The Old Baptist Ponders the Defense of Marriage with Dan Bagby

In the days after the voter approval of the amendment to the Virginia state constitution which strictly defined marriage as a legal arrangement between one man and one woman, the following letter to the editor appeared in the "Religious Herald," the newsjournal of the Baptist General Association of Virginia:

"I view with curiosity and bewilderment an amendment 'to protect the institution of marriage' in the Commonwealth. As a former pastor of 26 years, a current professor of marriage and family life at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, as a board member of the national Marriage Builders Coalition (an organization whose members hold a covenant to preside at weddings only after pre-marital counseling has taken place) and as a Baptist who is usually speaking twice a week in some Baptist church, I am aware that: (a) most Baptist pastors offer no premarital care or counseling to their parishioners; (b) very few Baptist churches require any kind of pre-marital counseling; and (c) most parishioners with whom I am acquainted have no interest in receiving pre-marital counseling (I wrote a book on the subject for pastors)."

"If we are serious about 'protecting marriage' as God intended, why doesn't someone offer an amendment that would prohibit divorce? That would scare a few more people from taking marriage lightly."

"Or, perhaps, offer an amendment that prohibits remarriage? Since both of these are 'God's intention,' why are we not espousing them as state laws to be enforced in Virginia?"

Daniel G. Bagby, Richmond

Besides being shamelessly self-promoting, Dan Bagby's letter is intentionally provocative and his feigned incredulity veils an animosity toward a strict enforcement of the biblical definition of marriage. Among professional confidants and former students, Bagby is known for his support of the mainstreaming of the homosexual lifestyle within both the church and society. During my years at BTSR, I was taught that a long-term, monogamous homosexual relationship should be embraced by the church as emotionally/spiritually healthy, as well as being God-honoring; to quote Professor Bagby, "I have encountered quite a few homosexual relationships which were vastly superior to most of their heterosexual counterparts." For Dan Bagby, as well as an alarmingly sizeable constituency of his fellow BTSR faculty members, homosexuality is not a sin to be condemned, but simply a natural sexual preference to be celebrated.

The foregoing criticisms notwithstanding, I do agree with Professor Bagby's implied assertion that heterosexuals bear the lion's share of the guilt for the damage done to the institution of marriage in the West. It is heterosexual fornication and adultery, along with the advent of the so-called "no-fault" divorce and serial remarriage, that has weakened the institution to the point that it is barely relevant in much of our society. According to 2005 statistics, 37% of children born that year were born out of wedlock; that's 37 out of 100 children who were without the provision and protection of a mother and a father who were in a committed, covenant relationship at the time of their births. Dan Bagby is absolutely correct about one thing: if Christians are truly serious about protecting the definition of marriage, then they should first strive to protect the dignity of marriage.

Grace and peace.

The Old Baptist Reflects Upon the Political Philosophy of Psalm 146

The hurly-burly of another political season is behind us. The chest-thumping from the winners is beginning to die down, while the losers' crying-towels are almost dry. As The Old Baptist ponders the significance of the 2006 mid-term elections (the outcome has been described as "historic"), he offers you - gentle readers - a bit of powerful political punditry from Psalm 146.

Psalm 146:3-6 read: "Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever" (ESV). The psalmist - presumably David - sets up a sober contrast between Man as a false hope and God as the only sure ground of security. Indeed, David does not choose a worldly weak and humanly insignificant subject as his foil for God; he picks the best of men in order to establish the truth of human frailty and futility when compared to the constancy and fidelity of the Deity.

Verse 3 begins with an imperative: "Put not your trust in princes..." David himself being a prince, and a mighty prince at that, knew of whence he spoke. He knew the seduction of political power; he was familiar with the pomp and circumstance that accompanied royalty. Despite the impressiveness of their regal array, King David warns us against placing our hope in them. As the venerable Matthew Henry opines, "Though we suppose them very wise and as good as David himself, yet we must not be too sure of their ability and continuance, for they are sons of Adam, weak and mortal." The psalmist concludes verse 3 with the most obvious rationale against investing ourselves fully in the strength of human princes: "...in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation." The best of men are men at best. The mightiest prince - when all the trappings of power are stripped away - is merely a son of man, born in infantile helplessness and destined to die like any commoner. As a man he does not possess the very thing that he and all other mortals most desperately need - salvation. David here highlights the folly and futility of trusting in one whose existence is marked by human finitude and whose princely treasury and armory are bereft of saving power.

Verse 4 builds upon this theme of imperial impotence. David proffers two illustrations of the ultimate weakness of any earthly prince: he cannot abide forever (v. 4a) and, therefore, his influence, accomplishments, and future strategies cannot avoid the threat of obsolescence (v. 4b). Politics and hence polititians are emphemeral; no one holds power forever. One of the most traumatic scenarios within the ancient world was the passing of a monarch; it threatened the stability of every aspect of society. The best for which one could hope was a smooth transition of power. But even then, those most closely associated with the former ruler were often imprisoned or executed. The power and protection of princes cannot reach beyond the grave and their best laid plans are often destined to total neglect and oblivion with their death. How foolish, then, to trust in someone and something so transitory!

Verses 5 and 6 extoll the blessedness of those who hope in God, whose omnipotence and faithfulness are set in stark relief to the transcient creatureliness of man. The one who trusts in God will not be frustrated because he has invested himself in One whose power cannot be checked; God here is described as He "who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (v. 6a). Surely this Being cannot be thwarted! His help is without limits and remains sure despite the failure of all else. Also, the person who sets his hope upon God will never see that hope betrayed; his God is the One "who keeps faith forever" (v. 6b). Unlike earthly kings and princes whose respective influence fails with a change of regime, the Lord God is eternal, and so "keeps faith forever." Furthermore, unlike an earthly monarch who might be notorious in his fickleness, God keeps covenant to the thousandth generation (cf. Exodus 34:7). Blessed and happy indeed is the man who trusts in Him!

The relevance of this text to our own immediate political context is, I trust, painfully obvious. Whether you voted for a Democrat, a Republican, or a "third party" candidate, the events of 7 November emphasized the unpredictable and often raucous nature of our electoral process. A "throw-the-bums-out" sentiment was dominant at the polls, as the Democrats swept the congressional and gubenatorial races. But what of those who were heavily invested in the Republican political machine? What of the pro-life movement, who looked to a majority Republican congress and a Republican White House to realign the Supreme Court and thus overturn Roe v. Wade? What of denominational groups and so-called para-church organizations, who have been enthusiastically accepted federal dollars through President Bush's "faith-based initiatives" program? Will those dollars dry up now the Democrats control the House and thus the federal purse strings; will the ministries that depend upon these dollars become defunct? How will Republican evangelicals, who have followed the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson since the early 1970's, confront an emerging reality in which the tide of their ascendancy has been apparently turned back? Where will they go; to whom will they turn? Perhaps they will heed the advice of Psalm 146 and return to the only source of power and influence that remains constant in the face of changing political fortunes; perhaps they will abandon their foolish flirtations with facile and fickle Federalists and look to a transcendant and sovereign God for guidance and strength.

Only time will tell.

Grace and peace.

The Old Baptist: What's In A Name?

Names are illustrative. Ad executives invest millions in order to secure the right product names for their clients. Parents labor joyfully and tirelessly over the selection of an expected child's moniker, usually one with family significance. Names are windows - they reveal; they illuminate. In this inaugural post I wish to begin my merry jaunt through the "blogisphere" by reflecting upon the name of my blog site: The Old Baptist.

Let's begin with the first word in the blog name: The. The definite article lends gravitas. It is a token of weightiness and solemnity. It sets its attendant concept within a specific context. It speaks of membership in a group or class. In a day of democratic self-exaltation and delineation, as well as postmodern ambiguity, my use of the definite article is an act of puposeful opposition to such detachment and individualization. I do not see myself or my comments as arising out of or existing within a ideological vacuum; with the use of The, I am seeking to identify with something definite and substantial.

Next we have the adjective: Old. In a day of "new and improved," the use of this descriptor may strike some as odd at best, suicidal at worst. This blog is launched with the promise of unoriginality. I wish to provide neither a new interpretation of old ideas, nor a new language which is sanitized of any allegedly offending or supposedly confusing theological terminology, traditionally drawn from the rich reserves of historic orthodox Protestantism - all of this being done in service to that which is often hailed as the the most noble of modern aims: "relevance." Relevance at the expense of reverence - to both God and His truth! In 1 Timothy 4:6, in contradistinction to the afore-mentioned trend, the Apostle Paul decribes "the good minister of Christ Jesus" as one who labors to put the brethren in remembrance of apostolic instruction; the Bible applauds faithfulness to orthodox tradition and abhors theological innovation. The Old Baptist pledges to serve Christ's Church by honoring that which has recently been described as "the Old Evangelicalism."

Thirdly, a consideration of the substantive Baptist is in order. One of the most disconcerting developments of recent years is the all-too-common practice by Baptist congregations of veiling their theological commitments from outside observers and inquirers. Thus, Baptist Churches have morphed themselves into Community Fellowships. In the pursuit of the quick but ephemeral thrills of expedience and pragmatism, many are happily down-playing their denominational heritage. This is nothing new. There has always been a certain scandal associated with the name Baptist. Our Particular Baptist forefathers who emerged from the Church of England during the 1630's and 1640's suffered mercilessly at the hands of crown and Parliament. Their uncompromising adherence to the theological tenets of biblical soteriology, also known as the "doctrines of grace" or Calvinism, brought the unrelenting scorn from Anglican and Dissenters of the Arminian stripe. But today's migration away from overt allegiance to the Baptist position has less to do with an outright denial of historic Baptist theological and ecclesiastical distinctives (although that is certainly and lamentably the case among far too many who claim a place within the Baptist family), and more to do with a plague of ignorance of epidemic proportions. Too many Baptist seminarians view the study of Baptist history as irrelevant and unhelpful; they would rather study John Maxwell than John Gill. Therefore, The Old Baptist is unabashedly committed to the preservation and dissemination of that which is truly Baptist in the tradition of Bunyan, Keach, Gill, and Spurgeon.

The Old Baptist: what's in a name? Everything! Eschewing the trendy, the emergent, and the avant-garde, The Old Baptist is decidedly avant-hier, promising to address the challenges and opportunities of today and tomorrow with the time-proven, biblical principles of faithful Baptists from the honored past (as well as a few from the present). May God grant to us the desire to call for "the old paths, where the good way is" (Jeremiah 6:16).

Grace and peace.