Renaissance or Rabidity?

January 12th, 2007 | Posted in » Baptist Issues

Check out this article from Dr. Malcomn Yarnell III.

After reading some of quotes in this article, I have to wonder… are we really talking about Baptist renaissance here or Baptist rabidity?

Allow me to elaborate.

The thrust of Dr. Yarnell’s article is that Baptist history illustrates a strong commitment to being Biblical, and that careful study of the Bible will lead to doctrinal beliefs that are distinctively Baptist. In his own words:

Southwestern’s leading theologians do not promote Baptist theology simply because of history. We are convinced by God’s Word that Baptist doctrine is the best doctrine.

Dr. Yarnell notes that it is because of this belief… that Baptist doctrine is Biblical doctrine… that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is encouraging a “renaissance” of Baptist beliefs through a variety of channels… conferences, websites, seminary studies, etc. If this is the sole point of “Baptist renaissance”, I would have exactly zero problems with what Dr. Yarnell has written.

However, as I read this article, I was struck not so much by the majority of the article which addresses “Baptist renaissance”, but by the few sentences and paragraphs throughout the article, that, in my words, constitute “Baptist rabidity” moreso than “Baptist renainssance”.

What do I mean by that? Simple. Rabidity, by definition, is “going to extreme lengths to express or pursue a feeling, interest, or opinion”. As such, “Baptist rabidity” is simply extreme support of Baptist belief, history, and doctrine.

The upside of this? “Baptist rabidity” can truly result in “Baptist renaissance”. The downside? Well… that’s best illustrated by quotes from Dr. Yarnell’s article.

More recently, Dr. Emir Caner proclaimed it this way, “If you give a Christian an open Bible, you will get a Baptist every time!”

Yet Baptist identity has fallen on hard times. Southern Baptists have been shocked by detractors within their own ranks.

There are two fundamental theological reasons for these distressing trends: first, there is the errant assumption that “Baptists” are simply one among many equally viable options in the broader Christian tradition. Second, there is little awareness that calling oneself “Baptist” is really just another way of saying “thoroughly biblical disciple of Jesus Christ.”

You see, rabidity (Baptist or other) can go beyond fervant support of a cause. Even if well-intentioned, rabidity can often lead to an overabundance of pride in one’s own cause… to an arrogance that causes one to look down on other causes… to the putting down or tearing down of others that don’t see things in quite the same light.

This is the problem with Baptist rabidity. Dr. Caner’s quote implies that non-Baptists might as well be non-believers. Dr. Yarnell’s generalization about “detractors within their own ranks” implies that certain Baptists are unbiblical and might as well consider themselves unwelcome in Baptist circles. His theological reasons clearly state that non-Baptists hold errant beliefs.

How dare we adopt such condescending views! Should we not be more careful with our attitudes and words? How does a pride-filled, “I’m more Biblical than you” attitude build up the body of Christ? How does this kind of thing promote the unity Jesus found so important as to take time to pray for prior to his arrest (John 17:20-26)? How does such judgment line up with Paul’s teaching regarding disputable matters (Romans 14)? What good does Baptist rabidity really do?

Now, I’m no seminarian. I’m no pastor. I have no formal theological or Biblical education. But really… Am I either so stupid or so blind as to miss the point of this?

We spend countless hours debating calvinism / arminianism, baptismal requirements, tongues, alcohol… all in the name of defining what it really means to be “Baptist” (or Biblical, if you prefer)?

Can’t we offer just a tidbit of the grace God has offered us when it comes to such matters? Let’s drop some of our Baptist rabidity, and see if some real renaissance can occur… not Baptist renaissance, but instead… the renaissance of Christian love (by which we are to be known, in case you missed it)… Christian unity (again, that was so important to our Savior that he took time before his arrest to pray for)… and ultimately… cooperation in fulfilling the commission we have been jointly given… to spread the gospel to a world without hope.

Now THAT’s the kind of renaissance I’m talking about.

(UPDATE: Dr. Yarnell has posted some clarifications over at Marty Duren’s place, SBC Outpost. Check out the comment stream in this post.)

32 Responses to “Renaissance or Rabidity?”

  1. By Debbie Kaufman on Jan 12, 2007

    This is so good John. It really spoke to me. Thank you.

  2. By Paul Burleson on Jan 13, 2007

    John,

    Well thought out and well stated. It is a word of warning for all of us in our theological positions. John Brown said “It is wiser and safer to make the Bible the basis and text of the system, than to make the system the principal.” But to equate the two is reckless and over the top as you’ve so well stated. I’m going to take it to heart and I hope others do to. Thank you.

  3. By peter on Jan 13, 2007

    Dear John,

    I appreciate your fire that I see burn. You possess obvious passion for the Lord and what is right. Two things: first, I read Dr. Yarnell’s piece too but I did not get the same impresssion as you did. You ask “How dare we adopt such condescending views!” For me, John, the brush with which you painted Dr. Yarnell appears much more “condescending” toward him than he is toward nonBaptists.

    Secondly, John, how could Dr. Yarnell have stated Baptist distinctives without appearing condescending? Any mention of difference like “Presbyterian baptism is not Biblical baptism but Baptist baptism is” could easily be taken as condesceding.

    I trust your weekend is filled with grace. With that, I am…

    Peter

  4. By CJ on Jan 13, 2007

    Peter,

    I could say that Baptist theology is the best understanding of biblical theology, but that I see where other Christian faith communities derive their doctrine from the Bible. Don’t agree with it, but I see where they are coming from.

    I could also say that Baptist theology is obviously the only correct biblical theology and anybody reading the Bible should see that.

    Malcolm Yarnell comes across as implying the second of those statements and it seems like a sectarian perspective.

  5. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    I find the article frightening and read it as you do, John. The bottom line of what is being said is that Baptist theology equals biblical theology and therefore any detraction from baptist theology is, in effect, heresy and false teaching.

    Ironically, he begins his paper with a 16th Century story of persecution at the hands of the religious institution of the day which, likewise, believed that its theology was the only theology to have and was in accordance with the bible. More ironically, he is calling such teaching a Renaissance. Why am I seeing a shower curtain as I think about this…?

    CJ, I see that his essay actually goes a little further than your second statement. It reads like he is saying that “Baptist theology is obviously the only correct biblical theology and anybody reading the Bible should see that; moreover, if you don’t see that you are not only an idiot but you are also teaching false doctrine and are not worthy of being a part of the true Christian church, which is a baptist one.”

  6. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    I want to add that criticizing the spirit in the article is not criticizing Dr. yarnell. Neither John (i don’t think) nor I are being condescending. I simply am concerned about the implications (either intentional or perceived) of the words and apologetics used. If that becomes the predominant belief within the institution that is the SBC, I think it will have wondered far from the attitude of Jesus.

  7. By John on Jan 13, 2007

    Peter,

    I apologize if my response to Dr. Yarnell’s piece seemed overly condescending toward him. That was not my intent. I understand that Dr. Yarnell, as a professor at a Baptist seminary, believes that Baptist distinctives are Biblical, and I completely understand his desire to share those beliefs with others. I respect the work he and others are doing at our seminaries.

    My purpose in writing this was simply to encourage all of us to examine attitudes of pride toward our Baptist heritage that create unnecessary barriers between believers. I don’t have a problem with anyone believing (based on their understanding of scripture) that the doctrines they hold precious are the sole correct view… but I do have a problem with believers allowing pride over their perceived theological correctness creeping in and creating division over matters non-central to the gospel.

    Maybe I’m just missing the boat, but I really just don’t see how so many of the things that divide us are all that important in the grand scheme of things. I firmly believe that believers with a wide variety of beliefs on disputable matters can partner together to spread the gospel despite their differences. A spirit of humility is necessary to do so, however, and unfortunately, I feel that is lacking amongst many of us.

  8. By peter on Jan 13, 2007

    John,

    Thanks for the reply. I do not agree, however, that Yarnell’s post necessarily displayed pride–at least pride in a negative sort of way.

    I perfectly agree we should look for those things in which we may find unity with nonBaptists. I do. I work with multiple evangelicals–even those who would be considered nonevangelicals–in evangelistic projects. Nevertheless, to do so in no way hinders my diversity from them. Nor do I attempt to hide such. I am what I am.

    Also, the “wide variety of disputable matters” is an interesting way to put our differences with other evangelicals. Would you, for example, John, place the mode of Baptism in that “wide variety” of disputable matters? How about the historic Pentecostal doctrine of the subsequent work of the Holy Spirit expressed as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues”? Would that be within the sphere of the “wide variety of disputable matters”?

    Peace. With that, I am…

    Peter

  9. By peter on Jan 13, 2007

    Dear CJ

    Thanks for the distinction. However, I do not know what you mean by sectarian. You’ll have to explain. With that, I am…

    Peter

  10. By Jerry Grace on Jan 13, 2007

    Dear CJ,

    Imagine that. A professor at a Southern Baptist Seminary saying that he believes Baptist beliefs are Biblical and the ones his study has drawn him to conclude is right.

    How arrogant of him to say such a thing in the midst of a Christian community that is focused on tolerance of others, even to the point of proclaiming that Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

    How misguided he is to suggest that Baptist distinctives are worth preserving and have some base in scripture. Doesn’t he know such advocacy might hurt someone’s feelings. And doesn’t he know that the simple act of saying one is a Baptist, much less a Southern Baptist, is reason enough to be banished to the dungheap of the right wing.

    And how can Yarnell be so partisan as to believe that churches should not be fungible, easily attended, joined, and unjoined without any clear differences between them.

    My thanks to you for standing up against this intrusion of intolerance. The very thought that a professor from a Southern Baptist Seminary, much less one with a doctorate from Oxford, could be so uncaring is beyond belief. We don’t need denominations anyway which are little more than vehicles for the radical statements and beliefs of men like Dr. Malcolm Yarnell.

    My theology beginning and ending as follows: “I believe in the big guy in the sky” ought to be sufficient for anyone since it can easily refer to most religions without offending a single soul, without presenting any negative aspect to the role of religion in life, without suggesting the awful manmade concept of sin which is a real psychological nighmare for a human to deal with. The only problem I have encountered with this approach is that they provide no answers to the four major questions of life. But I am working on that to be sure.

    Malcolm Yarnell is indeed an ememy of religion and ought to be burned at the stake.

  11. By Todd Buck on Jan 13, 2007

    John,

    It seems that that the real divide here is the same within the wider SBC: some (me and you) consider ourselves Christians first, Evangelicals second, and Baptists third; others (Jerry, for instance) seem to consider themselves Baptist=Christian=nonEvangelical (because Evangelical means cooperation across a very real divide).

    Thanks for all of your work for His Kingdom.

  12. By peter on Jan 13, 2007

    Dear Todd,

    Thank you, Brother, for not pickling me in the same jar with the likes of Jerry Grace! And he was talking about the nerve of Yarnell to be so adamantly Baptist…

    I would like to know this, my Brother: Are you suggesting that Mr. Grace places his christian convictions AFTER his baptist convictions?

    Peace. With that, I am…

    Peter

  13. By David Rogers on Jan 13, 2007

    It’s curious to me how that Dirk Willems’ example for Baptists is noted in his commitment to the Bible, believers baptism, and the missionary mandate. All fine and well. But what about his pacifism (which he shared with just about all other good Anabaptists), and his example in treating those with whom he had theological differences with love and kindness? Interesting how we pick and choose those elements of history that best serve our purposes, huh?

  14. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    No one is attacking Dr. Yarnell. The issue is being taken with an attitude that says my way is the only way and if you believe something else I won’t associate with you and, even if i won’t say it or consciously admit it, i question whether you are even Christian when you take views different than my own. And, clearly, when we have a conviction as a Christian about a doctrine or a belief, we believe it to be correct, else it would not be a conviction, but it doesn’t mean we have to use that conviction as a tool of judgment against all others. Finally, evidence of such an attitude is the constant need to throw out litmus tests that are based on non-essential and disputable matters, whether the person using the test believes them to be or not.

  15. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    What is most frustrating to me, though, is my own humanity and frailty. I find myself slipping toward the very attitude I am decrying, holding it against those who hold it. So, please understand that I have written against what I perceived prayerfully and fearfully. I think I write against it because I see it too often in myself.

  16. By peter on Jan 13, 2007

    Dear David,

    I find your omission in Dr. Yarnell’s essay curious–assuming you were refering to Dr. Yarnell’s essay. You query: “But what about his [Willems'] pacifism…and his example in treating those with whom he had theological differences with love and kindness?”

    Yet our good Professor wrote: “Willems’ bravery…returning to extend a saving hand to his very persecutor despite his own certain death, is a startling image of the priorities of biblical discipleship.”

    To imply Dr. Yarnell picks and chooses from his examples to “serve his own purpose” is the old pot calling the kettle black strategy, if you ask me. But, of course, no one asked me.

    Grace to you, my Brother. With that, I am…

    Peter

  17. By CJ on Jan 13, 2007

    I’m rather confused. Can someone explain why Jerry Grace is directing that comment to me?

  18. By John on Jan 13, 2007

    Peter,

    You asked:

    Would you, for example, John, place the mode of Baptism in that “wide variety” of disputable matters? How about the historic Pentecostal doctrine of the subsequent work of the Holy Spirit expressed as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues”? Would that be within the sphere of the “wide variety of disputable matters”?

    Personally, I don’t see the baptismal method as being a very disputable matter… it seems pretty clear-cut in scripture that the proper methodology is by immersion, post-conversion. I honestly don’t understand how the practice of sprinkling is supported Biblically (but then again, I haven’t really done much research into the matter). I guess the answer is “no, I don’t see it as a disputable matter, although it is a difference.”

    In regard to tongues being evidence of the receipt of the Holy Spirit, I’ve seen how those that hold such a belief support it by scripture, but I simply don’t agree that their support holds up to careful scrutiny. I guess I’d classify that as “somewhat disputable, but a definite difference.”

    I must emphasize, however, that these facts (that I disagree with those particular beliefs) would not keep me from either fellowshipping or partnering in ministry with a believer who holds those positions near and dear to their heart. Further, and perhaps more significantly, I would never question such a person’s salvation on account of those beliefs, or look down on them as second-class Christians in any manner. Such an attitude of self-righteousness and superiority would be (and is) most disconcerting to me, and I hope and pray that God would keep me humble should the temptation to adopt such an attitude arise.

    Again, that’s really what my post was intended to boil down to… an encouragement and challenge for each of us to be cautious to avoid the kind of pride and arrogance that seems to almost naturally arise from belief that we’ve got theology and biblical practice all figured out, and to focus on how Christians of all stripes can be unified as brothers and sisters, partnering together to make a difference for God’s Kingdom.

    I regret that some have seen this post as a personal attack on Dr. Yarnell, Dr. Caner, or others… that truly was not my intent.

  19. By John on Jan 13, 2007

    Bryan…

    Thank you for being transparent in regard to your own struggles with this matter. I’m always encouraged by your heart-felt words.

  20. By John on Jan 13, 2007

    Jerry,

    If your sarcasm was intended to be directed my way, I beg of you to re-read my post and my subsequent comments.

  21. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    I think he may have meant me, CJ, but I’m not sure.

    As to the raising of red herrings like baptism, I will say this. I didn’t earlier because this post isn’t about this and I am quite sure that by saying it my other comments will even more easily be discarded by those who already think i’m not a good baptist.

    Although I agree with post-conversion immersion and had the honor of baptizing my son, here is my opinion as to why such matters are disputable. First, nearly all baptists would agree that baptism is not a mandate of regeneration; that is, we don’t believe in regenerational baptism or that it is a requirement of salvation. Second, nearly all agree that baptism is symbolic. Third, nearly all agree that baptism is symbolic as wearing a wedding ring is symbolic. Fourth, nearly all baptists agree that religious ritual is generally unnecessary and more tradition based than biblically based (that is, it is a nice thing for some but not a necessity to the following of Christ). Fifth, the word in Greek, baptizo, simply means immersion, just as the English word is used today. “Immersion” does not mean dunk. It can mean to be engrossed by or other similar meanings such that one can be immersed into their studies. Similarly, when in the NT it talks of being baptized in the name of Jesus it is like praying in the name of Jesus… it doesn’t mean you are dunked into the name of Jesus or that you are dunked in water and someone says some magic words (“in the name of Jesus”). Rather, it means to be immersed into the reputation and glory of Jesus the Christ. Sixth, baptism can be thought of like the Lord’s Supper, another symbol. Baptists are generally comfortable with taking the Lord’s supper with bread, crackers, wafers, practically any flour based “bread.” They also have decided not to go with wine and instead use grape juices, and, if not available, even other liquids have been used. Why is this okay? Becuase it is just a symbol.

    Given all of those agreements and foundations, one can easily come to the conclusion that the method of baptism is not nearly as important as the identification of a believer with Christ, His death and resurrection, and that can be symbolized a lot of ways, including sprinkling.

  22. By peter on Jan 13, 2007

    Dear John,

    Thank you for the clarifying remarks. Again, though, it seems to me, my Brother John, that you yourself are not taking the words you wrote with as much seriousness as you apply to Dr. Yarnell’s. You wrote “Even if well-intentioned, rabidity can often lead to an overabundance of pride in one’s own cause… to an arrogance that causes one to look down on other causes… to the putting down or tearing down of others that don’t see things in quite the same light.”

    I assume you are suggesting, since it’s his essay your critiquing, that Dr. Yarnell possesses an “overabundance of pride, “arrogance that causes one to look down on other causes” and “putting down or tearing down of others.” Those are your words, John.

    Now you may NOT have intended to do such; but I would simply say perhaps Dr. Yarnell did NOT intend to imply what you say he did either.

    Grace for tomorrow. With that, I am…

    Peter

  23. By peter on Jan 13, 2007

    Dear Bryan,

    Thank you for the most innovative description of which I think I’ve ever heard about Baptism–red herring. Exquisite, I might say, and a great thought by which I may rest my tired old body this evening.

    Peace to you. With that, I am…

    Peter

  24. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    Oh, and John, congrats on a high comment count. :)

    I wanted to add that it would be a fair criticism of my above discussion of baptism to note that I technically did not cite to the Bible and some would say I am just using human rationale which clearly does not create a scripturally based dispute. I definitely did not intentionally omit scripture, nor is it because there is none to which to point. In fact, the discussion of the word baptizo and pulling every verse in which that word is used will demonstrate the point that there is nothing that points to any particular method for baptism; moreover, it will show that the word is used to mean “immerse” in a host of ways.

    We have no idea based on the words of the NT how anyone was baptized. We know Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, so water was involved, but we don’t know if he was put under, or if he was put under if it was backward, forward, multiple times, etc. We know that the Ethiopian saw some water and was baptized there, but we don’t know if it was a trickle of water or a deep pond. We don’t know what happened. It is not described.

    Perhaps it is not described because the method is not as important as the identification and symbol. I don’t know and am not arguing against immersion. I definitely am not arguing for infant baptism or pre-conversion baptism. I just am trying to show a reasonable dispute over something baptists tend to say is settled and done. I agree with the SBC method generally, but I would not say absolutely that we have a corner on the biblical market on baptism.

  25. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    Ah, Peter, it was a red herring in the context of this post, which was about equating distinctives that are disputable with absolutes. Although, now that I think about it… :)

  26. By John on Jan 13, 2007

    Peter,

    I am well-aware of my words. I do see a difference between bluntly stating that an individual exhibits such qualities and stating that one could get the impression of such attitudes from words written, then warning a generic “we” against holding such attitudes. Perhaps, rather than “How dare we adopt such condescending views!”, I should have written, “Now I don’t know if my impression accurately portrays Dr. Yarnell or Dr. Caner, and I apologize in advance if they are hurt by the above statement for it was not my intent to offend, misportray, or inaccurately judge, but we must all ask ourselves, should we actually hold such views… How dare we!”

    *SIGH*

  27. By John on Jan 13, 2007

    Bryan,

    High comment counts are VERY overrated. I’m thankful this is an infrequent occurrence here… I really am beginning to feel a lot like I did when I originally wrote this post, except in regard to my own blogging and participation in such discussions as this.

  28. By Bryan Riley on Jan 13, 2007

    Yes, often more comments is not a signal that you have blessed others or said something profound; it is more often because the post is a source of strife. Although sometimes I hope, like this post, that you have noted something profound and it is only a source of strife for those who disagree but sense problems within their disagreement. Who knows. May God be glorified in our lives.

  29. By David Rogers on Jan 14, 2007

    Peter,

    My point is that I have seen on various occasions the early Anabaptists, and the persecution they endured, held up as our example as to our Baptist roots. However, never, in these same discussions, do I see any mention made of the Anabaptist position toward government and pacifism. If we were truly to honor the legacy left us by our “Anabaptist forefathers,” we ought to be more consistent, in my opinion. It would seem to me that Mennonites and other groups more directly akin to the Anabaptists would have a more legitimate claim to their heritage than Baptists. Also, I don’t know to what extent the whole “Baptist Renaissance” idea is really reflective of the values of the Anabaptists.

  30. By peter on Jan 14, 2007

    David,

    Thanks for the clarification, David. Unfortunately, I do not get the connection. The way I understood your comment when you wrote that Dr. Yarnell ommitted reference to Willems’ love & acceptance to those who differed was that Dr. Yarnell was “picking and choosing.” But the fact is he did no such thing. He referenced the very thing you lamented he overlooked.

    Even more importantly, my Brother David, if I understand you correctly, none of us can possibly live up to the idealism you appear to hold in either reading history or connecting with it. Given your criteria, I could not look to Luther’s example and be exhorted to stand on consciencs and the Word of God because I have no connection point with the Catholic Church or a monastary. A curious way to proceed, were someone to ask me.

    By the way, your judgement seems more than premature about Anabaptist influence. You are aware, I’m quite confident, of one theory of Baptist roots being very much indebted to Anabaptist-Mennonites. Moreso, check out Michael Westmoreland-White at Levellers http://anabaptist418.blogspot.com/ He is a Baptist scholar, a pacifist and traces Baptist roots to Anabaptists.

    Peace to you. With that, I am…

    Peter

  31. By alyce lee on Jan 15, 2007

    After reading all the comments I decided to go back and read the original article.
    Now I understand the passion from all the comments-both sides. I was shocked and frankly embarrassed.
    So we are the best of the best? Not with language like that we aren’t.

  32. By David Rogers on Jan 17, 2007

    Peter,

    I do not deny that the Anabaptists were in some way predecessors to us as Baptists. Much in the same way Baptists are predecessors to the Church of Christ.

    Yarnell quoting and holding up Willems as an example of our Baptist heritage is more or less equivalent to me as to if a Church of Christ leader were to hold up Andrew Fuller or William Carey as part of their heritage, in an attempt to bolster a “Restorationist Renaissance.”

    Regarding the “love and kindness” shown to those of other theological persuasions, I confess I didn’t read as carefully as I should have, and missed that line you quote in Yarnell’s article the first time I read it. In any case, it seems ironic to me that Willems’ example of tolerance is being held up as a model in an article that, in essence, is defending greater Baptist separatism.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.