bible say what it says.” However, a quick glance at some of the common English translations like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, and HCSB will show you that the translators have struggled over how to accurately translate the Greek of Romans 16:7; the case for this verse will not be made without serious examination of the Greek text.

Before we go through the three issues, let me tell you my conclusion up front. I think Junia was a woman, though, if it turns out that she was a man, it doesn’t wreck my faith. It is possible that she was married to Andronicus and that they served as missionaries—forerunners to the likes of Jim and Elisabeth Elliott or Adoniram and Ann Judson. The fact that I disagree with an egalitarian understanding that says that Junia was an Apostle does not mean that I am diminishing the real significance of Junia’s ministry. I am simply trying to “let the Bible say what it says” like McKnight urged after giving serious consideration to the evidence of the Greek text.

Junia or Junias?

The name in the Greek text is Iounian, and because of the case of the word in the Greek text, it is possible that the normal (lexical) form of the word could be either Junia or Junias. So, at this point, translators have been forced to make a judgment call. The NIV and NASB translate the name as Junias. The NKJV, ESV, and HCSB translate the name as Junia. In addition, several of those translations (NASB, HCSB, ESV) include footnotes letting the readers know of the alternate, possible translation for the name. So, if the name is Junias, meaning that this person was a man, then it really doesn’t matter how you resolve the other two questions. But let’s go with the understanding that the person was a woman at this point. Junia was a common woman’s name in Latin, and since Paul was writing to the church at Rome, Latin names would have been common.

“Outstanding among the apostles” or “Well-known to the apostles”?

The “who” phrase after Andronicus and Junia, Paul’s fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners, has been translated as “outstanding among the apostles” (NASB, NIV) or “of note among the apostles” (NKJV) or “well-known to the apostles” (ESV) or “noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles” (HCSB). The issue is whether or not the prepositional phrase en tois apostolois should be translated as “among the apostles” or “by/to the apostles.”

The question is whether or not this pair was counted as apostles or whether they were just known by the apostles.

Wayne Grudem in his book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth makes the case that the most recent research in Greek grammar would lead one to understand the verse as “well-known to the apostles.” It is why more recent English translations like the ESV and HCSB render the phrase with the nuance of meaning that this pair was known by the apostles and not counted among them as apostles. If this is the case, then it doesn’t matter how you resolve the final question of the meaning of the word apostle, but for the sake of teasing this argument out, let’s say that the phrase should be rendered “well-known among the apostles.” Is it possible that Paul, who clearly gives boundaries for women in exercising church leadership in some of his other letters (see I Tim. 2 and 3; 1 Cor. 11), is saying that Junia was an apostle?

Significance of Word “Apostles”?

The word apostolos is used the New Testament as a technical title when referring to Apostles, like the twelve or Paul. However, the word also means “messenger” or “one who is sent.” It is similar to the word diakonos which can be translated as the title Deacon, when referring to a specific office of the church, or as “servant or slave” in other cases when the text is not talking about the church position.

For instance, the word apostolos is used in John 13:16, “Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” Jesus uses the word here to refer to a messenger and not the technical title of Apostle (see Phil 2:25 and 2 Cor. 8:23 for similar uses of this word). In addition, many Greek scholars have concluded that the term apostolos could have the nuance of meaning a “travelling missionary” since a missionary is “one who is sent.” Given the fact that the New Testament does not use the official title apostolos to refer to anyone other than Paul and the Twelve, the word in Romans 16:7 is best understood as “messengers” or “travelling missionaries.”

The conclusion one should draw from this little trip through Greek grammar and definitions is that the case for Junia as an Apostle is not so cut and dry as egalitarians would claim. In fact, the evidence is thin at best and built upon a very speculative argument. A discussion like this should encourage you in your own Bible study to learn how to be a person “who correctly handles the truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Our job in studying the Bible is to allow the text to determine the meaning and not read into the text what we may want it to say.

When President Bryant Wright telephoned late last year asking me to serve on a committee to provide counsel to the president about a change in name for our beloved Convention, my initial thought was, “Mr. President, why do you hate me?” My life has been spent, too much of it, in controversy, which contrary to popular wisdom, I thoroughly despise.  In fact, my life verse has become Jeremiah 15:10,

Woe is me, my mother, that you have borne me, a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth!  I have neither lent for interest, nor have men lent to me for interest. Every one of them curses me.

My love for and devotion to this fellowship that we call a Convention and to its churches and mission causes is by now, I hope, apparent.  Soon, if God wills, I will attend my 60th annual meeting without a miss.  While I seek neither sympathy nor applause, my family has paid a high price for faithfulness as we understood it to Christ, the Bible, and to the faith of our Baptist Fathers.  For thirty- six years, I have led three different institutions to train your missionaries, pastors and evangelists.  For fifty-five years I have faithfully preached the unsearchable riches of Christ mostly in Southern Baptist churches and mission points. Haltingly and often poorly, I have sought to be a personal witness to the saving grace of our Lord.

So what is your point, oh hoary with years?  Just that in the pedestrian words that I am about to utter, I sincerely hope that my motive and intentions are pure even should you find my logic flawed.  From my vantage point in the forced march to the summit of Nebo, the twin concerns that rivet my heart are seven billion lost people on this globe and the care of the churches that serve as the launch pads for the dissemination of the gospel.

Since I was a boy-preacher somewhere back in the Pre-Cambrian era, I have been concerned that Southern Baptists needed to change our name.  Every time the issue arose, I cast a losing vote contrary to that of some of my dearest friends.  The logic that appealed to me then was as simple as the mind that assessed it.  (1) We were no longer regional and (2) If the regional moniker were an offense, a barrier to some, used in turn by the Enemy to keep them from Christ, then we should remove the barrier.

Please note what I did not say.  While I recognize that some of our own are offended by our Southern Baptist history of sometimes fierce clashes, of our moral stands against abortion, gender confusion, the dissolution of the family, the devastating effects of gambling and alcohol on our families and the social order, and even belatedly the more politically correct, but in this case biblically correct stand against racism, while I regret that any are offended, I view all of this as noble, even if in our flesh we were sometimes ignoble in our approaches to these issues.

Neither do I think that the name on the shingle has much to do with evangelistic success.  History is replete with the objections of the establishment to the evangelization of the lost.  When God’s people seek His face for His mighty hand to move and then when they witness as though they were in the fourth quarter, I know for a fact that the baptismal waters will be stirred far more frequently than Bethesda.

Consequently, I am not ashamed of the Southern Baptist name.  Indeed, I love and treasure it for what it represents in terms of doctrine, ethics, shared mission, response to human need, and world mission endeavor.  But my brothers and sisters, if at least a descriptor could be found which focused on the nature of our mission, how could that be a bad omen?

The recommendation which our distinguished Baptist statesman, Dr. Draper, will now bring is one that satisfies my conscience on all levels to a degree I never thought possible.  I support it enthusiastically.  I have just two requests of you my brethren.  First, let us seek God’s face with ardent supplication to see if the committee’s report is an amazing solution given by the Spirit of God.  Second, if at the end of the process, you do not agree, that is fine.  This is why you are a Baptist, a dissenter, and why I am not your bishop, cardinal or pope.  But may we agree that we will debate and decide the issue without recourse to a discussion of motives and intentions of the heart which only God can see and know.

Whatever the outcome, I remain confident for the future.  The gates of hell will not conquer the church of Jesus the Christ.  The Spirit and the Bride say come.  Southern Baptists say come.  Let whosoever wills come and slake his thirst with the water of life.  Such remains the mission of Southern Baptists until Jesus comes.

In some few lives, the temporal kisses the eternal in that their earthly life embraces the truths and calling of heaven. They pour themselves out for others. Such individuals are odd to some because this world seems not to be their home. They are sojourners. To others, they are heroic. Yet, in New Testament terms, they simply live out normal discipleship—denying self and clinging to the cause of the cross.

Such was the life well lived by Adoniram Judson (1788-1850). The measure of the man is evident in the reminiscences of Adoniram B. Judson (his son born in Burma in 1837), written during the centennial celebration of his father’s life and work in 1912.

‘Tis religion that can give sweetest pleasure while we live.

‘Tis religion will supply solid comfort when we die.

Be the living God my friend, then my joys shall never end.^[1]

When Christ captures human hearts, we should not fear failure as much as we should fear marvelous success in doing something that absolutely does not matter in this life or the next. Touching lives for all time and eternity is the DNA of Christian service as fully illustrated by Christ Himself.

Adoniram Judson exemplified a human version of life well lived. In his advice to would-be missionaries well into his tenure in Burma, he stated,

First, then, let it be a missionary life; that is, come out for life, and not for a limited term. Do not fancy that you have a true missionary spirit, while you are intending all along to leave the heathen soon after acquiring their language.^[2]

Judson’s advisory premise illustrates a deep soul searching motivational analysis and spiritual inventory needed for missionary service. While being physically present in the same geographical setting for “life” is not as logistically necessary 200 years later, the underlying principle is just as valid; namely, that one’s degree of spiritual conviction and calling determines—or should determine—our future effectiveness or ability to “finish the race.” His sentiment is simply not to be so self-centered or self-deceived as to venture into God’s service as if it is a holiday meant for selfish aims.

Judson’s lingering legacy is the endurance of illness, loss of children, deaths of his wives, weariness and threats to life over nearly four decades in order to teach, preach and translate the Gospel in and among the varieties of Burmese peoples.

What legacies are in the making by Christ’s disciples now? Where are tomorrow’s servants of Judson’s ilk? Hopefully you too are one that will live this life viewed through the prism of the next one while in the midst of a culture that breeds and feeds the self. Come to the determination that you are oddly out of place in that circle of values. If you do, then what are the next steps of surrender?

Often the work of a historian is similar to that of a criminal detective: we are left with a few shreds of evidence in our effort to reconstruct the past. Take for instance Adoniram Judson (1788-1850). While the famed Baptist missionary to Burma left behind many clues to his heroic missionary endeavors, virtually nothing survives from his youthful pre-Baptist days. Yet the bits of evidence we do have from this period point to one, often overlooked, conclusion: that Adoniram Judson’s upbringing and ministerial training occurred in the context of the New Divinity movement. Who were the New Divinity, how was Judson related to them, and what accounts for their missionary fervor?

Who Were the New Divinity?

The New Divinity movement was a group of pro-revival Congregationalist ministers in New England in the latter half of the 1700s and early 1800s who zealously promoted the revival theology of Jonathan Edwards. The early leaders of the movement, Joseph Bellamy (1719 -1790) and Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), were personally trained by Edwards and wrote many works advancing Edwardsean theology. But just as important, they exponentially replicated themselves by adopting a system of ministerial training, known as the “school of the prophets,” where newly minted divinity students would move into their parsonages and job shadow for a year. Here, students learned firsthand the rhythms of pastoral ministry and were drilled with the intricacies of Edwardsean theology. This pattern of post-graduate ministerial mentoring worked remarkably well: by 1800 over a quarter of New England’s Congregationalist churches were led by New Divinity ministers. Even more interesting is the fact that the spectacular New England revivals that inaugurated the Second Great Awakening (1790s) were found exclusively among New Divinity congregations. Reflecting on this, one prominent New Divinity minister, Edward Dorr Griffin, noted that “in 1799, I could stand at my doorstep in New Hartford [Connecticut], and number fifty or sixty [nearby] congregations laid down in one field of divine wonders.”

Adoniram Judson’s upbringing and ministerial training occurred in the context of the New Divinity movement.

Adoniram Judson grew up in this context. His uncle, Ephriam Judson, was a well-known New Divinity minister who was trained by Bellamy and who trained several Edwardsean ministers throughout his ministry. Adoniram’s father, Adoniram Sr., also studied with Bellamy before taking churches in Massachusetts. While candidating at his first church, the elder Adoniram was opposed by a powerful layman who objected to his “Hopkintonian” theology (a term used for the New Divinity followers of Samuel Hopkins). Later another church, in an effort to secure Adoniram Sr. as their pastor, did away with its adherence to the “Half-Way Covenant,” an older Congregational policy that the New Divinity abhorred that granted partial church membership to non-Christians. These snapshots provide sound evidence that the future missionary most likely grew up as a pastor’s kid in a New Divinity household.

By 1800 New Divinity leaders began extending their influence beyond local churches. Numerous periodicals that published accounts of local revivals were founded. Several home missionary societies were established for church planting in the west. Edwardsean intellectuals began populating the faculties of the region’s colleges like Dartmouth, Amherst, Union, and most notably, Williams, location of the famed Haystack Prayer meeting. As a teenager, the precocious young Adoniram toyed with skepticism and dreams of worldly success before being drawn by God’s Spirit to gospel ministry. In 1808 he was personally invited by Edward Dorr Griffin and Moses Stuart to become a student at the newly formed Andover Seminary, another New Divinity institution and the first Protestant seminary in North America. There Judson studied under New Divinity professors where he was exposed to their piety and theology, and where he nurtured a vision for world missions.

Recently, historians have tried to pinpoint the sources of the evangelistic activism that characterized the New Divinity and their missionaries. One commonality noted is the radical vision of self-denial that they gleaned from Edwards’s writings (Religious Affections and The Diary of David Brainerd), and reproduced in their journals, letters, and sermons. Hopkins gave this vision a somewhat awkward name, “disinterested benevolence.” He argued that true Christians possess a benevolent principle of the heart, planted by the Holy Spirit, which seeks the good of all things for the glory of God and Christ. Christian benevolence is “disinterested” in the self’s own happiness because of a total preoccupation with the eternal happiness of others in the gospel. Scholars have noted that this Edwardsean ethical theory was partly responsible for the torrent of evangelical, social, and missionary activism they demonstrated.

Effects of “Disinterested Benevolence”

We see the effects of disinterested benevolence in three areas. First, conversion narratives of many New England Christians from the period reflect the presence of language associated with disinterested benevolence. Anne Hasseltine, who would later become Judson’s first wife, explicitly notes in her diary the profound impact Bellamy’s writings had on her conversion. Second, disinterested benevolence has been linked to the New Divinity’s anti-slavery crusade. Samuel Hopkins’ essays against slavery in the 1770s represent the earliest sustained theological polemic waged against America’s peculiar institution by a colonial theologian. Third and already noted, disinterested benevolence was a factor in the surge of missionary activism demonstrated by young New Divinity ministers. It was Judson, along with fellow seminarians Samuel Mills, Samuel Nott, Samuel Newell, and Gordon Hall, who petitioned Massachusetts Congregationalists in 1811 for financial support for foreign missions. Their request led to the formation of the New Divinity institution that perhaps had the most global impact, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

Judson’s days as a young Christian and his ministerial training took place in a context that was deeply saturated by New Divinity values and aspirations. In short, he was riding a wave generated by the winds of an Edwardsean theology that had been bearing much fruit in the early revivals of the Second Great Awakening and that was just beginning to bear fruit in missions. As he left the Congregationalist world to embrace Baptist principles he undoubtedly brought with him a vision for selfless service forged in the context of the New Divinity movement.

“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails,” 1 Cor. 13:7-8a.

Edward Judson, one of the sons of Adoniram and Sarah Judson, remarked, “There are very few of those who have gone out from this country as missionaries who are not indebted to Mr. Judson for his methods and inspiration.”[1] Indeed, Judson’s life and ministry has left an indelible mark not only on Burma, but also on so many missionaries who have surrendered to God’s call. However, Judson’s story is incomplete without a look at the three incredible women who shared the journey with him at different points along the way.

Ann Hasseltine Judson
(married to Adoniram from 1812 until her death in 1826)

It is hard to realize in these days what it meant to be a missionary during that time. Before Ann left with Adoniram, no woman from America had ever gone overseas as a missionary. In fact, many people in Ann’s life were opposed to her marriage simply because of the uncertainty of missionary life for a woman. In a revealing letter to her friend Lydia Kimball, Ann wrote:

I feel willing and expect, if nothing in providence prevents, to spend my days in this world in heathen lands. Yes, Lydia, I have about come to the determination to give up all my comforts and enjoyments here, sacrifice my affection to relatives and friends, and go where God, in his providence, shall see fit to place me. My determinations are not hasty, or formed without viewing the dangers, trials, and hardships attendant on a missionary life. . . . Now my mind is settled and composed, and is willing to leave the event with God.[2]

In her journal two days before they departed for Burma, Ann demonstrated that it was her love for God and her love for the lost that steeled her resolve to go:

But I most sincerely hope that we shall be able to remain at Rangoon, among the Burmans, a people who have never heard the sound of the Gospel, or read, in their own language, of the love of Christ. Though our trials may be great, and our privations many and severe, yet the presence of Jesus can make us happy, and the consciousness that we have sacrificed all for his dear cause, and are endeavoring to labor for the salvation of immortal souls, will enable us to bear our privations and trials, with some degree of satisfaction and delight.[3]

When the Judsons began their work in Burma, it would have been considered the modern-day equivalent of a closed country. All previous missionaries had either died in service or abandoned the area. During the first few years in Burma, she assisted her husband in his translation work and produced a catechism that she used in the school they opened for Burmese girls. She decided to adopt the colorful dress of the Burmese women and learn their customs and formed a society of native women that met together on Sunday to pray and read Scripture. Seeing the mistreatment of women, Ann was even more burdened for the Burmese women to hear the Gospel.

Ann’s writing proved to be one of her greatest contributions to the mission field. Through her pen the world learned the details of her husband’s imprisonment for almost two years, of the child marriages popular in Burma and India, of female infanticide, and of the difficulties faced by Burmese women. She also wrote to women in America, enlisting them to help her through prayer, giving, or, for some, coming to join them on the field. Ann was stricken with fever and died at the age of 37 on October 24, 1826, and was buried under a hopia tree.

Sarah Hall Boardman Judson
(married to Adoniram from 1834 until her death in 1845)

Sarah, Judson’s second wife, attacked the missionary task with an inexhaustible drive and determination. Early in her life, her heart became burdened for the lost:

I have been pained by thinking of those who have never heard the sound of the Gospel. When will the time come that the poor heathen, now bowing to idols, shall own the living and true God?[4]

She and her first husband George Boardman arrived in Burma in 1827. They began their work in Amherst, then Moulmein, and then Tavoy.

However, in 1831 Mr. Boardman succumbed to illness and died. Sarah chose to stay in Burma and continue the work among the people who so desperately needed to hear the truth.

On April 10, 1834, Adoniram and Sarah were married. Adoniram found the companionship of Sarah to be sweet after eight years of loneliness. During their eleven years of their married life, eight children were born to them, three of whom died at an early age.

Sarah’s ministry to and with Adoniram was fruitful over the ensuing years; she translated part of Pilgrim’s Progress and several hymns and other materials into the Burmese language. She wrote four volumes of a Scripture Catechism, and she learned the language of the Peguans, another tribe, to help the translation of the New Testament in their language as well as tracts. Unfortunately, like Ann before her, Sarah’s health declined before her passion for ministry ever died out.

Emily Chubbuck Judson
(married to Adoniram from 1846 until his death in 1850)

Emily, Adoniram’s third wife, was inspired by the life of Ann Judson: “I have felt ever since I read the memoir of Mrs. Ann H. Judson when I was a child, that I must become a missionary.”[5] However, as a young woman, Emily’s family circumstances necessitated her finding a way to help support her parents and younger siblings, and she turned to writing. She gained notoriety as an author writing under the nom de plume of Fanny Forester. Adoniram met her while on furlough after the death of Sarah and asked her to consider writing the life story of his second wife. Emily accepted the challenge, and this encounter led to courtship and marriage between Emily and Adoniram. In the final years of Adoniram’s life, Emily proved to be a wonderful companion. Before his death Adoniram completed his work on his English-Burmese dictionary, and Emily finished the memoir of Sarah.

The legacy of each of these women is not just in the thousands of women believers in Burma, but also in the inspiration they gave and continue to give to Christians around the world to be faithful, despite circumstances, to God in each step of their journey. They truly exemplified a love that “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” by giving their lives for the cause of Christ so that the people of Burma could hear the Gospel.

For more information about the wives of Adoniram Judson, see Candi Finch’s chapter “So That the World May Know: The Legacy of Adoniram Judson’s Wives” in the forthcoming Adoniram Judson: A Bicentennial Appreciation of the Pioneer American Missionary (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012).

The rocks signified a specific event in Israel’s history. The crossing of the Jordan into the Promised Land—a supernatural event—revealed God acting on behalf of His people to keep His promise, show His faithfulness, and display His might. While the generation who migrated across the divided river would never forget walking through that divinely-made aisle, human nature and subsequent circumstances likely would have prevented those distinct memories from remaining with the next generation.

So, the Lord God instructed Joshua to create the small tower—not a man-made object of worship or a magical location for accessing the divine favor—but rather a catalyst of remembrance, a memorial (Josh 4:19-24). Prone to wander, the Israelites needed a physical object to remind them of the great work of God so that they might remain both grateful for and faithful to Him.

However, the establishment of the memorial also conveyed a message to the watching world. Only a God of great might could act to deliver His own people in this manner. The memorial stones were meant to witness to the world that the God of Israel was faithful and true.

… in this prison of horror which stood here sustained in his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the devotion of his heroic wife, endured unrecorded sufferings from June 1824 to May 1825.

Not long after the international celebration of the Judson Centennial in 1913, Baptists in Burma erected a sizable memorial stone on the site of the Let-Ma-Yoon prison to commemorate Adoniram Judson’s missionary legacy and sacrifice for the Burmese. Pictures of the stone are difficult to find today, but an inscription on one side tells how Judson, “in this prison of horror which stood here sustained in his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the devotion of his heroic wife, endured unrecorded sufferings from June 1824 to May 1825.”

After the political winds changed in Burma and it became Myanmar, the government sought to eradicate all references to Judson throughout the country. In 1988, the bicentennial year of Judson’s birth, Myanmar authorities tried to bulldoze the stone and throw it in the river. Due to its immense size, all attempts failed and the authorities determined their only option was to bury it. For the last twenty-four years, the monument designed to introduce Judson and Judson’s God to future generations has been covered.

For all the years I have worked for him, I had heard how Paige Patterson, with the aid of friends, had found his way to the Let-Ma-Yoon prison. Patterson regularly described what was left of the prison grounds with colorful attention to detail. The landmarks that Judson saw, enormous trees and a leaning palace tower, still remained along with tall overgrown brush. Amid a clearing where the prison once stood and under which the memorial stone is buried, Patterson and friends reenacted Judson’s plight. To hear the story was to live it and my admiration for the Judsons only grew.

During the summer of 2010, after teaching seminary students in a neighboring country, I set out to see if the prison or location of the memorial stone could still be found. To my surprise however, it was not the ultimate discovery of a hidden prison, but what I heard there, that made all the difference.

After a day of dusty and cumbersome travel, I hoped that I would soon arrive at Let-Ma-Yoon. Had my translator and I not sought the help of a local elderly man, we would not have found it. Remarkably, the local man not only knew where to take us, but also knew the significance of what was there.

Once we arrived, I walked out into a nearby field to survey the scene while my translator and the elderly man stayed under three large trees talking in their native tongue. Standing in the field, weeds taller than my shoulders grew wildly all around for several acres. As I took video footage and a few photographs on a very windy day, it took me a moment to realize that the elderly man and my translator’s conversation had grown in volume and intensity. The old man kept pointing to the ground under the trees and repeated the same phrase again and again. My translator had tears in his eyes when he turned to me to explain.

“This man knows about the memorial stone that is buried here. He says he has lived in this area his entire life and remembers the time when the stone was visible for all to see. Now that it is buried, he knows there is a generation who knows nothing of Judson and what Judson did for Burma.

“He told me that he knows he is old and will soon die. He said to me that since I am young he would like me to make him a promise. He said that should the political situation ever change in this country, he wants me to promise him that I will come and dig up the stone and restore it so people will once again know of Judson.

“And then he started pleading and saying, ‘Please come and dig. Please come and dig. Please come and dig.’”

And then he started pleading and saying, ‘Please come and dig. Please come and dig. Please come and dig.’

As I write this, the cry of an elderly Burmese man to please come and dig still rings in my ears. Just as Paul heard the Macedonian call in Acts 16 to go and preach the gospel, whether he knows it or not, such is the real substance of this elderly man’s call to dig.

Memorial stones and missionary legacies are important, but one day they, too, will fade. The call to please come and dig is the call Adoniram Judson first answered when he left America for Burma 200 years ago. It is the call that still goes out for many no longer to build upon other’s foundations (Rom 15:20), but instead to go to the places where the name of Christ is suppressed, buried, or not known. There are peoples from every tribe, tongue, and nation ready to hear of the Lord Jesus that Judson proclaimed, but how will they hear unless a new generation of Judsons is sent (Rom 10:15)?

Regardless of the state of a buried rock under three trees in Myanmar, the life and mission of Adoniram Judson itself is truly a memorial stone that points to the mercies of God in Christ. Just as Joshua 4:24 explains that Joshua’s memorial stone existed “so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the LORD is mighty,” so does Judson’s life and mission.

On the 200^th anniversary of Judson’s departure for missionary service it is fitting to unearth this metaphorical stone and present a call to imitate Adoniram Judson in taking the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Right now there is an old man in Myanmar holding out hope that someday someone will unearth the large granite stone and tell a new generation of Burmese about Adoniram Judson.  However, what the people of Myanmar need more is a new generation of Judsons coming to tell them about Jesus.

Please go and dig.

Broadus, one of the founding professors and later president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s first seminary, titled his sermon “The Duty of Baptists to Teach their Distinctive Views.” This is the second article examining Broadus’s sermon. The first was “Healthy Denominationalism or Denominational Ultraism?”

In a day of denominational introspection, the Great Commission from Matthew 28:16-20 has served as a starting block for discussion and ministry cooperation. But, are all elements of the commands within the Commission created equal?

John Broadus begins his 1881 sermon on Baptist distinctives with a text taken from Matthew 28:20, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Referencing Jesus’ Great Commission, Broadus identifies that the commands of Christ, given to the disciples, consisted of both “the internal and the external elements of Christian piety.”

The internal elements, Broadus explains, are more crucial to the Christian faith as they relate to individuals and their relationship to their Creator. However, Broadus clarifies that any primacy given to the internal elements does not mean that the external elements have little value or lack importance. Broadus reasons that if Christ and his Apostles gave commands relating to external elements such as the “constitution and government” of churches, then it “cannot be healthy if they are disregarded.”

In this article, I want to explore further Broadus’ observation of the existence of internal and external elements within the Great Commission and then show how they should be ordered in the local church for the purpose of ensuring that the Great Commission is carried forth from generation to generation.

First, both internal and external elements are intrinsic in the prerequisite command of Matthew 28:19. Jesus exhorts the disciples to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” This mandate speaks of the ultimately internal act of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which produces a fruit-bearing disciple. As Broadus states, the internal aspect of these commands does take priority. Two examples from the words of our Lord and Paul:

(1) When one of the criminals crucified alongside Jesus asked in faith, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom,” Jesus replied, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:42-43). In this exchange, Jesus’ affirmation came in response to the outward expression of the internal work in the heart of the criminal. Due to the nature of the circumstances, discussion of Jesus’ commands with external elements such as baptism or the Lord’s Supper were not of primary concern in comparison to the criminal’s life after death. This is not to say such commands have no importance, but rather that their observance is of secondary importance to the commands that address the internal question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk. 10:25).

(2) When Paul writes his magisterial chapter on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, he reminds the believers that what he delivered to them “first” was the Gospel, namely that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Paul clearly wrote to them about many other vital items of an external nature for the local church, but the first instructions he relayed to the Corinthians were of an internal and first order nature.

The priority of the internal teachings of Christianity appear in Paul’s letter to the Galatians as well. His expressed concern for believers who were deserting the faith did not revolve around their quibbling over the external teachings related to local church order. Rather, Paul intervenes as a result of the believers entertaining a “different Gospel,” that is a different teaching of an internal nature than the one Jesus provided (Gal. 1). For those altering the internal message, Paul renders them “accursed.” He does not employ this term, however, when speaking of divisions within the church at Corinth over external matters related to church leaders and baptism (1 Cor. 1:10-17). In fact, there he says clearly, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel.”

The commands of the New Testament with internal elements that speak of the reconciliation of lost and rebellious men and women to a holy and wise God through only faith expressed in the work of God’s Son bearing the punishment on behalf of humanity are clearly the first commands that the churches should carry forth in obedience to the “all things” of Matthew 28:20.

Second, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus instructs the disciples to baptize the new disciples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Here, the command to baptize marks an external component in the Great Commission. Since this command does not directly convey the power to make one “wise for salvation” (Rom. 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:15), baptism functions in a secondary role to repentance and faith. However, obedience to this and other commands with external elements is vital for healthy Christian living, preserving the Gospel message for future generations, and therefore should not be discarded or disobeyed. This is further exemplified by the Apostle Peter and the deacon, Phillip.

(1) When Peter “lifted up his voice” and addressed the mocking and perplexed crowd who did not know how to make sense of the arrival of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, he proclaimed “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). In response to Peter’s wielding multiple Old Testament texts as a sharp, two-edged sword, the crowd was “cut to the heart” and asked, “What shall we do?” Peter responded first with the primary command with internal focus, “repent,” signaling the need for both confession of sin and faith expressed in belief.

Peter’s entrance here into his proclamation ministry follows the example of Jesus himself, who began his public ministry saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mk. 1:15). Peter continues, however, and quickly articulates the secondary command with external focus for the hearers to “be baptized” (Acts 2:38), thus practicing the entire Commission of Jesus, with both internal and externals in view.

As with Matthew 28:19-20, the order prescribed by Peter, first internal then external, shows the intended order of one before the other, but it does not negate the important function of both types of commands. To have eternal life, the soon-to-be disciple must repent and believe (internal). To function as an obedient disciple, professing his faith in the context of a local church community, the new disciple must then be baptized (external).

(2) The order and connection between the two types of commands appears also in the encounter Philip has with the Ethiopian court official in Acts 8. After following the instructions of an angel of the Lord to travel “the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza,” Philip discovers the Ethiopian reading aloud Isaiah 53 and asks, “Do you understand what you are reading?” From the top of his chariot, the Ethiopian responds, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” and invites Philip to sit with him.

As they travel together, Philip proceeds to explain from the Scripture that Jesus is the sheep that “was led to the slaughter” in Isaiah 53, and the account in Acts relates that Philip, “beginning with this Scripture,” told the Ethiopian of the message with internal elements regarding eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. However, Philip appears also to have communicated some of the external elements as well, for when the Ethiopian’s chariot came near a body of water, he said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”

How would the Ethiopian have known of his need for baptism after he confessed his faith in Jesus if Philip had not already taught him of this command? The baptism of the Ethiopian reinforces the notion that the commands with external emphases given in the New Testament, while not primary, are nonetheless important and should be incorporated properly into any presentation of the “good news about Jesus.”

Finally, throughout the New Testament, the local church functions as a repository not only to receive and transmit the Gospel message to the current generation but also to preserve that message for future generations. As a result, the commands with external elements given for the purposes of ordering and governing the church are vital for this task, even though they are of secondary importance to the Gospel message itself.

When Paul writes to Timothy to instruct him in “how one ought to behave in the household of God,” Paul describes the local church as the “pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The idea of the local church functioning as a pillar and a buttress creates a picture of an intentionally designed (i.e. ordered) structure that, through its strength, has been prepared both to uphold (i.e. present or proclaim) an object as well as protect (i.e. preserve) an object. Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18 that “the gates of hell will not prevail against” the church, reinforces the idea that the local church has been given as an indestructible fortress of strength held together by Jesus Christ himself (Col.1:17).

Thus, Jesus and his Apostles have given commands of an external nature that must be taught and implemented. The polity of church governance, baptism, the practice of the Lord’s Supper, and church discipline all are external New Testament mandates for the sustenance of healthy churches. But for what end? As Paul notes, the object given to the local church to uphold and protect is the “truth.” The “truth” is the message of eternal life—the substance of the commands of Christ with internal focus (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25). The New Testament teaches that this “truth” was, and is, to be handed over or delivered from one generation to the next through the local church. Three concluding examples:

(1) Luke speaks of this at the beginning of his Gospel when writing to assure Theophilus of the certainty of the things he had been taught. Luke states that he has written an “orderly account” of the things that “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” had “delivered” to Luke and the other apostles (Lk. 1:1-4).

(2) Likewise, Paul instructs Timothy and the Ephesian Church to “guard the good deposit,” a reference to the entire message of the Gospel he had taught and given to them. In a broad sense, the purpose of all of Paul’s letters is to deliver the “truth” not only to his immediate recipients but also to all who will read his letters and implement the commands in local churches (Col. 4:16).

(3) Jude reinforces the notion that the “truth” is the object the local church exists to proclaim and protect. In Jude 3, he explains that “the faith,” or the Gospel message of eternal life, has been delivered to the saints. That is to say, the message of salvation through Jesus Christ has been handed down to Christians who live out the Christian life in local churches. Jude states that this delivering was done “once for all,” referencing the complete and final nature of the message rather than communicating that the message had no further need of transmission.

Therefore, the local church, the “pillar and buttress of truth” exists to “guard the good deposit” and “deliver” it to future generations. The New Testament commands that speak of preserving and proclaiming the “truth” are primary. However, the commands that speak clearly to the order, practice, and health of the local church, while secondary, should not receive treatment as unimportant. Instead, the local church has a duty to carry forth and teach “all” these in obedience to Matthew 28:20.

As the Great Commission rightfully continues to serve as a starting place for ministry and consensus point for cooperation, John Broadus’ conclusion that there are multiple commands within the Great Commission is helpful to recall. Even though all commands in Scripture are authoritative, I have attempted to explore here whether some of these commands are more important than others, and, if so, for what purpose?

Are some commands in the Great Commission more important than others? Yes. In agreement with Broadus, observing the commands with internal elements that speak of the reconciliation of the lost to their Creator Father is of primary importance. However, the ongoing restoration of that relationship through the observance of the remaining commands in the Great Commission is vital for church health both now and for the future of future churches. While second in importance, obedience to the commands with external elements is often the highest affirmation that the first command to “Follow Me” was indeed first observed.

Jason G. Duesing is vice president for strategic initiatives and assistant professor of historical theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. This article is adapted from his contribution to “Upon this Rock: The Baptist Understanding of the Church” (B&H Academic, 2010).

Jakes went through significant examination and admonition through the years for his previous ambiguity on the Trinity, and he should have. While not all chastised him in the Spirit of Christ, many did. Their work deserves celebration, too, for they held Jakes accountable and, consequently, he has responded in taking steps in a Trinitarian direction. The largest problem over the last decade of Jakes’ journey has not been the criticism Jakes has received; it is that Jakes occupied the pulpit when he did not affirm God as God has defined Himself. I fear he presumed upon an office for which he had disqualified himself, and problems of this nature remain with Jakes. The questions I have yet to read are these: Should Jakes have occupied the pulpit in those years? Should any minister occupy the pulpit without embracing God as God has revealed Himself?

Should Jakes have occupied the pulpit in those years? Should any minister occupy the pulpit without embracing God as God has revealed Himself?

Now that Jakes has taken serious steps toward, and perhaps arrived at, the embrace of the biblical Trinity, Jakes’ issues have only begun. It takes more than an embrace of the Trinity to qualify as a pastor. A question remains—should Jakes occupy the pulpit as a health and wealth, prosperity (HWP) preacher? The HWP message—notice I do not grant it the appellation “gospel”—distorts the image God has revealed of Himself. God looks like Jesus, and while Jesus sojourned on earth, He was neither wealthy nor prosperous. Like a rejection of the Trinity, the HWP message does not describe God as God has revealed Himself.

This has serious implications for global evangelism. Unfortunately, HWP preachers form the global face of Christianity. When many around the globe think of the Christian faith, they do not think of simple, sandaled feet from Galilee; they think of the HWP advocates like Jakes.

They change channels back and forth between wrestling and the HWP programs and ask the same question—’Is that real?’

A colleague of mine visited with a Muslim man in another country. The Muslim man watched Christian television via satellite. One Christian program caused him to laugh uproariously. He commented to my missionary friend, “You Christians have something we do not have in Islam—comedians. There are no comedians in Islam, but you have them in Christianity.” My colleague walked into the television room of his Muslim host and noticed he was watching a HWP preacher slapping people on the forehead until they fell on the floor. This Muslim man watched this HWP preacher the same way some of us watch professional “wrestling.” They change channels back and forth between wrestling and the HWP programs and ask the same question—“Is that real?” Shouldn’t all pastors show Jesus for who He is—God in flesh, sinless, crucified, risen, coming again, and mighty to save? Isn’t He enough? It is not necessary for any of us to embellish Christ. He is enough as He is, sandaled feet and nail prints in His hands and all.

God’s ministers are to commend Jesus Christ to the world, and this is no joke. They should postpone stepping into the pulpit until they can display Jesus Christ without eclipsing His image with human ornaments. If we commend Jesus as He is, perhaps much of the world will cease their laughter and begin giving Christ their sins, praise, and lives. Let us pray for T.D. Jakes that He will become a mighty force for biblically defined Christianity here and around the world.

I am a huge Rangers fan. Hamilton is among my favorite players. My heart beats a little faster when Josh steps to the plate because I know he can change the face of the game with one swing of the bat. I’ll never forget watching his stellar performance in the 2008 Home Run Derby. His performance will most likely never be matched. He is one of the most talented players in baseball—and he plays for my team.

So what should we do when our heroes fail? What do we tell our kids who see their favorite player on the news? How do we respond when life throws this curveball?

First, we need to recognize that none of us are perfect. Scripture declares that we are all sinners (Rom 3:23). Despite our best efforts, we have no righteousness of our own (Rom 3:10–12). The difference between Hamilton and us is that our failures probably won’t make headlines. No one is watching our every move in order to report our faults on the local news. However, our sins—no matter how great or small—carry the same eternal consequences from God. We deserve death and hell for our sins whether or not we are anyone’s hero.

Second, we can rejoice that we can seek the forgiveness of God and those we have hurt just like Josh did. For over ten minutes in his press conference, Hamilton told what happened. He admitted his sin. He admitted his deception to his teammate. He admitted that he had hurt others. He admitted that he had let his fans down. He confessed that he needed forgiveness. He called upon God to help him. Josh took the biblical route on this one. He confessed his sin (James 5:16) and has set out again to change his behavior with God’s help (i.e., repentance). When we fail, we need to take the same path to repentance.

Finally, we need to remember that men will always fail us. We must place our trust in God rather than men. Josh Hamilton has all the attributes we want to see in a sports hero when life is going well. Many people point to his faith in Christ as an example of how someone in the public eye can live a life of faith. However, that makes his failures hurt that much more for fellow believers. The world is watching for believers to trip up, and Josh’s faults become fodder for those who desire to deride Christianity. No matter how strong that hero appears to be, we can never put our trust in him to carry the banner of our faith. Psalm 118:8–9 admonishes us,

It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.

On opening day in April, I hope to be at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington cheering my favorite baseball team to victory. When Josh Hamilton steps to the plate, I will cheer for him to succeed. He is one of my heroes—I wish I could run, throw, and hit like him. However, he is not the object of my faith. He is a flawed human being just like me. I put my faith in Christ. I walk beside a fellow believer like Josh knowing that I have faults too, just not as public.

_________________________

MLB.com, “Hamilton confirms reports,” February 3, 2012.

In response to T.D. Jakes’ recent statements on the Trinity, we can affirm seven things, though with some cautionary statements included, especially about proper biblical exegesis:

First, the goal of unity in Christ (John 17:21-23) is both laudable and necessary. Yet such unity must be founded on the “truth” (John 17:17) revealed by God in Jesus Christ and recorded in the Word inspired by the Spirit. True unity requires that we confess the true Christ, the second person of the Trinity revealed in Scripture, and not a Christ of our own fashioning.

Second, the call for civility in Christian discourse is also much appreciated. We ought to restrain ourselves from loosely casting around such terms as “heretic” or “heresy.” Before using these terms, we should be absolutely sure what the terms mean and that they actually apply.

True unity requires that we confess the true Christ, the second person of the Trinity revealed in Scripture, and not a Christ of our own fashioning.

Third, Jakes is correct that Scripture should shape our theology and not that we should make Scripture fit into our theology. And though I agree with him on this in theory, he has unfortunately misread Scripture to fit his purpose of “building bridges.”

Fourth, Jakes is correct that we must know and speak about what we are for rather than what we are against. This is living with our eyes on the positive nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Fifth, it is encouraging to see T.D. Jakes moving away from the heresy of modalism. However, we should pray for him and exhort him privately and publicly to move into biblical orthodoxy without equivocation. Much of what Jakes stated about God the Trinity in this interview was correct. For instance he noted the simultaneous but distinct movements of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the baptism of Jesus. This is very true, though I might have described it differently.

On the other hand, Jakes also speaks errantly. This derives from the fact that he is effectively trying to hold two positions without seeing that his proffered mediating category is ultimately untenable. Jakes stated he wants to have “dual affiliations” with both Oneness and Trinitarian churches. This is the goal behind his equivocation, and he relies on unique terminology to enable his dual theology. Although stating he is willing to use “persons” to describe the Trinity, he is also clear he would prefer not to do so. (There have been orthodox theologians who also registered difficulty with the term “person,” but typically they object to modernist meanings attached to the term, meanings different from the classical Christian understanding. Jakes, however, is rejecting the term not because it has been misunderstood but because it is offensive to Oneness Pentecostals, whom he deems Christian.)

It is encouraging to see T.D. Jakes moving away from the heresy of modalism. However, we should pray for him and exhort him privately and publicly to move into biblical orthodoxy without equivocation. Much of what Jakes stated about God the Trinity in this interview was correct.

T.D. Jakes wants to have both Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals, who are Unitarian Modalists, classified as brothers in Christ at the same time. But you cannot affirm both are in the realm of truth without removing the Trinity as a fundamental basis of the Christian faith. You cannot have both beliefs at the same time: either God is both three and one (as Trinitarians believe and Unitarians deny) or God is only one (as Unitarians like Oneness Pentecostals believe and Trinitarians deny). There is no bridging this divide without losing the Trinity itself, for He is the God we worship.

Instead of using the term “persons,” Jakes has long confessed he believes the “one God” is “eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (see Potter’s House Belief Statement at http://www.thepottershouse.org/Local/About-Us/Belief-Statement.aspx). Jakes then proceeds to use “manifestations” in ways he hopes that both Trinitarians and Unitarians might find acceptable. Jakes, moreover, argues that “manifestations” derives from 1 Timothy 3:16. But he misuses the term’s meaning in that passage, wrenching it from its Christological context and transferring it to the Trinity. The only “manifestation” to which 1 Timothy 3:16 refers is the incarnation of God in Christ. God was “manifested” in the flesh of Christ; this Christ was “justified” or “vindicated” by the Spirit through the Resurrection; this Christ was “received up into glory.” The manifestation of God was Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16, not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Spirit are indeed at work in this passage but not as “manifestations.” Instead, the Father and Spirit work through the Son, who is God manifested in flesh so we can see and hear and touch Him. Jakes simply does not offer a proper exegetical basis for his unique theological term.

Sixth, with regard to the same biblical passage, let us recognize that although there is “mystery” in Scripture, this is no reason to paper over real differences in theology. Where God reveals, there is no more hiddenness in the mystery, for the mystery has now been disclosed, for us in Scripture. The point of 1 Timothy 3:16 is not to say that the Trinity is an undisclosed mystery but that the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is the mystery of God now disclosed. An appeal to a continuing mystery in this passage actually subverts the passage’s meaning. Moreover, to claim that Scripture is dark is a repudiation of the Reformation rediscovery of the clarity of Scripture. Scripture is clear and God has sent His Spirit to lead us into all the truth He inspired the apostles and prophets to record therein (John 14:26, 16:12-15).

Seventh and finally, as a fallen human being saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, I concur with Jakes that theology, the human attempt to explain divine revelation, is a “stumbling” matter. I also agree with Jakes’ interlocutors that we are all growing in our theology. However, I must disagree with T.D. Jakes when he says, “we’re all saying the same thing,” because Trinitarians and Unitarians definitely are not saying the same thing. But I hope he keeps reflecting on Scripture, which he has been doing, for it clearly and unequivocally reveals the eternally Triune God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, into whose entire name orthodox Christians are baptized.

In Marpeck’s Confession, he contrasts the reasonableness of infant baptism based on circumcision with the simplicity of faith in Christ. Where paedo-baptizer’s appeal to a sign of the Old Covenant, Christian baptism is a witness of the believer’s New Covenant faith.[1] Indeed, this is a major theme for Marpeck as it appears in all of his writings on the subject. It is in the midst of this that Marpeck reveals two aspects of Christian baptism as a witness.

First, Christian baptism functions as a witness of an inward transaction. Referring again to the conversation between Philip and the eunuch, Marpeck emphasizes the eunuch’s confession of faith that he believed with all his heart in Jesus Christ prior to baptism in Acts 8:37.[2] The eunuch’s baptism, therefore, was “the witness that the comfort which is preached to the believer is truly in his heart.”[3] Marpeck underscores the testimony of Christian baptism as “a witness of the death of sin and unbelief into which we have come and in which we have lain,”[4] as well as the “witness to the inner conviction that one’s sins are forgiven.”[5]

Christian baptism functions as a witness of an inward transaction … [and] of outward love.

Furthermore, Marpeck sees the expression of external baptism as the “earthly and elemental witness” of the inward baptism of the Holy Spirit.[6] He explains that the passage in Eph 4:5 referring to “one baptism,” the reference in Eph 5:25-27 concerning the “washing of water with the word,” and the statement in 1 Cor 12:13 referring to the baptism of the Spirit, all speak of the inward baptism that is expressed visibly in the witness of Christian baptism.[7] For Marpeck, Christian baptism best testifies to the new life that springs forth from the inward transformation of the Christian.

Second, Christian baptism serves as a witness of outward love. What Marpeck terms as the “internal working of the Holy Spirit,” is that which transforms the life of the Christian and leads him ultimately to Christian baptism. This external exercise of Christian baptism, therefore, “show[s] love toward all men” in that it is a witness to the gospel and work of Christ on behalf of the world.[8] This message of love reveals the cyclical nature of Marpeck’s Christ-established order for Christian baptism.

When Christian baptism functions as a witness to the world it simultaneously serves as the teaching function to lead people to faith in Jesus Christ. This faith, as shown above, is the prerequisite to Christian baptism, which, in turn, stands as the door to the church and a further witness to the world. Marpeck’s Christian baptism, when practiced by local churches, depicts the gospel of the love of God for the world through the witness of the changed lives of God’s people.

Marpeck believes Christian baptism should have an everlasting effect on the life of the Christian and on the life of the church. With regard to the Christian, Marpeck starts again with Matt 28, “Christ says, with reference to baptism, that we are to baptize them in the name of God (Matt 28:19). It is the same as if He would say, ‘baptize them in such a way that they may call upon the name of God and remain in God.’”[1] Remaining in God, for Marpeck, is the result of a life transaction through which the Christian undergoes upon conversion.

Christian baptism is the external expression of this inward transformation and Marpeck states this in several ways. In his Admonition of 1542, Marpeck describes the message of John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance as instructing his recipients to “confess their sins and improve.”[2] Marpeck then contrasts this with the message of Christian baptism as representing those who confess Christ “by faith in the gospel.”[3] Marpeck notes that a change has taken place by those who have undertaken the latter baptism. These now see the gospel as the new “standard [by which] they were to conduct themselves.”[4]

Christian baptism is the external expression of this inward transformation.

Elsewhere, Marpeck explains that living under this new standard is the equivalent of laying “aside their old being entirely and, henceforth, be inclined to live a new life.”[5] Marpeck also employs the metaphor of marriage to describe the new relationship saying that, “Baptism is similar to a betrothal or a marital union between the believer and Christ; the believer is cleansed from all sins, has given himself over to Christ, and has committed himself to live and die according to His will.”[6] Marpeck’s clear intention is to highlight the newness of life that accompanies a believer after Christian baptism.[7]

In other places he notes this change will manifest itself as a believer “denies the desires of the flesh . . . and desires with his whole heart to carry out the will of God.”[8] All of this descriptive language is employed to communicate the inward experience to which the external represents. Marpeck summarizes it completely:

[I]nsofar as we can search the Scriptures and understand them, we find that baptism takes place when believers are baptized and leave the realm of the will of flesh, give themselves over totally into the will of God, and commit themselves to it. That means to be born again in Christ and to be baptized in the name of God, to bury the flesh, to be raised with Christ, to wash off sin, to put on Christ, and similar expressions which the Scriptures use with reference to baptism.[9]

With regard to Christian baptism’s effect on the life of the church, Marpeck emphasizes the way in which the baptism of individuals unites and edifies the entire congregation. Receiving those baptized as new members into the church, Marpeck states, is the visible depiction of the church being “joined together, formed, and united in one body of love.”[10] Christian baptism’s visible nature helps reinforce and remind the church members of the significance of what has transacted both in the life of the newest member and in the life of the congregation.[11]

However, should a member pursue a course of impurity, Marpeck explains that the church has the responsibility to maintain the purity of the church and the purity of Christian baptism. This is accomplished by the ban, or church discipline, so that “baptism would remain pure, unstained, and good; it would be in the world before the face of God and men.”[12] For Marpeck, Christian baptism always produces a new life, for “true baptism is to preach and believe according to the command of Christ.”[13]

Pilgram Marpeck recognizes that among those who practiced infant baptism there were two kinds. On one hand, there were the Roman Catholics who “practice idolatry when they vest their salvation in baptism.”[1] On the other hand, there were the Magisterial Reformers who “baptize, not out of faith, but out of uncertainty.”[2] Marpeck cuts plainly through them both by maintaining that “Scripture speaks only of one conscious, confessed, and acknowledged baptism based on faith. It does not speak of baptism of unconscious people.”[3]

Marpeck also uses this Scripture principle to denounce the claim that infant baptism was, indeed, a baptism based on the confession of faith of the parents. He states, “As has been stated often enough before now, we have no command to baptize anyone on the basis of a foreign confession and faith.”[4]

Furthermore, Marpeck sees no text that supports the belief that infant baptism was the New Testament equivalent to Old Testament circumcision. In response to the citations of 2 Cor 3:11 and Col 2:11, often used to support the circumcision view, Marpeck retorts,

Not one word from these two texts states that baptism can be directly compared with external circumcision. For our baptism into Christ is not commanded to be practiced solely in the flesh nor is it to be given without the Spirit. The Jews were commanded to circumcise servant and child, good and evil, if they desired to live among the children of Israel. Accordingly, since no other physical difference at that time separated them from the heathen, all young children had to be circumcised, whether they believed or not. Now, however, in the revealed kingdom of our Lord Jesus, there is no longer any “you must.” . . . Baptism without circumcision takes place through a recognized, unconcealed confession of faith in Christ.[5]

However, Marpeck goes further than simply saying that the practice of infant baptism has no biblical support. To stop there would only serve to deny the legitimacy of the exercise and render it benign. Marpeck sees infant baptism as inherently dangerous and therefore repeatedly seeks to draw attention to its malignant and debilitating nature.

At times, Marpeck mildly describes those baptized as infants as those “baptized contrary to Christ’s intention,” and “only with water without the Spirit.”[6] But at other times, Marpeck condemns the act as “false treachery” with regard to the fact that the one baptized is led to believe that he is a Christian.[7] In this spirit, Marpeck describes infant baptism as “a sacrifice to Molech,”[8] “the root of the Roman harlot,”[9] “the root of all kinds of nonsense,”[10] “the origin of godless of practices . . . in the holy church,”[11] and foundationally “an idol [where] everyone intend[s] their children to become saved, to be made into Christians.”[12]

For Marpeck, a church that practices infant baptism, of whatever kind, is a church that condones error, and this error is one that leads ultimately to the greater error of deceiving the unregenerate into believing that they are what they are not.

Even though Marpeck does decry infant baptism as the wrong means for infants and children to come to Christ, he does not fail to address other avenues of instruction for them and for the church. For example, Marpeck advocates the use of a type of “baby dedication.”

In his Confession, he describes an event whereby the children and parents should come before the gathered church for prayer and admonishment:

[T]he infants shall be named before a congregation and God shall duly be praised for them; thanks and blessing shall be given to His fatherly goodness that, through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior, He has also had mercy on the innocent creatures and that, without discrimination, He has taken them in His hands and assured them of the kingdom of God. We rightfully owe him gratitude at all times for His goodness. In the liberty of the Spirit and Word of Christ, we should pray for everyone, and also for the child, that God would also in the future give us knowledge of His gracious will, etc. We admonish the parents to cleanse their conscience, and as much lies in them, with respect to the child, to do whatever is needed to raise the child up to the praise and glory of God, and to commit the child to God until it is clearly seen that God is working in him for faith or unfaith. Any other way is to be like thieves and murderers and to be ahead of Christ.[13]

In this scenario, neither infant nor parent is led to believe that the child is regenerate, but rather the child is put before the church for the purpose of giving thanks to God and the parents, likewise, are held accountable to lead their children to Christ.

In conjunction with this, in his Admonition of 1542, Marpeck argues for an “age of accountability” whereby he explains how the church is to refrain from accepting a child as a Christian until he has reached a certain age and has been tested:

In no case or in any sense will he be accepted by God until he is rational and comes to the age of accountability, until he has learned well the rules and orders which God commanded so that he will know what he is to do. Even then, he will have a year of testing before he may give his confession and, when the confession is accomplished and he has been consecrated into the order, he will neither recant nor again turn back.[14]

While one could spend much time inquiring as to the specifics of these alternative proposals for the church’s dealings with infants and children, it is clear that Marpeck had the best interests of the children who had yet to come to Christ in mind when he attacked the practice of infant baptism. This statement of the inadequacy of infant baptism provides Marpeck a platform for his articulation of what he terms Christian baptism.

The essence of Marpeck’s critique of infant baptism can be summarized by seeing the practice as a failure to follow Christ’s command.[1] Marpeck believes that this command of Christ, found in Matthew 28, contains more than just instructions, but also a specific order for baptismal practice.[2] For Marpeck’s immediate audience, this was an important point of clarification as there were many Spiritualists who claimed that with the death of the Apostles there were no longer any pertinent commands in Scripture concerning baptism.[3]

Thus, Marpeck gives ample evidence for why Christ’s commands are not only still applicable, but also the commands of the Apostles with regard to baptism. He states, “It will be found in Scripture that such ceremonies must remain as long as there are Christians, that is, until the end of the world, for, in His command to baptize (Matt 28), Jesus had in mind not only His present disciples but also all future disciples throughout time until the end of the world.”[4]

Jesus Christ commissioned this new order and practice of Christian baptism for “not only the world of His time, but also the world which will remain and the nations which exist until the end or the last day.” [5] This order Marpeck finds in Scripture is the modus operandi for the church with regard to Christian baptism.

Upon combining Matt 28 with the writings of the Apostles,[6] Marpeck distills the order of Christian baptism to teaching, faith, baptism, and entrance to the church. When discussing Peter’s plea for all to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38, Marpeck explains, “Those who gladly accepted his word were baptized. There the order of God and man was observed: first teaching, then faith, and only then baptism.”[7]

He repeats this order in his Admonition of 1542, “If a man is to come in an orderly way to salvation and to the kingdom of God, he must first of necessity hear God’s Word and be instructed in it. It is then the task of a man to believe the gospel, to receive willingly the knowledge of Christ, to be obedient to the truth. Only then does it follow that a man is to be baptized.”[8] Entrance to the church naturally follows these three in Marpeck’s view, as will be shown.

TEACH

While the command to teach appears to follow the command to baptize in Matt 28, Marpeck’s order sees teaching as the equivalent to “making disciples” or teaching the unbeliever the gospel of Christ. Marpeck would define the instruction to teach in the latter part of Christ’s commission as something that happens to believers after they have been baptized or admitted to the church.

Marpeck asserts, “First and foremost, the apostles had to teach the people with the instruction of truth so that they would be willing to come to baptism, be moved to be baptized, and then rightly allow themselves to be baptized.”[9] Teaching, in the sense of leading people to Christian baptism, comes first.

FAITH

Faith follows teaching in that Marpeck believes it is necessary that “whoever seeks to bind himself with God in baptism must first be a newborn spiritual man.”[10] Marpeck recognizes this as a clearly articulated biblical principle and he cites the example of Christ’s statement in Mark 16 as evidence, “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved; whoever does not believe is condemned [Mark 16:16]; where there is no faith all teaching is of no avail and baptism is no baptism.”[11]

Furthermore, Marpeck points to the teaching of the Acts of the Apostles, as taught specifically by Philip in Acts 8, which led the eunuch to believe the gospel followed by his concluding that immediate baptism was an appropriate response to his new faith.[12] Elsewhere, Marpeck emphasizes that baptism “springs from faith in Christ,”[13] and must be “through one’s own faith, and not that of another.”[14] Faith is the essential prerequisite for New Testament Christian baptism.

BAPTISM

Only after right teaching and personal faith does Christian baptism follow. The fourth section below will outline Marpeck’s understanding of the meaning and significance of the practice as a witness, but it is helpful here to state that Marpeck clearly saw Christian baptism as an external act. The internal baptism is that work done by the Spirit at conversion and is also the result of faith. But it is the external and outward act that serves as the expression of Christian baptism.[15]

It is also helpful to note that by 1542 when Marpeck wrote his Admonition he was not precise as to the mode of baptism. He states, “To baptize means the same as to immerse in water or dip in water, and baptism is the same as immersion or sprinkling with water.”[16] In addition to this ambiguous commentary on the physical practice of Christian baptism, Marpeck provides in his Response a sample confession for use by the baptismal candidate,[17] and also explains that Christian baptism is a singular event without need of repetition.[18]

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Entrance into membership of the local church is the final stage of the baptismal order. Ironically, this is one point of common agreement between Marpeck and those who advocate infant baptism.[19] All agree that “this is the common function of baptism in the church.”[20] For Marpeck, it one’s public identification with Christ’s death and resurrection that show one’s willingness to identify with the local assembly. While commenting on Jesus’ ecclesiological declaration in response to Peter’s confession of faith and its relationship to baptism (Matt 16:13-20), Marpeck writes that “before such individual and true confession has been made, no one may truly be called a member of the community of the church of Christ, a member of the church, for upon this foundation, upon the confession of the faith of Peter, the Lord built His church. Thus, baptism is a door, an entrance into this church.”[21]

It is this confessional nature of Christian baptism that serves as the entrance requirement to the body of the church.[22] However, while the baptismal order ends there, the effects of Christian baptism have only begun, or as Marpeck says, only after Christian baptism does “the school of Christ really begin for the first time.”[23]

Pilgram Marpeck (d. 1556) was the second most influential theologian among the evangelical Anabaptist movement.[1] In his recent work, The Formation of Christian Doctrine, Malcolm Yarnell concludes that “At the theological headwaters of the believers’ church movement stands [Pilgram Marpeck’s] theological method …. On this foundation and from these principles are derived the free churches’ understanding of the proper development of doctrine.”[2] Rollin Armour considers Pilgram Marpeck to have “articulated perhaps the most thoughtful interpretation of baptism among the Anabaptists.”[3] Considering that unlike most Anabaptist theologians Marpeck served as a civil magistrate and not a cleric, Armour’s words are significant.[4] Harold Bender describes Marpeck’s life as “a good illustration of the transition from Catholicism via Lutheranism to Anabaptism” in that he moved directly from one tradition to the next as directed by the Scriptures.[5] Pilgram Marpeck was “loyally Biblical [sic]” not only in his daily life, but also his theological life, especially in the development of his theology of baptism.[6]

Pilgram Marpeck was “loyally Biblical” not only in his daily life, but also his theological life, especially in the development of his theology of baptism.

By way of introduction, it is helpful to examine three of Marpeck’s summary statements concerning baptism. First, it is foundational to see that Marpeck’s understanding of baptism draws its definition from the biblical text. In the midst of a rare comment on his own testimony of conversion Marpeck states, “I have been baptized precisely because it is written that one should do so, and I have been baptized because according to the testimony of the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3, 4), it is written that our Lord Christ died for our sakes.”[7]

Second, it is crucial to recognize that Marpeck’s understanding of baptism sees its significance even in its descriptive terminology. In response to South German Spiritualist, Casper Schwenckfeld, Marpeck asserts, “We don’t simply call it ‘water baptism’ as Schwenckfeld does, for God’s word and action precedes and accompanies it. For this reason, and not because of the element, it is called Christian baptism.”[8] Thus, I will use the terminology “Christian baptism” when exploring Marpeck’s view.

Finally, it is important to note that Marpeck’s understanding of baptism finds its essential nature in the role it plays as a matter of ecclesiological integrity. He summarizes, “If these three things, the true proclamation of the gospel, correct baptism, and correct communion, are in doubt, there can be no true church of Christ. If one of these parts is missing, it is not possible outwardly to maintain and support a true Christian church.”[9]

This series will discuss four descriptive statements of Marpeck’s regarding Christian Baptism: Infant Baptism, of any kind, is not Christian Baptism, Christian Baptism follows a Christ-established order, Christian Baptism always leads to a new life, and Christian Baptism is a witness.

Therefore, in light of Marpeck’s understanding of baptism according to its biblical definition, significant terminology and ecclesiological necessity, this series will discuss four descriptive statements of Marpeck’s regarding Christian Baptism: Infant Baptism, of any kind, is not Christian Baptism, Christian Baptism follows a Christ-established order, Christian Baptism always leads to a new life, and Christian Baptism is a witness, all of which aim toward the goal of providing a theologically rich vision of baptism from this German theologian, still demanding ears to hear.

Radical Reformation Day? Absolutely! But isn’t Reformation Day enough? Absolutely not! While Southwestern Seminary continues to celebrate the biblical progress made during the Protestant Reformation with Reformation Day on October 31, we are compelled to honor the recovery of New Testament Christianity with Radical Reformation Day on January 21. On this day in 1525, after an extended period of intense Bible study in the original languages, a period described by an early chronicler as an “extraordinary awakening and preparation by God,”[1] the first Anabaptists or “Brothers,” as they called themselves, recovered the New Testament practice of baptizing only believers.

The celebration of the earliest recorded restitution of believers’ baptism raises some important questions: First, what was the impetus for this “Extraordinary Awakening,” an awakening which occurred over two centuries before the “Great Awakening” of more recent fame? Second, what were the characteristic beliefs during this Extraordinary Awakening? Third, who were some of the leading figures in the Extraordinary Awakening, which formed a major part of the Radical Reformation? Finally, what were the results of the Extraordinary Awakening?

Study and Yielding to the Word of God

First, the impetus for the Extraordinary Awakening came with the serious study of and God-given desire to yield to the Word of God. Caspar Braitmichel, a contributor to the Chronicle from which our knowledge of this seminal event derives, noted that Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz joined with Ulrich Zwingli in examining Scripture. All three were “much experienced and men learned” in both modern and biblical languages. They “came together and began to talk through matters of belief among themselves.” In the midst of their congregational exegesis of Scripture, they “recognized that infant baptism is unnecessary and recognized further that it is in fact no baptism.” (While Zwingli agreed at the time with the Anabaptists, he refused to go with them in actually obeying Jesus’ command to baptize only believers. Zwingli, worried about the social and political implications, “shuddered before Christ’s cross.”) In other words, the compulsion for the Anabaptist recovery of believers’ baptism arose from their careful reading of the Greek New Testament alongside their Spirit-given willingness to follow Christ’s commands entirely. The Reformed refused to follow the Radically Reformed in such reckless regard to obey Jesus Christ.

Characteristic Beliefs

Second, the characteristic beliefs of these early Anabaptists were described in one long sentence. “They came to one mind in these things, and in the pure fear of God they recognized that a person must learn from the divine Word and preaching a true faith which manifests itself in love, and receive the true Christian baptism on the basis of the recognized and confessed faith, in the union with God of a good conscience, henceforth to serve God in a holy Christian life with all godliness, also to be steadfast to the end in tribulation.” Many characteristic beliefs of the evangelical Anabaptists are summarized here:

• They believed in the necessity of hearing the Word of God preached; the early Anabaptists were Biblicists in the best sense of the term.
• They believed that the best interpretations of Scripture occurred when the regenerate congregation carefully considered (“came to one mind” about) what was preached; the early Anabaptists were congregational.
• They believed salvation was by grace through divine activity, for God produced in them an overwhelming “fear” to believe and obey Christ Jesus in all things; the early Anabaptists were not merely evangelical but thoroughly evangelical.
• They believed salvation must be personally appropriated in “true faith” through one’s own “conscience”; the early Anabaptists held persons responsible before God for their own spiritual welfare.
• They believed Christ gave baptism to the church, which must recognize a “confessed” faith in a new believer before granting baptism; the early Anabaptists were thus “baptist” in their church life.
• They believed that true faith “manifests itself in love,” and the saved person should seek “to serve God in a holy Christian life with all godliness”; the early Anabaptists denied the contrasting errors of antinomianism and perfectionism.
• Finally, they believed they were living in troubled times in “the end” and therefore must carry the cross to witness to everyone; the early Anabaptists held to a unique fusion of evangelistic fervor, eschatological realism, and a cross-centered piety.

Early Anabaptist Leaders

Third, the early Anabaptist leaders included George Blaurock, a gregarious preacher, who was the first to ask for New Testament baptism. Another was Conrad Grebel, a member of Zurich’s aristocracy, who baptized Blaurock and went on to become a leading evangelist of the gospel of Jesus Christ. A third was Felix Mantz, who was drowned at Zurich by the magistrates under Zwingli (on January 25, 1527). Mantz became the first Anabaptist martyr when he would not deny his true faith in Jesus Christ and would not renounce His Great Commission, which commands both the universal making of disciples and believers-only baptism. Blaurock and Mantz were martyred for their faith and Grebel went on to die while being hounded from place to place for preaching the gospel. During these early years, the number of Anabaptist martyrs increased into the thousands. Their precious blood was shed both by the Roman Catholics and the Reformed, but God honored their faithful witness. Braitmichel concluded, “Thus did it [the movement] spread through persecution and much tribulation.”

Results of the Extraordinary Awakening

Finally, what were the results of the Extraordinary Awakening, which most scholars believe occurred on January 21, 1525? Well, as noted, the New Testament faith spread like wildfire in spite of the oppressive methods of the Roman and Reformed state-churches. Part of their success was due to the fact that the Anabaptists established the first mission-sending agency in August 1527 at “The Martyrs’ Synod,” so called because many of their missionaries were drowned or burned at the stake, even as they continued to baptize thousands upon thousands of new believers. For us, today, perhaps the most relevant doctrinal result of the Extraordinary Awakening was the fact that the cherished beliefs which we call “Baptist identity”—such as utter devotion to Jesus as the only Lord of the church, believers-only baptism, congregationalism, and the separation of church and state—received their first definition at this time. Our Baptist identity, which we too often take for granted, received its first expression in the New Testament church and its first modern awakening during the Anabaptist portion of the Radical Reformation. Honoring the Anabaptists’ devotion to restoring Jesus Christ as the only Lord of His church, who revealed His will for us in the New Testament, is why we celebrate Radical Reformation Day.

However, deep down we know that there is an ugly side to American history. We are not a perfect people, and we have made egregious errors in our brief history as a nation. Many of those errors have been swept under the rug of American pride, but this week the rug was pulled up to expose a terrible reality from the not-too-distant past.

A task force in North Carolina recommended on Tuesday that the state should pay $50,000 to each living sterilization victim of the state’s eugenics program. Eugenics? Forced sterilization? This has the ring of Nazi Germany, not the United States. Unfortunately, it is true.

For those unfamiliar with the term, what exactly is eugenics? Grenz and Smith define it this way:

A movement that encourages the study of heredity or the transference of genetically based traits from one generation of living beings to the next, generally with the goal of improving the hereditary endowment of humankind.

Eugenics generally has two sides—positive and negative. Positive eugenics encourages (or even rewards) healthy, intelligent individuals to reproduce. The idea is that they improve the human gene pool by passing along their desirable traits. Negative eugenics discourages reproduction by those exhibiting inferior traits. While this may seem to be a noble idea on the surface, it played out in ugly ways in American history.

Paul Lombardo describes the ugly side as follows:

In the 20^th century, application of eugenical theory as a solution to social problems in America led to such ethically problematic practices as wide-scale sexual sterilization of epileptics, the mentally ill, and the retarded, restrictions on the immigration of some ethnic groups, and prohibition of marriages between people of differing racial backgrounds.

That brings us back to North Carolina. Between 1929 and 1974, the NC Eugenics Board authorized the sterilization of 7,600 people. The Charlotte Observer reports:

Some cases approved by the Eugenics Board were people who were mentally ill and sexually aggressive, and families who wanted to stop having children. But the board also authorized sterilizing people who were poor, or part of large families, or whose parents worried that men might take advantage of them. Some victims were as young as 10.

North Carolina is the first state to propose reparations for the victims. It is by no means the only state that implemented such horrendous practices. Some reports estimate that 33 different states had eugenics laws that allowed for forced sterilization and that more than 60,000 American were sterilized in the process.

How did our country get to this point? From an ethical standpoint, it involved the use of a consequentialist ethic. Consequentialism is the idea that ethical decisions are made based on projected outcomes. There are several different theories that implement this process, but the basic idea is that the ends justify the means. In the case of eugenics, the desired end was a society full of healthy, productive, intelligent people. The logic of consequentialism said that any means necessary to produce that desired result is acceptable. This included forcibly prohibiting those deemed “unacceptable” from reproducing.

From a scientific angle, the impetus for eugenics came from the fledgling field of genetics. While the exact nature of genetic study was still a long way off, animal breeders had long known that breeding “superior” animals together generally resulted in better offspring. The process of selective breeding in animals was transferred to humans in the eugenics movement of the late-19^th and 20^th centuries.

From a political perspective, the value of the society over the individual spurred on the acceptance of eugenics. Social problems involving care for the poor and ill, immigration of those viewed as “undesirable,” and the desire for a progressive society led to the implementation of such laws.

Thankfully, our society has moved past this ugly history. Or have we? While the practice of forced sterilization and eugenics laws have crept back into the darkness of history, the idea still exists and is often promoted.

Many in our society now raise the question of whether parents should be limited in the number of children they can have (e.g., population control policies). Advances in medical technology allowing doctors to diagnose diseases in utero raise the question of selective abortion to ensure that a “less than normal” child does not enter the world. The desire for “well-born” children has brought a new branch of medicine to the forefront. Behind those concepts is the practice of eugenics.

What should be our response biblically? We must not lose sight of the value and dignity of the individual human being. We see from Scripture that we are all created with the purpose to glorify God (1 Cor 6:20; 10:31; Rev 4:11). We all have value to God (Matt 12:11–12) and salvation is made available to all types of people regardless of perceived value by the culture (Gal 3:28). Finally, from the womb to the grave, God sees us each as individuals of value and significance (Psalm 139:13–16).

North Carolina was right to acknowledge their responsibility in devaluing the dignity of the individual. Does $50,000 restore that dignity? No. Is the state right in offering some kind of reparations to the victims? Most likely, yes. Have we moved beyond this as a society? Certainly not. We need a biblical perspective of the value and dignity of the individual human being made in the image of God. Without this, we will probably walk down this road again, just in a different form.

_________________________

Tommy Tomlinson, “N.C. task force recommends $50,000 for eugenics victims,” Charlotte Observer, January 11, 2012.

Stanley J. Grenz and Jay T. Smith, Pocket Dictionary of Ethics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003).

Paul A. Lombard, “Eugenics,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, eds., James F. Childress and John Macquarrie (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 209–10.

WITTENBERG, Germany—On a cold, crisp, late October day in 1517, a concerned professor in a small German university town posted a list of ideas he wanted to discuss on the town bulletin board, which also happened to be the wooden door of the Castle Church. Little did 33-year-old Martin Luther realize, as he nailed what has now been famously called the “95 Theses” to that door, that he would soon become a lightning rod throughout Germany and that the town of Wittenberg would become the epicenter of the Protestant Reformation.

Luther’s accusations against the pope, the Catholic Church’s views on purgatory, and the heretical idea of purchasing the forgiveness of sins rang a resounding alarm. Aided by the rise of the printing press, the young monk’s questions flooded the German countryside. Alongside this was his call for a scriptural view of salvation, not by works but by grace alone through faith alone.

Yet Luther’s quest to return the church to its foundation did not spring from self-seeking motives or power-hungry ambition. In fact, the Protestant Reformation started with a personal reformation in Luther’s own heart as he studied Scripture and sought the Lord fervently in prayer.

The Protestant Reformation started with a personal reformation in Luther’s own heart as he studied Scripture and sought the Lord fervently in prayer.

It was Luther’s love for the Bible that fueled his resolve against the pope’s threats of excommunication, which would brand him a criminal in the eyes of the empire. When he received the label of “heretic,” his friends kidnapped him and hid him in Wartburg Castle to protect him from those who sought his life.

During those 10 months of hiding, Luther translated the New Testament into the German vernacular, a feat that would burst open the doors of the Reformation as it now made the Scriptures available and understandable to the common man. No longer would the Scripture be shackled in the Latin tongue and sequestered from the people. They could now read the Bible for themselves and experience the same life-transforming power it gave Luther.

This high view of Scripture and trust in its absolute authority paved the way for a spiritual revolution across Western Europe whose ripples are still felt today in modern evangelical churches. However, the sad truth of the story is that this fidelity to the Bible did not stand the test of time, as Germany became the breeding ground in the 19th and 20th centuries for liberal theology, which jettisoned the conviction of biblical inerrancy and has left only a few embers of evangelical Christianity in the country as well as in the rest of Europe. Although Oct. 31 is recognized as Reformation Day in Germany, I wondered how many Germans realize its significance.

No longer would the Scripture be shackled in the Latin tongue and sequestered from the people. They could now read the Bible for themselves and experience the same life-transforming power it gave Luther.

So as my wife and I waited to board the train headed for the small, out-of-the way town of Wittenberg on Reformation Day last October, I did not know what to expect. We were headed to the tiny university town because I am a church history buff, and since we were in the country, I could not pass up the opportunity to visit on such an historic day. Would we be the only people on the train headed to our destination?

To my surprise, I found myself standing among a small crowd waiting to board the same train. As we made the hour-long journey, more people hopped on at the various stops, and we all exited the train together in Wittenberg. My excitement escalated further as we entered the town and saw the main street packed shoulder-to-shoulder with people. Maybe I had short-changed the German people and their knowledge of church history after all.

Then, I saw it.

A banner over the street read, “Wittenberg Renaissance Music Festival October 23-31.” As we pressed into the crowd, there were booths with food vendors and merchants in medieval period garb selling their wares. Street performers entertained the crowds as minstrels plucked away. Although there were groups in the Luther Museum and visitors to the Castle Church that day, it became apparent that the masses were there to celebrate the Renaissance, not the Reformation.

Ironically, a statue of Luther holding a Bible towered above the crowd in the town square. Had it been the real Luther, I imagined a tear or two running down his cheek. Surely he would weep over the dearth of Christianity in his homeland.

A German friend of mine recently said, “Martin Luther brought the Bible back to the people. Today, we have to bring the people back to the Bible.”

As I heard these words, I could not help but consider Christianity in America and, more specifically, among Southern Baptists. History shows that trends in Europe reach the shores of America within a decade or two. Many see the writing on the wall that the United States is quickly becoming a post-Christian nation, if it has not already become so. Even the buckle of the Bible belt shows signs of rust.

Martin Luther brought the Bible back to the people. Today, we have to bring the people back to the Bible.

Among Southern Baptists, the Conservative Resurgence of the last few decades defied odds and signaled the only Christian denomination to turn from its slide toward liberalism back to a faithful commitment to the inerrancy, sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Verbally, we claim to be “people of the Book,” but practically, signs of dusty, unopened Bibles often loom over our churches.

Yet we are not without hope. Revival is not impossible.

So how do we fan back into flames those fires that once burned so brightly? The answer is simple: it starts the same way as the Reformation. True revival starts with a personal reformation in our hearts as we study Scripture and seek the Lord fervently in prayer.

You may never be a Martin Luther, and you may never lead wide-scale national reform, but you can be an agent of change in your family and in your church. Remarkable things happen among those who love the Lord and are fully committed to living out his Word.

Yet we are not without hope. Revival is not impossible.

In 2012, will you join me in a renewed focus on daily prayer and Scripture reading? Sure, many Christians commit to this every New Year, but what if this year it was less about checking the boxes and more about loving the Bible and, more importantly, its Author.

But one word of wisdom as you read and pray: You may want to post discussion questions on your church’s Facebook page rather than nailing it to the church’s front door.

Roe v. Wade is one of the few Supreme Court decisions that most Americans know by name. While many of the more famous decisions represent crucial moments in American history for the rights of the oppressed (Brown v. Board of Education, etc.), Roe v. Wade stands as a blight on American history for the resulting carnage of the abortion industry since January 22, 1973.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 22% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. Eighteen percent of women who have abortions are teenagers, and more than half are in their 20s. Between 1973 and 2008 (the most recent year for reported statistics), nearly 50 million legal abortions have taken place. In 2008 alone, there were 1.21 million abortions.

The Guttmacher Institute also reports some of the reasons for abortion, stating:

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

The number of abortions in the United States is staggering—50 million in 39 years. These are 50 million lives that were ended. These were 50 million individual persons whose opportunity to develop, live, and thrive was taken from them all in the name of a right to privacy.

In an interesting turn of events on the political spectrum, the Guttmacher Institute reports that states enacted more provisions restricting abortion in 2011 than in any other year. Ninety-two legal provisions placing some level of restriction on abortion access were implemented in 24 states. These restrictions include waiting periods, limitation on insurance coverage, and the requirement to show an ultrasound before an abortion. In Texas, a law was passed requiring that doctors shows patients a sonogram of their unborn babies prior to performing an abortion. Even though opponents are challenging the law in court, a federal appeals court ruled that the law can be enforced while facing further legal challenges.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue in the abortion debate is the question of personhood. Proponents of abortion rights often define personhood in an operational sense, whereby an individual human being is a “person” when he can perform specific functions. These functions typically include conscious awareness of surroundings, reasoning, communication, and self-awareness. The problem with this type of definition is that it not only denies personhood to the unborn, but it also denies personhood to infants, those severely incapacitated by injury or disease, and some individuals at the end of life. By such standards, those individuals could be eliminated because they are not “persons.”

In contrast, personhood is best understood in a substantive sense. In this type of definition, personhood is granted based on the existence of human life. If human life exists, then personhood is established. From a theological standpoint, we can view personhood as an extension of the imago Dei (Genesis 1:26–27). Therefore, since all humans are created in the image of God, then all humans are persons. Since new human life begins at conception, personhood is present from the earliest stages of life.

As we reflect on the sanctity of life, consider the following verses. In Genesis 1:26–27, God declares,

Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Jeremiah 1:5 states,

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

In Psalm 139:15-16, David writes,

My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

May we treasure life in the womb and work to show how these tiniest individuals are persons—made in the image of God.

_________________________

Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States,” August 2011.

Guttmacher Institute, “States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in 2011,” January 5, 2012.

Chris Tomlinson, “Texas abortion law can be enforced, court rules,” Star-Telegram, January 10, 2012.

For more study on the issue of abortion, the following resources are helpful:

“Issues at a Glance: Life,” Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, www.erlc.com/life

Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)

John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, 2^nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010)

Ah, me. I relive it every Fall in my mind. Unfortunately, we did not get it on film. As a matter of fact, the thrilling event exists only in my fantasy. You see, the Fall of my junior year I quit football to circumnavigate the globe and preach in thirteen countries. After watching game film and really top quarterbacks, I had concluded that even if I were at best an average preacher, my future lay there rather than in pro football.

But please do not be too hard on me for leading you on. Embellished football thrilling moments are a common genre today. These accounts are widely disseminated and generally accepted. And besides, spinning this yarn helped me hook you into reading what I need you to read, so in a sense it is even true. But you will surely protest that I deceived you and now my credibility is at stake, so who knows whether the junket around the world is even true.

Recently, from the pen of a Southern Baptist philosopher came the allegation that Matthew embellished the account when he recorded in his Gospel that after the resurrection of Jesus, Old Testament saints appeared to some in Jerusalem (Matt. 27:51-53). The author explained that he still believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, even though Matthew manufactured a false account. Ostensibly the genre was familiar to most in that day, so Matthew is reliable even though he spun a whopper.

If a scholar cannot prove that his theory is correct (and in this case he certainly cannot), why risk damage to the body of Christ and to the souls of the lost by hatching a theory that the Bible contains error, even though it somehow remains true.

Let’s be clear. A story, an affirmation, is either true or false, but not both true and false in the same way at the same time. That is a long accepted law of logic, and no amount of fudging can make it change. While I have no reason to question the sincerity of the author and while only God can judge his heart, Southern Baptists paid far too great a price to insist on the truthfulness of God’s Word to now be lured by a fresh emergence of the priesthood of the philosopher, especially when a philosopher raises a question about the truthfulness of Scripture.

And here is a good idea. If a scholar cannot prove that his theory is correct (and in this case he certainly cannot), why risk damage to the body of Christ and to the souls of the lost by hatching a theory that the Bible contains error, even though it somehow remains true. By what criteria do we discern what is and is not reliable? Southern Baptists have declared that the Bible is truth without mixture of error. This is no time to forfeit that doctrine.