The Vile Wickedness of Schisms
September 10, 2007
I try to stay away from Baptist issues as much as I can on this blog. I hope that what I have to say today is not seen simply as a Baptist issue, but as a Christian issue, a church issue, and a ministerial issue.
Bart Barber pastors FBC Farmersville, TX. He and I went back-and-forth a little on a previous post here and we’ve gone back-and-forth on a related post on his blog.
Bart is at pains to show how I and others are inconsistent because we, as Baptists, separate from other denominations that baptize infants, yet refuse to call those who baptize infants “unrepentant sinners.” I and others are inconsistent, according to Bart, because we do not call infant baptism sin yet we still separate based on baptismal beliefs. It is a greater sin, in Bart’s mind, to separate over something that is a theological conviction, but which is not sin. It is a violation of Christian unity.
Now, don’t go thinking Bart is some ecumenist holding out his hands to his Presbyterian brothers and sisters. In fact, he casts doubt on the fact of those Presbyterians being brothers and sisters at all (my apologies to all of you who may not practice believer’s baptism. May God have mercy on your souls). That being said, however, Bart seems to have no trouble with a Baptist inviting a Gentile, tax collecting, unrepentant Presbyterian preaching in his Baptist church. He wouldn’t want to “accuse” that Baptist of anything. He’s only interested in accusing infant baptizers and those who refuse to call them unrepentant sinners. Are you following along, here?
Bart was pressed to be consistent himself. Let’s hang millstones around the necks of these infant baptizers in obedience to Christ. To this Bart could only reply that he does not believe in sinless perfection in this life. He must think that the apostle John did.
But to turn all of this completely on its head, Bart would have no objection to FBC Farmersville calling an unrepentant glutton or gossip to serve as the pastor or on staff at their church, though he believes they should meet Biblical qualifications. Of course, Titus tells us that two of the qualifications for church leadership are self-control and discipline. How one can be self-controlled and disciplined and also be an habitual glutton or an habitual gossip is apparently a matter for some new theory of Biblical interpretation. Actually, if you cannot with logic and a reasonable use of the English language figure it out then you are a legalist.
Now, all of this is to illustrate the dangers of being schismatic. It is no wonder that throughout much of church history schismatics were viewed in a very negative light. Schismatics would narrow the church down to themselves and all who believe as they do (excepting a few friends they do not want to “accuse” of anything, of course). I predict that schismatics will end up splitting the Southern Baptist Convention within my lifetime, unless something changes. These are some of the men teaching in our Baptist seminaries and leading in positions in our denomination. They should be opposed at ever turn. For the sake of the gospel. For the sake of unity in Christ. They wonder why movements like Emergent pop up and gather steam. Well, my brothers and sisters, wonder no more.
Paul,
As a convinced Paedo-Baptist, I am happy to make the first comment on this post.
In my experience the Schismatic personality sees themselves as defending a righteous cause or perhaps even God Himself. As such they rarely can understand compromise or even the concept that perhaps, just perhaps, they could be wrong. So underneath it all, perhaps the basic sin of the Schismatic is Pride. A common affliction to us all, and one to be strongly guarded against.
The best quote I have heard on the subject is from the Baptist Blogger “Peace, it seems, is an unsavory morsel for dogs who prefer a fight.”
Perhaps it is difficult to choke down a morsel of humility when the Schismatic fight is ever so much more seductive.
I agree with your post Paul.
I agree with MIT that this is a pride issue, and nothing more. We’re right and you’re wrong, and if you don’t think so, well, I’m going to take my ball and go home.
Personally, I don’t agree with baptizing babies. When I first started attending Asbury UMC, it was one of the things that hung me up. However, I was willing to give them a chance to explain, since they are reaching more people for Christ than most SBC churches I know of.
Most churches that baptize infants (not including the Catholic church, of course) do not believe that the act conveys grace on the child, saving them for all eternity. In fact, at Asbury, they plainly state that the act is a symbol, and a reminder to the parents to pray for the child until they themselves come to the place where they can accept Christ as their savior.
Here’s the kicker: We do the exact same thing when we have “baby dedication services.” We act all pompous when we criticize people who baptize infants, but the only thing they are doing differently is adding a little water to the mix.
People need to get down off of their high horse and stop acting like someone died and left them boss.
The flaw that I see in Bart’s question to you is that you have not called a Paedo-Baptist an unrepentant sinner.
Jasonk,
You said, “People need to get down off of their high horse and stop acting like someone died and left them boss.”
I have been laughing ever since I read this comment from you. You’re exactly right, my friend.
Also, you are correct when you correlate paedobaptism with our baby dedication. It is not salvific, neither is paedobaptism.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Les
I am no defender of Presbyterians, but the arguments over on Bart’s blog are truly amazing and are probably the most dangerous thing that I have yet seen since this whole debate started almost two years ago.
Good post, Paul. This needs to be saved and reprinted on SBCOutpost, in my opinion.
Paul,
When folks are excited about what another has said, they use several unique expressions of approval__such as__
“You hit the nail on the head” or
“Bingo” or
Couldn’t have said it better” or
“You aced it” [forgive the poker expression]
What I would simply say, with great dignity and decorum, is…
“ALL THE ABOVE”
sigh. do everything to make peace. do everything to make unity. bear with.. accept. love. do not judge. sigh.
i see darkly now. one day He will make things clear. let’s advance the Kingdom.. together.