Blessed are the peacemakers… ;)

Dr. Yarnell,

I appreciate the further clarification and the kind words.

You are quite correct that the New Testament Priesthood “stressed” is that of Christ. I appreciate that point greatly.

My apologies if I overreacted to the word “liberal.” It was loosely thrown around in days past (accurate in places, not so in others) and has made a comeback of late. I admit a sensitivity to it.

As to it being really you, I am convinced having talked to both Ben and Bart (thanks for letting me call you last night, Bart) and they have assured me it is you. Regular readers of my blog know that I dislike anonymous posting, preferring, of course, for people to own their words. I can not stand and will not tolerate someone impersonating another. My concern was to be sure to protect your integrity, and my peace of mind, by being confident that words attributed to you came from you.

As to the Conference of the Holy Spirit, I can assure you that your voice is sought because it is among the leading and most scholarly opinions advocating the absence of a PPL in Scripture. I personally, and I think the others also, really want the best minds on the subject represented.

I understand if you are skeptical. If I were in your position, I certainly would be as well.

As to any terms of your speaking, please let us know what you desire. I think you will find us very open to hosting you.

Art

PS Ben, you know full well that there is no non-alcoholic beer anywhere in Germany. ;)

Wow. You’re in Germany. Stop by Nuremburg and get a piktur for me if you will. Are you wearing lederhosen? Eating sausages? Drinking Lager? I think they have non-alcoholic beer around those Bavarian pubs.

Stille Nacht,
The “Pink” Papers Critic

Yes, it is me. Normally, I refrain from reading the blogs, especially from responding to them. (After all, I have been the subject of too many ill-formed critiques on blogs, and I have mourned over the use of blogs to slander good leaders.) However, your blog concerned Baptist theology, and that is important to me.

Please do not take my theological ruminations and terms too personally. I try to operate at a biblical and historical level, and I believe it is helpful for us to call each other back to Scripture. If you see me arguing only from an historical perspective to a theological conclusion, please feel free to correct me. Indeed, please correct me. Finally, I really appreciate your theological commitment with regard to the Word and the Spirit, and pray you will speak more of that.

Bart Barber is correct in his first paragraph. I was referring to the liberal Baptist tradition to which all of us were exposed in the 20th century, through the influence of Mullins, and ultimately behind him, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of theological liberalism. Please do not take the “liberal” tag personally, unless that is you actually agree with its theology, which I doubt you want to do. However, a succession of churches will not convince either one of us of being conservative. What will convince is a surrender to Christ and immersion (pardon the intentional Baptist pun) in Scripture.

Again, Bart Barber is correct in his second paragraph. We should garner our doctrine of priesthood from Scripture, not from the liberal Baptist tradition. And he has indeed pegged a major part of that, the distinction between the corporate and individual priesthood. Moreover, I would ask you to consider whose priesthood is stressed in the New Testament, for it is definitely not yours, nor mine, nor even the church’s. I hope that this will perhaps point out a good direction for furthering your personal theological development, personal devotion to Christ, and the subsequent power of your preaching.

As for you, Monsieur BSC, it is so good to see that you are actively interested in theology for the SBC, and that you are considering my personal welfare. No, I am not in Saint Louis. I am in Germany. How the computer registration of a Gastdozent fur Historische und Systematische Theologie, Bonn, Deutschland was routed through the heartland of America, I do not know. What I do know is that Art’s blog was worth reading and considering, for Art shows interest in theology for the sake of the church, and in that pursuit, I heartily agree with him, even when I disagree with his conclusions and his politics.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, Art had that interesting resolution available in full, and I am always interested in resolutions. Finally, I was excited to learn more good Baptist theology from a faithful pastor-theologian like Bart Barber.

Per your criticism, which, by the way, is well taken though perhaps slightly misinformed with regard to temporal matters, I return now to my writing. Sometimes, responding to requests for public debate on somebody else’s terms requires time to craft an appropriate response. Then there is the teaching responsibility in Germany, which detracts from writing. And, then there is this matter of the unbiblical practice of private prayer languages, which initially was a distraction I would have preferred not to address, but sometimes God calls us to tasks we were otherwise not considering. Of course, there is also the addition of a fifth child to the household to consider (I understand your pain, Bart). Alas, these previous responsibilities which have all detracted from my writing responsibilities will preclude my acceptance of your kind(?) invitation for a perusal of your blog.

Auf Wiedersehen,
The “White” Papers Editor

I don’t think that Dr. Yarnell is speaking of the personal tradition of Rev. Art Rogers. I think he is speaking of a general way of thinking to which we have all been exposed. Just as one might speak of the influence of English Separatism upon John Bunyan or the Enlightenment upon John Gill, one might speak of a view about Baptist distinctives and Baptist history that enjoyed hegemony for quite a while and to which everyone on every point of the spectrum from Bart Barber to Aaron Weaver has been exposed. He is not calling you a liberal; he is suggesting that a concept has its roots in the liberal tradition. There’s a difference.

If you’ll note the number on the phrase in question (believer or believers?) and dialogue with Dr. Yarnell about exegesis of the biblical passages in question, you guys might find a way forward. It is a biblical phrase, so we shouldn’t define it just any way we wish. Our definition of the doctrine ought to match what the passages say from which we have drawn the language. But frankly, the first definition of the doctrine I ever heard didn’t even make any effort at all to interact with the biblical passages. And I suspect that the definition I was first taught is a definition to which most of us have been exposed.

That, I think, is what Dr. Yarnell is saying.

First, my tradition starts in Pascagoula, Mississippi and travels through FBC, Bellaire, TX – hardly bastions of liberalism. That’s a bit inflammatory, don’t you think? It does not surprise me when certain people begin to paint others with the “liberal” brush, but I raised my eyebrows when I read that word from you. Frankly, throwing the word “liberal” around is the act of lesser minds than yours.

Second, as to the straw man of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, fair enough. I know, and think that most everyone germane to this conversation knows, that you do not espouse that. My attempt was to merely point out that as Baptists, we believe in the Scripture as revelatory and the Spirit as divine instructor, hoping this, at least would provide common ground. Surely we all agree that these two things are found in Scripture and that they apply to our working together, even if any doctrine of Priesthood of the Believer is rejected as common ground.

I would have thought with all of the other terms of respect included in my comment, you would not have read that as pejorative. My apologies.

Thirdly, it would appear that I now have to jump through the theological hoop of proving Priesthood of the Believer to someone (anyone, really) before discussing the fact that some Southern Baptists are not allowed to cooperate fully. I note that nothing else I said was addressed.

I am not sorry to state that my opinions on cooperation do not need to be vetted as theologically sound by anyone to make them valid, particularly those with whom I disagree on the subject.

Also In Christ,

Art Rogers

I’m really jealous. You visit Art’s blog and leave comments, but you won’t leave comments on my blog. This is unfair, and I object.

I promise, though, if you’ll take some time from publishing your pink papers and stop by my blog over the next few days, you’ll find some very interesting things to read.

Here’s hoping your sabbatical is much more about producing a scholarly book for publication than it is about lurking on blogs. You do realize that the amount of time you spend here is in direct conflict with the amount of time you spend going after souls, don’t you?

Art called me and asked me if this was really from Malcolm Yarnell. He was suspicious because the IP address registers from St. Louis. I told him that I thought you were in Texas, but you might be in another state interviewing for a college presidency. Like I’ve told you before, it’s just a matter of time before another one of those opens up.

One more question, Malcolm. Have you ever had occasion to discuss the matter of private prayer languages with your pastor?

BSC

Again, Art, I challenge you to compare the biblical teaching with regard to your doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. Don’t trust your liberal Baptist tradition of the priesthood of the believer. After all, that is indeed what the Roman Catholics do, trust their tradition alongside the Word of God. Return to the Word of God, and then we can talk.

I read your comment section about the kiddos. Man, I do not miss those days.

Blessings.

Art

Thanks for lending your thoughts to my blog.

Point taken concerning Religious Liberty and the defense of the populace from coercion by the state. I believe the general thought that we have always been the advocates for the rights of others to have equal standing regardless of their religious beliefs has bearing on our internal issues today. To be the ones who say that others have equal rights despite theological disagreements and then turn and say to fellow Baptists that they have less rights because of theological disagreements makes us double minded.

I certainly agree on the origin of the word “babble,” but the word takes on a pejorative tone when used as Bart did. I do not read him to be saying that those who believe they are practicing legitimate glossolalia according to Scripture are experiencing an intentional confusion authored by God. Nor do I understand Bart to say that there is simply stunted communication. I understood him to be uncomplimentary with that use of the word, and it is to that act I wrote.

As to Priesthood of the Believer, I assume you are not arguing for a more Roman Catholic ecclesiology? If not, then does not the individual Christian, taught by Scripture and led by the Holy Spirit have relevance in the discussion of beliefs? Surely so, given our structure of cooperative missions.

Finally, I respectfully disagree that the issue is about the doctrine of a PPL being found in Scripture or not found in Scripture. I recognize your position, and respect the scholarship that is behind it. Nevertheless, the issue is about whether or not Southern Baptists with whom you disagree are denied full participation in our joint efforts of global evangelization and theological education based on their disagreement with your very particular viewpoint. Of course, while PPL has the spotlight now, division over Reformed doctrines, worship styles and authorized baptism are still issues in the current discussion.

I hope that you are able to present your views at the Conference. Again, I thank you for your thoughts.

art

I saw Ben’s response, and we had a good conversation in the wee hours of this morning. Thanks.