Category: A Pastoral Word

Words of exhortation and encouragement from the heart and mind of a pastor

Book Review: The Baptist Story

Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2015).

Introduction

Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin have teamed up to provide readers with a fast-paced and wide-ranging introduction to the story of Baptist history (The Baptist Story). This 350-page volume spans the chronological, theological, and organizational developments of Baptists (as the subtitle states) from an “English sect” in the early seventeenth century to a “global movement” by the turn of the twenty-first century. This book covers a lot of ground in a relatively small volume, and therefore it is best understood as an introductory summary. Those new to Baptist doctrine and practices will benefit greatly from reading the book, and seminarians will find it a great place to begin making historical connections between Baptist history and Baptist distinctives. The book seems ready-made for group reading and conversation, even providing “For Further Study” and “Questions for Discussion” at the end of each chapter.

Historically, Baptists arose first in the English-speaking world, and this story focuses heavily on North America and Europe for that reason. And yet, Chute, Finn, and Haykin also provide quite a lot of information about Baptist expansion into non-western cultures and geography, especially after the rise of the modern missions movement in the mid-nineteenth century. While introductions to Baptist history like this do usually provide at least some information about such an expansion, these authors have made an obvious effort to give more detail than is normal. They have also written more than what is typical about those North American Baptists who lived north of the United States of America (i.e., Canada). Inevitably, a lot is left out in an introductory volume of this size and nature, but the authors have done a remarkable job in including what they have.

Book Summary

The book is divided into four major sections, the first three divided further into four distinct chapters, and concludes with an argument for several Baptist distinctives in the final section and chapter. Nearly the entire book follows the path of chronological history, which helps the reader envision an unfolding story, and each historical segment also highlights important theological and organizational developments along with important figures who shaped them and were shaped by them.

Section Four

The last chapter, which is the entirety of the fourth section, provides the reader with an explanation and affirmation of five Baptist distinctives. These, the authors contend, are best understood not as mere “conditions” or “conveniences,” but as convictions.[1] There are good reasons to wait until the last chapter to make such claims and arguments about what it means to be a Baptist, but one wonders if this final chapter might not have served the reader better by placing at the beginning of such a volume. The reader might be better prepared to see these doctrines and practices that comprise the core of Baptist identity develop throughout the book if he or she knows what to look for from the beginning.

The authors list many sources upon which one might draw in order to discover the core of Baptist identity. Sermons, prayers, hymnody, books, periodicals, pamphlets, catechisms, confessions, covenants, and church records are all full of substance that can provide the observer insight into the common beliefs and practices that unite all Baptists.[2] And having scoured these resources, the authors note that “most of the Baptist distinctives are ecclesiological in nature.”[3] They list regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, congregational polity, local church autonomy, and religious liberty as the five core distinctives. A few of these distinctives may be shared with other Christian traditions, but regenerate church membership and believer’s baptism (as Baptists have defined these doctrines) are exceptional marks to identify Baptist churches. In fact, the authors note that regenerate church membership – holding to the conviction that “formal identification with the body of Christ is only for those who have acknowledged Christ’s lordship over their lives by faith” – is “the foundational Baptist distinctive” (emphasis added).[4]

All five of these marks of Baptist identity have been developed in real time since the early seventeenth century by men and women who became convinced of their biblical mandate to believe and practice them. The authors note that some Baptists have embraced a view called Landmarkism, which relies heavily on the pseudo-historical works of George Herbert Orchard (“A Concise History of Baptists from the Time of Christ Their Founder to the 18th Century,” published in 1838) and J. M. Carroll (“The Trail of Blood,” published in 1931). The Landmark movement “officially commenced in 1851 at a meeting in Cotton Grove, Tennessee,” and Landmarkers believe that Baptists do not arise as a Protestant sect but that they have a completely distinct history from other Protestant traditions.[5] James Robinson Graves (1820-1893) and James Madison Pendleton (1811-1891) were major leaders of this movement, and Pendleton’s “Baptist Church Manual” (published in 1867) made Landmarkism a widespread perspective among Baptists whether they embraced the historical claims or not.

Section One

These ahistorical claims notwithstanding and their real impact noted, the history of Baptists truly begins with one congregation and two significant figures – John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. And in the first section of The Baptist Story, the authors sketch the Baptist beginnings. Smyth became convinced that only believers should be baptized, as a symbol of their conscious and present faith in Jesus Christ as lord and savior. His short-lived leadership was surpassed by Thomas Helwys who (in 1612) took “a handful of members” of that first English-speaking Baptist congregation back to England, from whence they came.[6] It was Helwys who led that church to embrace a distinctly Baptist confession of faith and church covenant, and it was that congregation who were the pioneers of what became the General Baptists in England.

The ideas and convictions of Baptists soon spread to the New World as well. Before Helwys split with Smyth, John Robinson had already led “about 100 members” of the Smyth congregation to break off and relocate in Leiden (in the Netherlands).[7] And this group “eventually sailed to America on board the Mayflower and landed at Plymouth… in 1620.”[8] During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Baptists in America and in England developed quite similarly. But Baptists in the New World encountered societal and political circumstances that would influence Baptist thought and practice worldwide.

Section Two

The authors trace Baptist history through the founding of the new nation in America, and then they turn (in section two) to the nineteenth century, when Baptists enjoyed great progress and endured devastating setbacks. The First and Second Great Awakenings propelled Baptist numbers beyond all but the Methodists, and advances in religious liberty provided circumstances for exponential growth. Old Baptists (arising from those seventeenth-century Baptists in England) and newer Baptists (Separates from Puritan and Congregational churches in eighteenth-century America) developed into one larger Baptist movement, though still lacking broad organizational structures that would emerge later in the nineteenth century. By the turn of the nineteenth century, many Baptists in the New World were already connecting with one another through regional associations, and within just a few decades cooperation and connection became ubiquitous through state conventions and national societies.

A few major trends began to take shape during the nineteenth century: ministerial education, missions mobilization, and societal activism. Before the Civil War, several regional schools for training Baptist ministers were founded, including Union University, Mercer University, and Baylor University. The Triennial Convention (1814) and the American Baptist Home Missions Society (1832) were each formed for the purpose of Baptist cooperation for foreign and domestic missions, respectively. These cooperative efforts among Baptists were divided between the north and the south in 1845, when the Southern Baptist Convention was formed as the result of a split over slavery and polity. Baptists in the north remained connected through affiliation with what was then called the Northern Baptist Convention. Though this divide is a tragic event of history, both conventions demonstrate a strong Baptist impulse and commitment to evangelism and church planting efforts.

Section Three

In the third section of the book, the authors focus on the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries. During these years, Baptists continued to grow in number, expand their institutional structures, and face various controversies and challenges. Baptist seminaries, Baptist conventions, and Baptist churches all seemed to become modernized. New Baptist seminaries were founded, and the schools accommodated the professionalized approach to ministry that was adopted among local Baptist churches. Baptist pastors (once commonly called elders) embraced the title of “Reverend,” and numerous staff and volunteer positions were established within the structure of local church polity and function.

In 1925 Southern Baptists adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as their confession of faith, which would serve as a sort of theological boundary marker for various convention entities (such as seminaries and missions agencies). Northern Baptists rejected the adoption of any confession, and time would prove that at least some Southern Baptists did not believe that the BF&M (in both its 1925 and 1963 versions) was actually binding in any meaningful sense. Theological liberals and moderates proliferated in Baptist seminaries and convention leadership until the late 1970s and early 1980s. What is known to conservatives as the Conservative Resurgence was the successful implementation of a political strategy to recover the Southern Baptist Convention from continuing its drift into theological liberalism, along with the mainline denominations.

The authors are right to point out along the way the painful and scandalous development of Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) on the concept of racism generally and the treatment of African Americans specifically. While various Baptists (both in America and in England) did oppose chattel slavery from its beginning, many Baptists in America came to embrace the institution and even to argue for it in overtly racist ways. So too, one major reason (maybe the main reason) the Southern Baptist Convention exists today is because of the insistence of white Southerners upon Baptist cooperation with slave-owners and the institution of slavery itself. Even after slavery was abolished in America, many Baptists in the south were complicit in societal and institutional structures that remained prejudicial against those of African descent.

The Baptist story is not one of perfection, but it is one of tenacious efforts to gather true churches of regenerate believers, to spread the good news of the gospel farther than it has presently gone, and to promote a kind of religious freedom that invites only voluntary (not coerced) sinners to join local churches by repenting of sin, believing in Christ, and being baptized as a public profession of faith. Baptists have worked hard to make their way in the world, and they have sometimes acted more worldly than as Christians, but one can hardly find a more vigorously evangelistic and democracy-loving Christian than a Baptist.

Conclusion

This is an excellent introduction to the fascinating history of Baptists. It is an accessible read for most any level of skill and knowledge. The format and resources found within the book will also be a help for interested readers to explore Baptist history further. Whether you are an experienced student of Baptist history or you are just beginning to learn the basic characters and developments, this book will help you understand how the Baptist story fits together.

[1] 325-326.

[2] 326-327.

[3] 330.

[4] 331.

[5] 171.

[6] 19.

[7] 18.

[8] 18.

A Pastor Who Would Not Administer the Lord’s Supper Can Teach Us Not to Avoid Church Discipline

The Third Baptist Church of Cheshire had been without a pastor for quite some time. Their most recent pastor had died unexpectedly, and the one before that had departed after a bitter fight among the church about their practice of the Lord’s Supper. John Leland had been their recognized pastor for about seven years, but in July of 1798 Leland decided that he would no longer receive or administer the Lord’s Supper among the congregation.

This was a strange development indeed, but Leland was the sort of man to do and say things that were sometimes a bit odd (even for an eighteenth-century Baptist). Throughout the years of Leland obstinacy, a pastor from a nearby church came regularly to officiate the ordinance for the Third Baptist Church. And after nearly six years of this abstinence from the Supper, Leland finally left Cheshire.

The church went without a designated pastor for a couple of years, and then they hired a promising and talented young man in 1806, named Lemuel Covell. But less than six months later, Covell died while on an itinerate preaching mission. Again, the Third Baptist Church had no pastor, and some of the members had fond memories of their time with Leland. Though he was rigid in his convictions and though his convictions could sometimes be strange, he was after all a compelling preacher and a great man.

When some of the members of Third Baptist Church reached out to Leland, to see if he might return as their pastor, a small group of members went public with their perspective that Leland ought not be a pastor or even a church member who did not commune with the rest of the church. They took their grievance to the Shaftsbury Association, the fraternity of churches of which Third Baptist was a participant.

That’s when Leland doubled down on his position of radical individualism. He made a public statement that basically outlined his intention to continue to abstain from communion and even withdraw from church attendance anytime he felt it was good for him to do so. The Shaftsbury Association advised the Cheshire church “not to retain such members” as Leland “in their connection and fellowship.”

Indeed, they said, “Let but a cold hearted or captious member of the church have the example of such a man for his excuse, and such a church would labor in vain to recover to neglected duty that member.” In other words, Leland ought not be admitted or retained in membership (much less named as pastor) if he would so flagrantly rebel against local church order and discipline. This would make a mockery of God’s house, and it would invite others to rebel in the same way.

Ultimately, it is not the association that must decide who is or is not a member of a Baptist church. The congregation itself would have to vote on the matter. And the Cheshire Church Records tell a story of confusion, cowardice, and convenience. On September 28, 1811, the following four questions were presented for a vote.

Question: If a member of the church neglects to attend the regular meetings of the church, is such a delinquent member subject to discipline?

Answer: Refuse to answer.

Question: Do the members of the church feel obligated to watch over their brethren for good?

Answer: We do.

Question: Does the church believe it to be a duty of the members to attend the meetings of the church for communion?

Answer: We do.

Question: Shall the hand of fellowship be withdrawn from any member for anything excepting immorality?

Answer: Refuse to answer.

These answers are self-contradictory. On the one hand, the congregation affirmed their responsibility to watch over their fellow church members, to do them good. And they also affirmed the duty that all members have to attend church meetings, especially those when the Lord’s Supper would be administered. But, on the other hand, they would not affirm the necessary consequence that any member (including a pastor) who refused to participate would be subject to a rebuke and ultimately (if the refusal continued) to expulsion from church membership.

In the end, the Cheshire church held on to the fact that Leland had not committed any public and egregious sin of immorality. They reasoned that since he had not committed adultery, blasphemed, or cheated another person in business then Leland ought not be excluded from the church. But communing together with fellow church members in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is precisely the act that distinguishes a church from any other group of Christians. To neglect or to be barred from this ordinance is the basis of the concept of excommunication (ex – out of – communion).

This episode is an embarrassing and sobering reminder that individuals and churches can value the greatness of a man and the desire for convenience above the doctrine and practice of biblical Christianity. There are many ways in which churches today may avoid confronting sin, calling for repentance, and excluding unrepentant members from their fellowship. Churches can sometimes even overlook grievous errors and rebellion on the part of their church leaders and members in an effort to keep the peace, to maintain productivity, or to avoid making hard decisions.

It is hard to imagine a pastor of a church today refusing to observe or administer the Lord’s Supper among his congregation. But many church members seem to have no problem at all with abstaining from the ordinance for years on end. Churches who allow absentee members to remain on their roster without confronting this radical individualization of Christianity will find it quite difficult to call for repentance for much of anything among their membership.

Should a Christian take Steroids?

Let’s be clear, this question is not about corticosteroids, which are often prescribed as a powerful anti-inflammatory. If you’re asking this question, then you are asking about anabolic steroids (such as testosterone, anadrol, dianabol, and winstrol).

Let me also put all my cards on the table right up front. I believe anabolic steroids are dangerous, usually illegal, and always expensive. I also believe they will increase the likelihood of injury and they probably won’t help you achieve the status you’re seeking anyway. Therefore, I believe that it is unwise and probably sinful for a Christian to take steroids.

I’ll explain my answer in the content below (skip to “Let me explain.” if you want to jump past my background), but some readers will want to know what experience I might have that would grant me credibility on this subject.

Well, the reader will have to judge the credibility of the facts on their own merit, but I do have quite a lot of experience with strength training and all that comes with it. I’ve been a competitive lifter, and the label “gym rat” (someone who spends and inordinate amount of time in the gym) would easily have applied to me from age 20 to my mid 30s. As a matter of fact, I’ve been a college football player, I’ve been a competitive powerlifter, I was “Cow Town’s Strongest Man” (1st place in an amateur strongman competition in Ft. Worth, TX), I’ve placed in the top three at two different NAGA tournaments (grappling, wrestling, and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu), I’ve been a personal trainer, and I’ve sold many gym memberships.

Lots of athletes have a far better resume than I do, but the point I’m making here is that I have been heavily involved in the world of strength training and athletic competition. And this means I’ve also had a lot of experience with supplements. I’ve consumed two or more protein shakes every day for the last 22 years. I know how terrible most protein shakes used to taste (15+ years ago; especially strawberry!), I know the bloated feeling creatine monohydrate can produce when you take a bit more than you should (and I don’t even care how chalky it is), and I’ve repeatedly enjoyed the feeling of a great “pump” from the combination of intense training and vasodilators.

And yet, I have never knowingly ingested, injected, or otherwise made use of anabolic steroids. I say “knowingly” here because I did test positive for a certain kind of steroid one time after having consumed prohormones. The reader should not assume, however, that I have always thought the way I do now about steroids. There was definitely a time in my life when I would have taken them if I had known how to acquire them, and I wouldn’t have cared at all about some of the dangers I will list below.

At this point in my life, I am past the point of putting on muscle. I’m in my early 40’s, and from here on out I am in the managed decline phase of strength and athleticism. But the temptation to take steroids has been seasonal for me. Not long ago, I was more tempted than ever to seek out a doctor that would prescribe testosterone, so that I might slow the inevitable decline of my strength and endurance. However, I believe more strongly than ever that anabolic steroids are not good generally, and they are especially not good for Christians.

Let me explain.

First, the biological dangers.

Supplements (like protein, creatine, vitamins, vasodilators, etc.) have an effect on the body, but that effect is only temporary and isolated. These supplements merely provide greater nutrients (vitamins), higher levels of muscle-building ingredients (various sorts of protein), better endurance and temporary strength (creatine), and larger volumes of blood-flow (vasodilators). These are isolated effects, and if I discover that my body is not reacting well (or even reacting quite badly) to any of these, I can stop ingesting them, and all negative effects will cease momentarily.

However, anabolic steroids affect the entire endocrine system, long-term and sometimes permanently. Introducing an artificial increase or decrease to my hormone levels has far-reaching effects (hormones touch everything in the body) that may last many years after I stop artificially adjusting things. For example, the introduction of testosterone from outside of my own system will lower my natural production of testosterone and raise my body’s production of estrogen (really bad for males). Even after I stop adding testosterone artificially, my own production will take time to recover, and it may never rise to the level it ought to be.

Furthermore, the endocrine system controls mood, body growth, physical development, and reproduction. Depression and rage are common side effects of big swings up or down in hormone levels. Just think of the emotional instability of teenagers. One of the major reasons for it is that teens are experiencing a huge increase in hormone levels.

Second, the illegality.

Not many people know how to obtain anabolic steroids legally. And even those who do will find it very difficult. The average person interested in using steroids to gain a bit of muscle over the next several months will almost inevitably have to obtain them illegally. This includes doctor shopping for testosterone prescriptions.  

Third, the financial cost.

Steroids themselves are quite expensive, and no one should mess with their own endocrine system without the supervision of a trustworthy doctor. This means repeated doctor visits, purchasing the drugs you want, and purchasing the other drugs you’ll need to counteract unwanted side effects. All of this adds up to a very expensive hobby, which is purely self-centered. If you’re a male, then you should compare the investments in this hobby with others, like fishing with your kids, gardening with your wife, or helping your neighbor rebuild his classic mustang. Every hobby costs time and money, but some are more worthwhile.

Fourth, the likelihood of injury.

Anecdotally, I don’t know of anyone who has used steroids that hasn’t suffered a serious injury as a result. Intense lifting with proper diet will make your muscles grow (at least while you’re young enough), and the rate of growth will typically be dependent upon your body’s natural ability. Thus, your muscles will grow in tandem with your tendons and bones (i.e., density), and at a rate that will allow your muscle tissue to stabilize as a useful and functional feature of your body.

However, hard work, proper diet, and the addition of steroids will likely cause your muscles to grow faster than your body can handle. The most common injury is a torn muscle of some sort, where a tendon detaches from the bone because muscle growth has outpaced the strength of the tendon. When this happens, some or all of the gains previously enjoyed will likely be lost.

Lastly, the probability of sin and the improbability of success.

The desire to use steroids in order to gain more muscle than you could with mere discipline (in the kitchen and at the gym) is most likely a sinful desire and almost certainly an unreasonable one. In my experience, every single person I’ve ever known to use steroids has been motivated by pride in some form or another. They want to look bigger, run faster, recover better, be stronger, lift heavier, or win more often. Every athlete wants to do these same things, and competing well does not have to be motivated by pride. But honesty will compel even the most noble athletes to admit that there is at least some influence of pride in the motives to push past the limitations that stand in the way of higher achievement. Pride is sin, and it is not to be indulged. Pride, like every other sin, should be starved and killed. 

But even if you are genuinely motivated by some noble or virtuous ambition, without any hint of pride or selfish ambition, you are almost certainly not going to be a professional athlete of any kind. If you aren’t naturally lifting heavier than everyone you know, then steroids aren’t going to help you compete with real powerlifters. If you aren’t naturally walking around at 9% body fat with more muscle than every other guy at your podunk gym, then steroids aren’t going to help you earn a place on the stage beside real bodybuilders. If you aren’t naturally running faster, jumping higher, and/or generally outpacing most everyone else you know, then steroids are only a vanity play for an average fish in a small pond. In the big ocean, you’re not even a big tuna, much less a great white shark.

Conclusion

There is no biblical command that says, “You shall not take steroids.” There are many ways in which supplements and even synthetic chemicals have proven helpful to human development, recovery, and health. However, anabolic steroids have been around long enough for us to know the dangers, and there’s a reason why professional sports in America still prohibit them. Furthermore, you and I are probably not even talking about competing as a professional. Your costs are far greater than any gains or benefits you might receive.

If you’re honest with yourself, the desire to take steroids is probably rooted in pride and vanity. Rather than indulge this temptation, it seems to me a far better strategy to resist it and to aim for increasing self-discipline, not only in the gym but in the pursuit of holiness and virtue. The Bible teaches us to “train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it hold promise for the present life and also for the life to come” (1 Timothy 4:7-8).

May God help us to treat and use our bodies well in this life, but may He help us always remember that there is a far better body for those who trust in Christ and await the final resurrection.

Vote “No” to the Executive Board’s Motion at the 2023 SBTC Annual Meeting

Over the last couple of months, the Executive Board (EB) of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) has been announcing its intention to make a motion to delay the implementation of what was overwhelmingly supported by the messengers of the 2022 state convention. During the 2022 meeting, Ben Wright (a pastor near Austin, TX) motioned that the convention add one more constitutional interpretation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BF&M).

The constitution of the SBTC already includes a handful of clarifying statements regarding the qualifications for churches wanting to affiliate with the SBTC, and Ben’s motion sought to clarify the meaning of the word “pastor.” The great majority of the messengers present agreed with Ben and voted to affirm that the word “pastor” does not refer only to senior pastors, but to any kind of pastor. Furthermore, the vote on the floor of the 2022 meeting effectively required the Credentials Committee of the SBTC to begin acting on the basis of this interpretation.

The language of the approved motion in 2022:[1]

“…that the SBTC, for purposes of affiliation, interpret the language in the SBTC Constitution, article IV, section 1, to refer not only to the titles of senior pastor or lead pastor, but to any role designated by the noun, ‘pastor,’ with the proviso that this new interpretation take effect regarding presently affiliated churches January 1, 2024.”

Since this motion was affirmed in November of 2022, newly affiliating churches are now required to fit within the boundaries of this interpretation. In other words, churches who want to become affiliated with the SBTC must not have a female in any staff or volunteer role that has the title of “pastor” (i.e., senior pastor, children’s pastor, worship pastor, etc.). All pastors must be “men” who are “qualified” according to Scripture.[2]

Churches that are already affiliated with the SBTC have had the last year (and they still have at least the next couple of months) to either align themselves with the messenger-approved interpretation of the BF&M or to withdraw their affiliation with the SBTC. As that date approaches, the EB plans to urge messengers at the 2023 annual meeting to delay the implementation of this interpretation for another year (changing 2024 to 2025).

This plan to delay, no doubt, is motivated by the best of intentions. Some of the members of the EB have already articulated their desire to show grace and patience toward those churches and pastors who intend to align themselves with the formal interpretation adopted in 2022 but who may need a bit more time to implement this language among their own churches. This sentiment is, of course, shared by many Southern Baptists.

However, there are some churches presently affiliated with the SBTC who have publicized their overt opposition to this interpretation. These churches are not asking for more time; they are arguing that the use of the title “pastor” ought to be embraced for females serving in some church positions other than that of senior pastor. And this is precisely the perspective that the 2022 constitutional amendment addresses.

I intend to vote against the EB’s motion to delay the implementation of the 2022 amendment at this year’s SBTC annual meeting. And I urge my fellow Southern Baptists of Texas to do the same. I offer the following reasons for consideration.

First, the 2022 amendment simply clarifies what Southern Baptists have always believed.

Anyone who reads the theological arguments and the practices (especially those dealing with ecclesiology) of Baptists from the past four centuries will know that the distinctions of various kinds of “pastor” among a local church is quite new. But even if one embraces the language of a “youth” pastor, a “children’s” pastor, or a “worship” pastor, the title of “pastor” must maintain its meaning. If words mean anything, then we must refuse to equivocate. A pastor is a pastor, and even if we give each pastor a specific area of responsibility among the church, we must never redefine the word “pastor” to mean anything else.

Second, the SBTC is a confessional convention of churches.

Since Baptists first began to articulate their distinctions from other Protestants, they did so in the form of a confession or statement of their faith. Thomas Helwys formed the first Baptist church in England (in the early 1600s) by drawing up a confession of what they believed, and within a few decades seven churches in London came together to affirm their shared beliefs by way of a confession as well.

All across the American colonies, Baptist churches formed associations using this same method – unifying themselves under a shared confession of faith. The SBTC follows their Baptist forebears by collectively uniting under their shared affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. And this voluntary affiliation of churches only works if all affiliated churches preach and practice in keeping with this shared body of doctrine.

Third, the Credentials Committee is always quite slow to recommend to disfellowship any church from the SBTC.

This reality effectively undermines the stated purpose of the EB’s motion to delay the implementation of the 2022 amendment. Our convention structures and procedures already provide a slow and generous process for affiliated churches to align themselves with the BF&M if they are discovered to be diverging from it. Even if 100 affiliated churches have female pastors of some kind serving on their staff or as a volunteer, not one of those would be recommended for disfellowship for at least several months. And such a recommendation would only come after a long process of talking personally with representatives of the church in question.

Fourth, the Credentials Committee is not an investigative body.

This committee only inquires of churches when there is an issue brought to their attention. The Credentials Committee is designed as an administrative group who follows up on data that is submitted to them. There is no active pursuit on the part of committee members to seek out errors among affiliated churches.

Fifth, all votes to disfellowship churches are ultimately decided by the messengers of the SBTC.

In cases where an affiliating church is obstinate in their practices and/or beliefs that are contradictory to the BF&M, the Credentials Committee merely recommends to disfellowship such a church. This recommendation then goes to the Executive Board, and that board brings the recommended action to the messengers of the SBTC. In short, there is not and will not be any action to disfellowship a Southern Baptists of Texas church without the consent of the messengers.

Sixth, a delay will only make it harder for the SBTC to begin implementing what we say we believe right now.

Both individually and communally, Christians in America are learning just how hard it can sometimes be to publicly speak and act in keeping with our doctrine and convictions. As time goes by, the cultural and political winds against us are only getting stronger. And there are some influential churches and pastors among the SBTC right now who are presently advocating that we never move forward with the implementation of this conviction that pastors of any kind should only be “men as qualified by Scripture.” Their advocacy will only grow in strength and number over time. Simply put, there will never be an easier time to take a public stand on this issue.

Seventh, the matter on the table for us is a bellwether for the kind of decisions we will inevitably have to make in the near future.

For many years, Southern Baptists have enjoyed the approval and/or toleration of the culture around us. This is no longer the case, and many of those doctrines and convictions we hold dear are only going to become more repugnant to the outside world. When we stand for the biblical definition of the term “pastor” we will are flexing those muscles we will need to use more and more frequently in order to maintain historic Christianity over and against a culture that despises us for doing so. We must understand this present moment as an opportunity to exercise the movements that we need to improve upon in order to be a healthy convention of churches.

In conclusion, I am convinced that the 2022 constitutional amendment represents the view of most Southern Baptists. The majority of the messengers at the 2022 annual meeting voted to affirm this amendment. And we already have a loving and patient process by which to implement this conviction. There is no good reason to delay our efforts to be clear about what we believe and to call all Southern Baptists to rally around our unifying doctrine.

With conviction, in love, and for the sake of our ongoing health and unity, let’s vote against the Executive Board’s motion to delay the implementation of the 2022 constitutional amendment. We know what a pastor is, and we want all of our SBTC churches to practice what we preach.

[1] See the details of the 2022 motion and the prepared 2023 Executive Board’s motion on page 9 of the November issue of the Texan magazine. Archives here: https://www.texanonline.net/print-archive/

[2] See Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/

Christianity in Decline

Everywhere I turn, the reports seem to be grim. One can hardly deny that Christianity is in numerical decline in America.

One recent statistical analysis showed that between 1990 and 2020 the Presbyterian Church USA declined in membership by 58%. The United Methodist Church also saw a 31% decline during the same period, and churches among the Southern Baptist Convention reported a loss of 4% of their membership.

It should also be noted that Southern Baptists were about the only Christian denomination in America to see a surge in church membership at the turn of the millennium, so their relatively small reduction over 30 years is actually a far larger decline over the most recent decade.

A time for despair?

One way of looking at these statistics would be for Christians to despair in light of the present numerical decline of church attendance and membership. Even if some Christians want to argue that true Christianity does not necessitate affiliation with a local church, it would be foolish to claim that lower church membership and attendance numbers are irrelevant to the health and vitality of Christianity in general. And Christians would be right to lament the decline.

A time for doubling down?

Many Christians have responded to these dismal statistics by doubling down on their promotion of evangelism and their efforts to seek new converts. No doubt, Christians should always be engaged in teaching the gospel with the aim to persuade those who presently do not know it or believe it. If Christians are to increase in number over time, they must certainly make an effort to see non-Christians converted.

A time for honest evaluation?

However, another way to think about these disheartening numbers is to do a little soul-searching. Many Evangelicals in America already admit that church membership statistics have often been inflated. There are commonly many more names on the membership roster than people in attendance on any given Sunday morning. These inflated numbers have been especially present among Southern Baptist churches and Evangelical non-denominational churches.

At least since the 1950s, Christianity in America has intentionally included a large number of those who adopted a cultural form of the religion without a personal conviction to live in keeping with its doctrine or practices. So too, the widespread practice of “easy believism” has promoted a truncated concept of Christian conversion that overemphasizes a “decision” to believe and downplays (or even denies) the ongoing obligation Christians have to live in keeping with that belief. And these trends have coincided with a lacking seriousness in the practice of church membership, where churches make it quite easy to join the church and nearly impossible to be removed from its membership.

All of these practices (cultural Christianity, easy believism, and meaningless church membership) and more have contributed to an unrealistic measurement of a greater number of “Christians” in America than has actually been the case. It may be that the declining statistics of church membership and attendance are telling a negative story, but I believe we are also seeing a more honest one.

Furthermore, while cultural and nominal Christianity is receding in America, it is not apparent to me that convictional and serious Christianity is doing so.

Is serious Christianity actually growing?

All the churches I know that are taking Christianity (and especially church membership) more seriously, are holding steady numerically or even increasing. Long-established churches are maintaining (and sometimes growing) when they renew their efforts to make clear the gospel of Christ, the cost of discipleship, and the importance of doctrine. New church plants with robust teaching and high expectations for membership are on the rise, and many of them are thriving in places that have seen many older churches die.

I don’t deny that the statistical picture looks bad. I also join many other Christians in mourning the loss of the positive societal reception many Christians of older generations once enjoyed. But I also refuse to buy into the narrative that Christianity in America is dying.

In fact, when I look around, many of the Christians and churches I see are doing quite well. Those who embrace doctrinally rich, personally engaging, and historically grounded forms of Christianity seem far less affected by the numerical decline. And they are even bucking the trend.

It seems to me that Jesus Christ’s promise to build His Church has not and will not fail. And, therefore, Christians don’t have to lose heart when we read a story or report that tries to tell us the opposite.

We can simply walk into a thriving church on a Sunday morning and look around.

Two Ways Parents Can Disciple Their Children

One of the quintessential commands in the New Testament for parental responsibility is found in Ephesians 6:4. The Scripture says, “bring [your children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (v4).

The commission here for parents is the task of teaching, forming, and shaping our children according to the God’s word. As parents, we do well to teach our kids reading, writing, and arithmetic (or at least to ensure these are taught); but we must not neglect the more critical subjects of the gospel, the character of God, and the kingdom of Christ.

This command in Ephesians 6 is very similar to the Old Testament parental mandate in Deuteronomy 6. You might know that the book of Deuteronomy is the record of what Moses told the people of Israel just before they actually went into the Promised Land. Moses reminded them of what they’d been through, how God had delivered them and preserved them. And Moses reminded them of what God had revealed to them, His laws and His promises.

Moses said, “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

The parental imperative for the people of God, both from the Old Testament and the New, is that parents are responsible to disciple their children. That is, parents are responsible to train up their children in the “instruction of the Lord” (v4).

From the very beginning of Christianity, local churches have been organizations tasked with making disciples, and Christian families have been the training ground for discipling children. Parents (especially dads), are responsible to ensure that their kids know the fundamentals of the faith, and parents must show their children what it looks like to live as Christians in the world.

Let me offer two formal ways we might practice formative discipline in our families, training our kids in the instruction of the Lord. These are especially aimed at families with kids at home, but singles and married couples without children in the home may just as readily practice these disciplines. These are not exclusive to kids; these are the basics of discipleship for every age.

First, prioritize the gathering of the saints on the Lord’s day.

Our kids benefit from every aspect of this weekly event, just as everyone else benefits. Our kids learn that Jesus is truly important by observing the importance we place on being with Christ’s people and doing what Christians have been doing for 20 centuries.

Our kids learn the vocabulary of Christianity by hearing and singing our songs. They learn the doctrine of Christianity by catching bits and pieces of our sermons. And they learn how to pray (to praise God in prayer, to confess sin to God, to thank God for His goodness and provision, and to ask for God’s help for more than just our personal health or conveniences) by listening to our public prayers.

Now, I know that I’m a pastor, and so I’m supposed to say this stuff, but I really do believe it. There is nothing more comprehensively edifying that you can do for your kids than (for the next 20 years) to prioritize the weekly church gathering over everything else you might do on a Sunday morning.

Second, schedule time each week for structured family discipleship.

Maybe you start your day together around the breakfast table, maybe you come together at the dinner table, maybe you sprawl out in the living room at the end of the day, or maybe you all carpool together on everyone’s way to work and school. Each family will do this differently, and some seasons of life will make this easier or harder, but all of us should be doing it.

You might ambitiously try to read through the whole Bible in a year with your spouse or your older kids. You might discuss a catechism question and answer with your family, and there are a number of good catechisms to choose from. These question and answer summaries of Christian doctrine are especially helpful for little children.

You might use your notes from the Sunday sermon and talk with your family about ways to apply the main idea to a particular circumstance of your own lives. You might read the upcoming sermon passage each day of the preceding week with your family, preparing everyone to be great hearers of the preached word on Sunday and helping everyone to think through the meaning and some applications of the text on their own.

Friends, the gathering of the saints on the Lord’s day is essential to the life of a Christian. You can maintain perfect attendance at church your whole life and still not be a Christian, but you cannot be a good Christian without regularly gathering with a church each week.

That said, the daily disciplines of discussing and meditating upon Scripture, applying God’s word to everyday life, and systematic prayer are necessary features of Christian discipleship as well. And keep in mind, it is not only the substance of what we are teaching or learning, but the practice of prioritizing these disciplines that shapes us and our kids over time.

Even if our little ones don’t understand a single doctrine better in a year from now, I trust that they will know more tangibly that mommy and daddy really believe that the Bible, church, and prayer is important after they have seen us consistently prioritize such things for a whole year.

May God bless our imperfect yet diligent efforts.

Yes, Parents Can Disciple Their Kids

One of the quintessential commands in the New Testament for parental responsibility is found in Ephesians 6:4. The Scripture says, “bring [your children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (v4).

The commission here for parents is the task of teaching, forming, and shaping our children according to the God’s word. As parents, we do well to teach our kids reading, writing, and arithmetic (or at least to ensure these are taught); but we must not neglect the more critical subjects of the gospel, the character of God, and the kingdom of Christ.

This command in Ephesians 6 is very similar to the Old Testament parental mandate in Deuteronomy 6. You might know that the book of Deuteronomy is the record of what Moses told the people of Israel just before they actually went into the Promised Land. Moses reminded them of what they’d been through, how God had delivered them and preserved them. And Moses reminded them of what God had revealed to them, His laws and His promises.

Moses said, “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

The parental imperative for the people of God, both from the Old Testament and the New, is that parents are responsible to disciple their children. That is, parents are responsible to train up their children in the “instruction of the Lord” (v4).

From the very beginning of Christianity, local churches have been organizations tasked with making disciples, and Christian families have been the training ground for discipling children. Parents (especially dads), are responsible to ensure that their kids know the fundamentals of the faith, and parents must show their children what it looks like to live as Christians in the world.

Let me offer two formal ways we might practice formative discipline in our families, training our kids in the instruction of the Lord. These are especially aimed at families with kids at home, but singles and married couples without children in the home may just as readily practice these disciplines. These are not exclusive to kids; these are the basics of discipleship for every age.

First, prioritize the gathering of the saints on the Lord’s day.

Our kids benefit from every aspect of this weekly event, just as everyone else benefits. Our kids learn that Jesus is truly important by observing the importance we place on being with Christ’s people and doing what Christians have been doing for 20 centuries.

Our kids learn the vocabulary of Christianity by hearing and singing our songs. They learn the doctrine of Christianity by catching bits and pieces of our sermons. And they learn how to pray (to praise God in prayer, to confess sin to God, to thank God for His goodness and provision, and to ask for God’s help for more than just our personal health or conveniences) by listening to our public prayers.

Now, I know that I’m a pastor, and so I’m supposed to say this stuff, but I really do believe it. There is nothing more comprehensively edifying that you can do for your kids than (for the next 20 years) to prioritize the weekly church gathering over everything else you might do on a Sunday morning.

Second, schedule time each week for structured family discipleship.

Maybe you start your day together around the breakfast table, maybe you come together at the dinner table, maybe you sprawl out in the living room at the end of the day, or maybe you all carpool together on everyone’s way to work and school. Each family will do this differently, and some seasons of life will make this easier or harder, but all of us should be doing it.

You might ambitiously try to read through the whole Bible in a year with your spouse or your older kids. You might discuss a catechism question and answer with your family, and there are a number of good catechisms to choose from. These question and answer summaries of Christian doctrine are especially helpful for little children.

You might use your notes from the Sunday sermon and talk with your family about ways to apply the main idea to a particular circumstance of your own lives. You might read the upcoming sermon passage each day of the preceding week with your family, preparing everyone to be great hearers of the preached word on Sunday and helping everyone to think through the meaning and some applications of the text on their own.

Friends, the gathering of the saints on the Lord’s day is essential to the life of a Christian. You can maintain perfect attendance at church your whole life and still not be a Christian, but you cannot be a good Christian without regularly gathering with a church each week.

That said, the daily disciplines of discussing and meditating upon Scripture, applying God’s word to everyday life, and systematic prayer are necessary features of Christian discipleship as well. And keep in mind, it is not only the substance of what we are teaching or learning, but the practice of prioritizing these disciplines that shapes us and our kids over time.

Even if our little ones don’t understand a single doctrine better in a year from now, I trust that they will know more tangibly that mommy and daddy really believe that the Bible, church, and prayer is important after they have seen us consistently prioritize such things for a whole year.

May God bless our imperfect yet diligent efforts.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

Jonathan Edwards preached his most famous sermon in 1741 at a church in Enfield, about 8 years after becoming the main preaching pastor of his church in Northampton, Connecticut. Many historians believe that this sermon was used by God as one of many that gave rise to the revivals of the 1740s. It has been printed and reprinted, and the themes and content of it reverberate as common in many fervent evangelistic messages.

Below is a summary of that sermon. You can read the full sermon online HERE. And you can purchase a dramatic reading of this sermon in audio form HERE.

Edwards started with Deuteronomy 32:35, “Their foot shall slide in due time.”

From this verse and passage, Edwards deduced the following: (1) “That they were always exposed to destruction, as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall;” (2) “that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction… as he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall; he can’t foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next;” (3) “that they are liable to fall of themselves, without being thrown down by the hand of another;” and (4) “that the reason why they are not fallen already, and don’t fall now, is only that God’s appointed time is not come.”

Edwards’s doctrinal conclusion from these observations is that “There is nothing that keeps wicked men, at any moment, out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.” Consider, he says, that “there is no want of power in God to cast men into hell at any moment.” Sinners “deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way,” and “they are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell.” So too, “they are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God that is expressed in the torments of hell.”

These realities are coupled with the fact that “the devil stands ready to fall upon them and seize them as his own, at what moment God shall permit him.” Indeed, the souls of the wicked are governed by “those hellish principles… that would presently kindle and flame out into hellfire,” bringing a destruction of their own making, “if it were not for God’s restraints.”

Further, the lack of “visible means of death” is “no security to [the] wicked,” and the exercise of “prudence and care to preserve their own lives” can also do nothing to avoid death. Even “pains and contrivance” employed “to escape hell” apart from repentance and faith in Christ is no security to those who go on rejecting Christ. No matter what spiritual or physical efforts a wicked person exerts, he or she remains exposed to God’s wrath.

Further still, “God has laid himself under no obligation by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment.” “In short,” says Edwards, “they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and the uncovenanted unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.”

In a plea to turn from sin and cling to Jesus Christ for life and peace, Edwards warns, “However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it.” He says, “O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in… and consider here more particularly several things concerning that wrath that you are in such danger of.”

“First, Whose wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God.” “Second,” it is “the fierceness of his wrath that you are exposed to.” “Third,” consider “the misery you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what the wrath of Jehovah is.” And “fourth,” it is “everlasting wrath.”

Edwards concludes by pointing to the grace and mercy of God in Christ. He says, “And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has flung the door of mercy wide open, and stands in the door calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners.” “Therefore,” says Edwards, “let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come.” In other words, look to Jesus, who bore the wrath of God in His own body at the cross, and trust in Him alone to save you.

May God be feared for His holiness, may He be loved for His grace and mercy, and may He be glorified in the salvation of sinners through the message of His wonderful work in and through Jesus Christ.

If you want to discuss the meaning of this sermon or the implications of it, then I would be glad to connect with you. You can email me at marc@fbcdiana.org.

Two Ways to Live: Regulated or Free

Several years ago, at the Golden Globes, Christian Bale (the actor who plays Batman in three of the more recent movies in that franchise) accepted an award. In his acceptance speech, he said it was Satan who gave him “inspiration for playing [the] role.”[i] The Twitter account for the “Church of Satan” later tweeted a sort of thank you, saying, “To us, Satan is a symbol of pride, liberty and individualism, and it serves as an external metaphorical projection of our highest personal potential.” Note that they speak of Satan as a “symbol,” and not a person, a symbol of pride, of liberty (freedom to do what you want), and of individualism (freedom to be who you want).

More recently, at the Grammys, two performers displayed an all-out worship ceremony for Satan. (Just in case you’re wondering… I don’t watch the Globes or the Grammys, but I do know how to do research.) One of the performers at the Grammys later said that the whole thing was “a take” on “being able to live the way [you] want… to live.”[ii] For this person, the satanic imagery was a way to pay tribute to the idea of personal autonomy – to live how you want without anyone giving you limitations.

It seems to me that one of the main assumptions in our culture today is that our highest good is achieved when we are completely free to be and to do whatever we want. We assume that our desires must have no restraint, and anyone who thinks or says otherwise is “judgy” or a bigot or oppressive. Now, very few people actually argue in favor of worshipping Satan, but all of us are affected by the water we swim in everyday. And all of us have a sort of built-in expectation that “nobody is going to tell me what to do or who to be.”

I’m going to argue here, however, that we all desperately need limitations or regulations. In fact, to put it plainly, living without limitations is an illusion, and giving free reign to your own personal desires and preferences is the fastest way to self-destruction.

Letting your desires run free leads to death, but living within a regulated set of boundaries leads to life and flourishing.

From the earliest days of Christianity, Christians have committed or “devoted” themselves to learning and to living according to “the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). That is, Christians devoted themselves to living limited or regulated lives. This’s what we read about in the book of Acts, and we see it taught and exemplified all throughout the New Testament letters.

One of the earliest Christian documents (other than the Bible) is called the Didache, which simply means “teaching.” It was compiled soon after the close of the apostolic period, and it’s a list of Christian regulations, both for individuals and for the local church. The Didache begins by saying, “There are two ways [to live], one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.” And then it describes rules for Christian living in 16 short chapters. Christians are to “love the God that made [them],” they are to love their “neighbor as [themselves],” and they are to practice this love as defined in God’s commands.

In short, Christian living is the constant striving against the temptation to do and be what you want and the constant striving toward doing and being what the Bible says we ought in every area of life.

We might be tempted to think that Christian living is especially hard or counter-cultural in our own day, but the fact is that Christian living is the opposite of human nature since Genesis 3. It’s always counter-cultural to live as a Christian in this fallen and sinful world, and it’s always hard to war against our own sinful desires. And that’s why we need help to do it.

We need God’s authoritative word. The Bible is interested in teaching us what to believe and also teaching us how to live based on that belief. We need to know what God says about how we should live, and we need to aim for submission and obedience.

We need God’s authoritative people. The local church was designed and instituted by Jesus Christ, and this institution is the only one authorized by Christ to provide the context for genuine Christian community. We may enjoy a whole host of Christian friendships, but we need more than mere companionship. We need other Christians to tell us when we’ve gone too far or stopped too short of the biblical instruction and command.

Much more could be said or written about each of these needs – God’s word and God’s people – in our lives, but this brief post is only an introductory argument for the need of such things.

May God grant us the humility to live regulated lives, and may He grant us the life and flourishing that only comes from such living.

[i] See the full Vanity Fair article here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/01/golden-globes-2019-christian-bale-speech-satan

[ii] See this quote among others listed in the article here: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/sam-smiths-unholy-performance-at-the-grammys-reminds-people-of-the-church-satan

A Summary of the Book of Acts

The final two verses of the last chapter form a common concluding statement that Luke has used five other times in the book of Acts. In fact, these two verses brilliantly achieve at least three things: (1) they bring us full circle, back to the beginning of Acts; (2) they tie together the overarching theme of the whole book; and (3) they invite the reader to join the long line of gospel witnesses who have gone before.

The book of Acts begins with one of Jesus’s Great Commission statements (Acts 1:8). Matthew 28:18-20 is the longest and most detailed of Jesus’s commissioning statements, but there are actually at least three of them (Matt. 28:18-20; Jn. 20:21-23; and Acts 1:8). All of these overlap significantly with one another, providing us with a clear understanding of what Jesus wanted His disciples to do in the world after His departure.

After Jesus’s death and resurrection, He appeared many times to His disciples and hundreds of others (1 Cor. 15:5-7), and Jesus reiterated His promise to send the Holy Spirit to them when He departed (Acts 1:5). It was the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of God who would empower those who believed in Jesus to “be [His] witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). This, then, was their mission – to bear witness to Christ.

And when Jesus ascended to the right hand of God the Father, the Holy Spirit did come! He came to that small band of disciples (about 120 of them) in Jerusalem who were awaiting His arrival (Acts 1:15, 2:1-4). On that very day, Jerusalem heard the gospel by way of those Christian witnesses, and they all continued to teach and preach the gospel there from that point on. In fact, Luke concludes his first section of Acts in chapter 6, verse 7. There he wrote the first of six statements that all repeat the same refrain: both the word of God and the Church of Christ prevailed. At the close of the first section, Luke wrote, “And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem” (Acts 6:7). Notice that “the word of God” was being preached and the Church was prevailing.

Then the next section of Acts (chs 6-9, roughly) follows the gospel and Church expansion in Judea and Samaria (the next concentric circle of the commission in Acts 1:8). Persecution sent Christian witnesses out from Jerusalem, and more sinners were converted as a result. Acts 9:31 concludes Luke’s second section with yet another statement of a growing and prevailing Church. Luke wrote, “So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied” (Acts 9:31).

The third section of Acts ends with chapter 12, but it includes (in chs 10 and 11) the longest argument for and explanation of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles in His gracious salvation. We see the gospel begin to invade that third ring of the concentric circle (Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and the end of the earth). And at the end of ch 12, we read about the miraculous death of an earthly king who had set himself at war against Christ and His people. And again, Luke tells us, despite the persecution, “the word of God increased and multiplied” (Acts 12:24).

The fourth section of Acts starts with ch 13, and this is where Luke began to focus almost entirely on the missionary efforts of the Apostle Paul. It was Paul whom God called to be the missionary to the Gentiles (or non-Jews), and these were the people “at the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The Holy Spirit worked through Paul so mightily that there arose a crisis in the church in Jerusalem. They were debating the question, “What do we do with all these Gentiles?”

That fourth section concludes with a detailed record of the decision made by the Jerusalem council to welcome Gentile believers as “brothers” in Christ (Acts 15:23). And this publicly declared unity between believing Jews and believing Gentiles was celebrated among the churches Paul revisited to “see how they are” (Acts 15:36). Finally, Luke wrote yet again, “So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily” (Acts 16:5).

The fifth section of Acts starts around the beginning of ch 16, and it follows Paul’s second and third missionary journeys. Luke highlights Paul ministries in Corinth and Ephesus, and he tells us about the continued work of the Holy Spirit in converting sinners and establishing churches through the preaching of the gospel. At the end of this fifth section, Luke wrote, “So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily” (Acts 19:20).

And this brings us to the sixth and final section of Acts, which is concluded right there in the last two verses of the book. After Paul had decided to go to Jerusalem and then to Rome (Acts 19:21), he did make his way (slowly and painfully, but surely) to Rome. But this was not merely Paul’s desire, it was by command and provision of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was the specially called witness that Christ Himself was putting in front of Jewish councils and Roman governors and kings. 

And finally, in Rome itself, Luke says that Paul “lived there two whole years,” he welcomed “welcomed all who came to him” (not only Jews but also Gentiles), and he proclaimed or preached “the kingdom of God” and taught “about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (v30-31). Just like each section before, Luke closed this one with a summary statement about the word of God being preached and both the word and the Church of Christ prevailing.

Thus, the overarching theme of the book of Acts is that the Spirit of God works through the word of God which is preached and taught by the people of God to build the Church or the kingdom of God in the world. And God’s Spirit does this building and multiplying and prevailing work without the help of worldly prestige, attractive gimmicks, economic power, or civil endorsement. He does it through His word as it is preached and taught by those who believe it, which is the fulfillment of Jesus’s Great Commission statement in Acts 1:8.

That’s how these verses tie together the theme of the book and bring us full circle. But I said there was a third thing these last couple of verses also do, and that is they invite the reader to join the line of gospel witnesses who have gone before. You know, there is something about the end of the book of Acts that makes it feel abrupt, and it certainly leaves a hanging question: “What about Paul?!” Did Paul die at the end of those two years? Was he set free for a while and die as a martyr sometime later? How about the possibility of a fourth missionary journey?

But this hanging question seems to be purposeful on Luke’s part. It leaves the reader with a sense that the book of Acts wasn’t about Paul to begin with. Even Paul’s detailed imprisonment and miraculous journey from Jerusalem to Rome wasn’t ultimately about Paul. The whole book was and is about God’s Holy Spirit working through God’s word and God’s people to build God’s kingdom!

And this complete absence of a definite conclusion to Paul’s life and ministry offers the reader a strongly implied invite to pick up where Paul left off. Now, I’m not saying that all Christians are capital “A” Apostles, but I am saying that all Christians are little “a” apostles, in the sense that believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are to continue to be His witnesses (empowered by the Holy Spirit) to “the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) and to “the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

And how can Christians today pick up where Paul and the rest of the early Christians left off? Well, we can rely upon God’s Spirit to work through God’s word to convert sinners and to build His Church. We can preach and teach the gospel with the aim to persuade,1 and we can invite repenting and believing sinners to join with us in following and bearing witness for Christ, until He comes.

1 This phrase (“teach the gospel with he aim to persuade”) comes from Mack Stiles’ book called Evangelism, which I wholeheartedly recommend to the interested reader. Get it at the cheapest price from the 9Marks bookstore HERE.

Marc Minter is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Diana, TX. He and his wife, Cassie, have two sons, Micah and Malachi. 

Connect with Marc on Twitter or Facebook.