Is Piper wrong here?

I really liked this letter......... Read on


A Pastor's Opinion as to Bethlehem Baptist Church's Unfortunate and Dangerous Decision

By Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church
Ormond Beach & Palm Coast, Florida

On August 9, 2005, the Council of Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minn., approved the following motion (23 "yes", 1 "no"): “The Elders recommend to the church that the Constitution and By-Laws be amended in accordance with revision 08-09-05 as amended by the Elders (on 08/09/05), of the document entitled Baptism and Church Membership at Bethlehem Baptist Church”.

To my knowledge, this motion has not yet been approved by the congregation at Bethlehem. Information that is cited in this “open” letter, concerning the details of this recommendation by the Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church, may be found here.
An Open Letter to Bethlehem Baptist Church:

It is with a high regard for the Bethlehem Baptist Church and its senior pastor, Dr. John Piper, that I make the following observations. My motive is not out of malice or the desire to stir up a controversy among the brethren. On the contrary, it is with great fear and trepidation that I seek to enter into disagreement with a man that I consider one of the great stalwarts of the faith in our day.

John Piper has been greatly used of God in ways that are both known and unknown. He has been a catalyst for reformation among young men and women around the world, and he possesses what many of us believe to be a God-given influence which is presently unequaled among leaders of the reformed faith (especially Baptists). The consequences of this influence have not left Bethlehem Baptist Church unaffected by his contagious passion for the glory of God and the salvation of the lost.

I have spent two weeks in that wonderful church. Bethlehem's witness for Christ and His glory impacted my life and ministry in ways that I cannot describe. I love that church and its pastor, who I believe has been and continues to be a mighty weapon in the hands of God. Dr. Piper has been used of God for a renewal of vision and passion for a God-enhanced theological and practical approach that affects everything from preaching to missionary zeal. It is his sanctified heart and mind that God has bestowed upon him that sets him apart from the mass of preachers in our day. He is a man of God who should be held in high regard among the brethren.

And though John Piper would never seek such favor among us, we must acquiesce to God’s Word in 1 Thess. 5:12-13, “ . . . esteem them (those who diligently labor among you . . . and give you instruction) very highly in love . . .”.
I must also qualify my objections by stating definitively that Bethlehem Baptist Church is a local, autonomous congregation and possesses the governmental liberty to make determinations without regard for external influence. It does not mean, however, that those decisions are biblically correct.

I must also stipulate that my determination to make this an "open letter" to Bethlehem Baptist Church is due to the widespread distribution (internet and other means) of that church's decision on changing its qualifications for church membership. It has been Bethlehem's desire (for which I am extremely glad) in recent years to have a broader influence on the evangelical world through the means of publishing, internet access and conferences that make responses like this inevitable.

Though Bethlehem has the freedom and authority to make this decision, it has ramifications which may be broader than ever imagined. This is certainly true for those of us who are Baptists. As a Southern Baptist pastor for the past 32 years, I think I know somewhat about the kind of negative feedback which will occur in our ranks among those who come from a more Arminian perspective.

For those who may not know it, Southern Baptists are in the underlying throes of a theological conflict. There is everything from Pelagianism (at least semi-Pelagianism) to Hyper-Calvinism in our ranks, and great confusion is in our future if this matter is left unattended. We have everything from cold, dead, passionless theologues to high-flying preachers who baptize their converts in baptistries shaped like red fire engines. One of the SBC's past presidents has even stated that we are now practicing “infant baptism” through the abuse of Vacation Bible School evangelism.

I don’t want to leave the impression that there is nothing positive happening in our ranks. On the contrary, there are a number of good things happening in our midst. I'm talking about things that especially relate to a renewal among our young college and seminary students for a passion for God’s glory and a restoration of the biblical gospel. These young minds and hearts are apparently sick of the fluff and hollowness of a man-centered theology and the carnal use of human manipulation resulting in a bloated church membership and false conversions.

This leads me to the point of this decision at Bethlehem, especially for Southern Baptists. This renewal among our Baptist young men and women has been greatly aided by the conviction and forthrightness of Dr. Piper. Some would even argue that no other person has been as influential as Dr. Piper for this on-going reformation. I would certainly be hard-pressed to name anyone who has been used of God among Southern Baptist youth to the extent that Dr. Piper has in the past decade.
Now in light of Bethlehem's decision to receive some into the congregation who have been baptized as infants, we must part with Dr. Piper and Bethlehem. It will certainly be used by those who still possess enormous influence in our denomination to draw young Baptist students away from reading Piper’s works and listening to his sermons. I heard it stated over four years ago by a well-known leader in our ranks that this “Calvinism in our midst will always lead to a full covenantal theological approach which ultimately practices infant baptism.”

Of course, we who embrace the precious Doctrines of Grace responded by saying that was ludicrous. We may have been wrong. Granted, the ignoring of our own history in Southern Baptist life has led many to be blinded to the fact that the great stalwarts like Boyce, Dagg, Manly and Broadus, as well as Lottie Moon, were Calvinists. Coincidentally, these valiant Baptists never turned away from the Baptistic understanding of believer’s baptism. Of course, those who possess wisdom will not "throw the baby out with the wash." Many of us will continue to read Dr. Piper’s works and listen to his sermons. But this does not diminish the negative impact this unfortunate decision will cause in our ranks.

All the above is worthless speculation if there is no substance to my disagreement with Bethlehem’s decision. Besides reading the anticipated amendments to Bethlehem’s By-Laws concerning the approval of receiving some who have been baptized as infants (without immersion after regeneration), I have read and re-read the appendices which set forth arguments (primarily from Dr. Piper) that seek to justify the substance of the decision in this matter.

Again, I must reiterate my understanding of the church's authority as a local church to make such arguments and approve of such practices. However, the church's high visibility, especially among Baptists, demands a response from those who will be affected within their denominations.

There are three areas of concern that I would hope Bethlehem would consider.
First, there is the matter of biblical authority and accuracy. Granted, while all who would claim a full and infallible interpretation of Scripture would rightfully be considered arrogant, it still remains a legitimate goal of all who believe the Bible to seek a rightful dividing of it. Disagreements over interpretive issues occur on a regular basis among men of God who sincerely seek the Truth, but when that truth is known, there must be no room for capitulation.

John Piper has said unequivocally that the immersion of believers is the only legitimate and proper understanding of New Testament baptism. He has also preached explicitly against the covenantal view of baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of entering the New Covenant. Clearly, he has stated, (to paraphrase) faith is the required entrance into the enjoyment of this New Covenant. This is certainly the view which has been held among Baptists for centuries.

Also, Bethlehem has stated in its documents: The teaching and practice of baptism at Bethlehem Baptist Church is defined in Section 12 of the BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH ELDER AFFIRMATION OF FAITH. The key paragraph states: We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord by which those who have repented and come to faith express their union with Christ in His death and resurrection by being immersed in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is a sign of belonging to the new people of God, the true Israel, and an emblem of burial and cleansing, signifying death to the old life of unbelief and purification from the pollution of sin. Thus, the official Bethlehem position is that only baptism by immersion of believers will be taught and practiced by the church. Customarily, therefore, all members of the church will have been baptized by immersion as believers.
It is, therefore, without controversy that Dr. Piper and Bethlehem interpret the Scripture as stating that only believer’s baptism through immersion is the legitimate mode and method of New Testament baptism. If this is plainly believed (as it appears to be) by the elders and membership of Bethlehem, then what form of reasoning would lead them away from the accuracy and authority of Scripture? Perhaps I simply don’t understand. But it seems, in my opinion, to demonstrate a subtle compromise of known truth, which will establish a dangerous precedent.
Secondly, though Dr. Piper and Bethlehem possess what Baptists believe to be a biblical view of practice in the church, they may be guilty of "incrementalism." This term is used by some to describe the slow and subtle movement away from biblical authority. In Spurgeon’s day, it was called the “downgrade.”
I don’t want to put Bethlehem’s decision in the dark light of the incipient liberalism of the 19th Century. But to put it bluntly, if the Bible, in Dr. Piper's own words, teaches believer’s baptism only, then what possible reasoning could be used to practice what is self-designated as the acceptance of “the minimum doctrinal and life standards for membership"?

Now, I must hasten to agree, in principle, with the spirit of the statement. Obviously, it would be unwise for any church to expect new converts and members to be theologians and expert practitioners of New Testament ecclesiology. However, the letter of the above statement is questionable in light of the determination to permit the allowance of error (according to the church's own theology), due to a possible “violation of their (the new members') conscience.” In this case, I don’t think the word “doctrinal” should be in the statement, since what they are allowing is not doctrinal but experiential.

I do not want to misrepresent the matter as Bethlehem sees it, so here is the reasoning in this matter in that church's own words. However, we believe it is fitting that membership in the local church (distinct from leadership in the local church) should have prerequisites similar to the prerequisites for membership in the universal church. In other words, we believe it is unfitting to deny membership to a person who, by faith in Christ, gives evidence of regeneration.
I don’t mean to appear condescending when I say this, but aren’t there some members of the “universal church” who are unlearned and immature to the extent that they will not submit to the authority of a local church?

We could argue about the legitimacy of the conversion of these people, but I think we would all admit that some truly saved people are not members of a local church for wrong reasons. Of course, chastisement is certainly in their future, but that does not change the fact that they exist. Another problem I have with this line of Bethlehem's reasoning is the failure to recognize the distinction between the local church and the universal church.

How often does the Bible speak about the universal church? Very little, and usually in a future perspective. For instance, the innumerable body of believers around the throne of God in the book of Revelation is a future vision. The point is, the Bible, when speaking specifically of “church,” is usually referring to the local manifestation of the universal body, which is the local church or congregation. It must be understood, that the requirements of entrance into the universal and local church are clearly distinctive. All, or at least most, would agree that entrance into the universal body of Christ is the work of regeneration resulting in conversion, justification and glorification.

But entrance into the local church is very different. For instance, regeneration is not necessarily required for entrance. Before readers blow a fuse on this one, let me explain. We know that true regeneration is only known by God and the one regenerated. When “converts” are allowed entrance into the local church, we are limited in our judgment as to the fruits which are "meet for repentance." We cannot be certain of another person’s salvation when he/she enters the local church. If we could, there would be no "tares" in our midst. Even the most ardent church in this matter of seeking to discover the external manifestations of true conversion fail at times to judge properly. As pertaining to the present controversy, while entrance to the universal church does not require believer’s baptism, entrance to the local church does.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to the seekers, “Repent and be baptized . . .” The Word also adds in Acts 2:41 (NASB) So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

This qualification of baptism need not be debated, for Bethlehem has agreed to the biblical nature of it by stating, unequivocally, “We will not admit into membership persons who refuse to practice any form of baptism at all.” This statement, in my opinion, creates a theological dilemma for Bethlehem. First, how can this be reconciled with the church's desire for entrance into the local congregation to be synonymous with membership in the universal church while requiring a requirement for local membership which is not required for entrance into the universal church? Is this regeneration resulting in conversion and justification alone? Secondly, it creates a quagmire by requiring, inconsistently, I might add, a baptism, which by Bethlehem's own admission, is unscriptural. This is incrementalism--reasoning which is not only against the clear teaching of Scripture but against reason itself.
To this point, I have expressed my concerns in a brief fashion as to the question of biblical authority and the danger of incrementalism. Now I must close with my third and final argument. I must be extremely careful at this point because I may be entering into motives which I cannot possibly discern. Therefore, I will only speak in general terms without accusing our dear brothers and sisters at Bethlehem of something that is probably not true of them.

I have observed, among Baptists who have embraced the Doctrines of Grace, a unique camaraderie with those with whom we disagree on other theological matters. One of the causes of this is the enormous hostility we sense from our own Baptist brothers who think of us as almost “cultish”. This offends many Reformed Baptists, who often feel more kinship with Presbyterians (and others) than with our own. This is unfortunate in one way and commendable in another.

It is unfortunate, especially among our own in the SBC, that we should all examine the truth we preach in our own denomination. We should do so before judging the likes of those who only embrace doctrines which many of our seminary professors comply with every year by signing what is called the Abstracts of Principles. This document states, among other things, that Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life--not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ--in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

It is commendable that we should embrace, love and fellowship with our converted brothers of different stripes--especially if they believe that salvation is a free act of God’s grace whereby in Christ alone is there salvation through faith alone. Our Presbyterian brothers and others should be our friends, even though we disagree about some matters of importance, though not vital to salvation and entrance into the universal church.

But for us, as Baptists, or for that matter, for them, as Presbyterians, to contradict what we hold to be according to God’s Holy Word as Truth is a dangerous proposition. We have former Presbyterians at Riverbend Community Church, but they have submitted to the authority of the local church and followed the Lord in believer’s baptism through immersion. If their consciences do not allow for it, we gladly invite them to stay under the ministry of the Word in our church (though not as members). If they can’t, they can leave and go where their consciences are not pricked. I may be wrong, but I see confusion reigning when we allow for something we know is unbiblical by nature so as not to violate someone’s conscience.

What are our children growing up under our ministries going to learn from this? We often hear that actions speak louder than our words. I hope that Dr. Piper, the Elders and members of Bethlehem Baptist Church will reconsider this monumental decision. If they do not, I will still love, pray for, read and learn from these great saints of God. But I will thoroughly disagree with their decision concerning entrance into a local church and what many of us believe to be their unwitting deterioration of valuing the absolute authority of God’s Word in all matters of faith and practice.

(Eccl 10:1 NASB) Dead flies make a perfumer's oil stink, so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor. Let us all take heed, lest while we guard against the monstrosities of soteriological error, we let the little foxes spoil the vines in our vineyard.
Humbly Submitted,

Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church