Introduction
Given the controversy recently stirred up by the CrossPolitic episode where Baptists were said to be responsible for transgenderism I have been asked several times if I was going to do an episode regarding said statements. The Godly Troublemaker exists to shine the light of Christ in the eyes idols of our day. Do I really want to take the time away from relieving myself on idols in Athens? Actually, Athens is not my primary focus at all…my primary focus is on removing the idols of Athens that are in the church and by God’s grace and through His kindness hopefully strengthen and encourage my brothers along the way.
So my goal here, is not to mount an offense defending credo/believer baptism, which I believe is clearly the Biblical position, so much so, I that I believe there are more leprechauns and unicorns in the Bible than baptized babies (prove me wrong). I would even go one step further and say the good and necessary inferences used to justify baptizing babies is the church’s version of emanations and penumbras. Nor do I want to attack any of my brothers on this show, though I think their statements were ignorant, violently stupid and flat out pompous and proud…
Before I say anything else…let just say, I am a huge fan of CrossPolitic, will still be listening to the show and still strongly recommend all my listeners listen to the show. I celebrate what’s happening in Moscow, we’ve purchased just about every book from Canon Press for our church library, and though Toby wasn’t on that particular show Blood Bought World is one of my favorite books that we regularly stock and give away at The Ridge. I have been blessed much by everything going on in Moscow and so has my family and church and I’m sure will continue to be. So praise God for that.
One of the reasons I wasn’t surprised by their statements about baptism/Baptists on their recent show is because it’s what they’ve always believed…the only thing that’s new is saying that believers baptism in directly responsible for transgenderism…But their view, that the Baptist position in entirely subjective and individualistic is nothing new. The fact that they would connect that, foundationally, to homos and trannies shouldn’t really surprise anyone. Is it justified? Absolutely not given the amount of homos and trannies filling presby churches…
In fact their statements have the intellectual integrity, of someone saying that infant-baptists are responsible for transgenderism because their churches are filled with people pretending to be in the covenant. Or maybe they are responsible for all the homos that were born into gayness like every baby born to a believer is born into the covenant...after they’re sprinkled of course…to say such things would be stupid and fool hearted, indefensible, mean-spirited, proud and wrong. Which is why you don’t hear Baptists making those statements.
Now in all fairness, they’ve tried to explain themselves a bit (which was no retraction at all
because they fundamentally believe what they said)…In their defense they’ve said they were clearly talking about American Baptists and not 1689 Reformed Baptists…This sounds nice on the surface and I’m sure was necessary, given that they completely pissed off and alienated half their audience and probably, a chunk of their churches that have 1689ers as members.
Though this sounds nice and was an attempt to throw a bone to the 1689ers while acknowledging a great amount of differences between Reformed Covenantal Baptists and an Arminian, dispensational Baptist of which 1689ers are thankful…it is really just a way to distract from what they really believe and what they really said.
Though they themselves acknowledge differences amongst Baptists that’s not really what they were discussing and you can’t miss this. In all fairness, the context of their discussion was the rank individualism and subjectivism in our culture and among “American Baptists” (a statement that is categorically true and amen that they are shining the light of Christ on that). So when they then went on to say that Baptists are responsible for transgenderism…they can say, well the context was these kind of Baptists and not those kind of Baptists – Problem solved…nothing to see here…moving right along…
Though they make distinctions (again, appreciated)…their position is that credo baptism is to subjectivize the sacrament and make it entirely based upon subjective individual experience. It is true, that this is the case, probably in most Baptists churches…but what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…one could make the same argument in the inverse and say 100% of babies baptized were baptized based on the subjectivizing of their parents…
Are most Baptist churches off the rails? Yes, but so too are most Presbyterian and Reformed churches and that’s to completely miss the point of what they were saying. They believe that baptism is an objective sign of those who belong to the covenant community (this is where the real rub in the road is). They believe that baptism is an objective sign that replaced circumcision and is to be administered to the children of every believing parent…to not do so is disobedience.
Therefore, when Baptists only administer baptism to those who profess faith in Christ they (the Baptists) are subjectivizing the covenantal sign and making it about individual experience. It doesn’t matter how much they nuance what they said – they believe this about “believer baptism”…That being said, it doesn’t matter how many distinctions are made and how many differences in doctrine that are pointed out amongst the broader Baptist community – their issue, at bottom, is with believer baptism which applies to 1689ers as well.
That’s the equivalent of me making a statement about paedos, and then when people get their giblets all twisted up, I go on to respond about difference between the PCA and CREC churches…those differences may be true and even substantial, but it’s an irrelevant point within context which would be regarding the very practice of paedo baptism.
These guys are all smart enough to know that, which is why they are not retracting anything they’ve said, because they actually believe it, and good for them…not that I agree with them, but I greatly appreciate their conviction, and unwillingness to cave on something they believe.
This is where I think I might be able to provide value, perhaps a different angle to this
discussion. In all likelihood, this podcast isn’t changing anyone’s mind regarding baptism
(especially after my leprechaun & unicorn comment – which is hilarious) …nor is it going to change anyone’s mind regarding the statements made regarding baptism and trannies – at this point, everyone already believes the statements were justified or stupid. So then, where can I add value?
The Fight Behind Us & The Fight Before Us
Let me just say, from the outset that my goal is not to cause trouble within the church, but rather to avoid trouble by clearly pointing out what I see to be a bad moon rising. We would all admit that the last couple of years have been crazy, while at the same time wonderful in the Lord.
Though many had sounded…loud and clear warnings regarding the nature of secularism and the state of our country and what was cooking in the kitchen…the insanity that ensued with covid took everyone by surprise. To see churches willingly shut their doors and using all of the governments talking points not just to justify their cowardice but also to condemn their brother was hard to stomach.
While at the same, the Lord used this to open many of His people’s eyes as to the value and power of the corporate assembly – it forced many to articulate what is actually happening when we worship and why they will never sacrifice that. It also forced a resurgence of public theology, or at least started the discussion – this was much needed…and I am very thankful for that.
Whenever anything like this happens it brings people together…True, it can bring out the worst in people, but it can also bring out the best in people – perhaps it would be better to say that pressure simply exposes people.
This means that many churches including my own experienced substantial growth during
covid…it was amazing & we continue to rejoice in that even though at the time we knew it was unsustainable and unrealistic. The idea of a Mere Christianity is absolutely wonderful and needs to be striven for within broader Christendom, but it can’t be under one roof in a local church community within membership, and that’s ok.
The Ridge is confessionally a 1689 church. At one point, we had charismatics, Pentecostals, Arminians, fundies, reformed, dispies, pre-mill, a-mill & post-mills and paedos, and those from big churches, little churches and no churches under one roof. Given the nature of our world, or at least the current state of affairs people were willing to prioritize the ability to worship, over, perhaps what they would consider, secondary, or non-salvation related issues. When everyone is a refugee and you’re all under immediate threat that makes sense.
However, when that immediate threat is removed (in part or in whole), all those theological differences will come to the fore and we’ll soon see if they are actual convictions. It is pollyannaish to think otherwise. I say this because I think the recent CrossPolitic episode touched a nerve and the irritation and sting of that isn’t going away and we need to acknowledge that on the front end for the sake of actual unity and not a contrived conformity which never works (just love your neighbor and put on your mask).
The guys on CrossPolitic are paedo Baptists, I don’t fault them for that…I don’t agree with them on that, but so what. They are my brothers in Christ and I love them and they are not in my church. Paedo baptism is obviously a huge issue for them…for heaven’s sake, they close every episode with “go baptize your babies.” We shouldn’t be surprised that they hold the views they do, and with those same views come inverse views about credo-baptism.
Nor should we be pollyannish about the reality of the situation. The cold hard truth is, that regardless of how much someone who holds to the 1689 and someone who holds to the Westminster has in common there is a great chasm on this issue…like monkey and human DNA…on paper there is very little difference, but in practice there is a world between the two. With baptism being second and the nature of the New Covenant being primary.
So even though we would agree this is not a salvation issue…it is directly related to it – given who is in, and not in, the New Covenant community which the local church should
reflect…Therefore there is no reason to skirt around the issue for the sake unity which will ultimately just create legitimate disunity. At the end of the day, Baptists believe that babies that have been baptized haven’t really been baptized, and that paedos are administering the sacrament wrongly and misrepresenting the New Covenant community. paedos believe that credo’s are withholding the sacrament from covenantal children and withholding the blessings of the covenant from them, and are sinning against the Lord.
Can we have a broader fellowship based on what we agree upon? Absolutely, can we
functionally have that under one roof within local church membership? I do not think that you can for any length of time. I believe the shots fired on CrossPolitic represent that. For the last couple years paedos and credos were willing to let sleeping dogs lie based on the greater good…but what happens when there is a big noise in the house and all the dogs wake up.
I know many over the last couple years, myself included, were optimistic about the idea of a mixed membership…the sentiment is awesome…and on paper looks awesome – like monkey and human DNA…but eventually thought chickens are coming home to roost. This is an issue that our forefathers have fought and died over…(mostly just Baptist being murdered,) and have not found common ground on…to think that’s going away just because of Covid and tyranny is dumb.
I think Baptism is certainly an issue that we need a good responsible scrap on within the broader body, but I think having that scrap in local bodies will be devastating. Therefore, I think it would be wise, responsible and proactive for many of the churches that have mixed bodies to plant…if you have a lot of 1689’s in a paedo church, start a 1689 church and vice versa. Create a broader community of brothers that you’ve had fellowship with, and you know will link shields with you when the time comes.
I believe that breaking up and spreading out this way according to tribal distinctions will actually reduce the tribalism that will ensue if this is not done which will do more harm than good. This is why I think the shots fired on CrossPolitic stung so bad – it was as if an unspoken rule had just been violated. When in reality, nothing has been violated…We were all just reminded of differences that everyone has chosen to ignore or minimize for a time.
Conclusion
We have much bigger fish to fry in the world and in the church. Wishing presbys and 1689ers could be together under one roof is a pleasant idea, but wishing will not make it so. The sooner we come to terms with that the stronger we will all be as a result. And perhaps we’ll all take it less personally when the implications of one’s position is articulated – regardless of how stupid it may be.
_edited_edited.png)
Comments