This article is part 2 of a series, you can read part 1 here.

After all the trials Naomi and Ruth experienced in the first two chapters of the Book of Ruth, God’s steadfast love appears to be at work for these women. God is not going to abandon them, and He has a good purpose even in their afflictions. He is about to put His unfailing mercy, grace, and kindness on display in the lives of these two women who have endured so much difficulty. 

As we read in this narrative, God really doesn’t do anything overly spectacular to complete this story from a human perspective. God’s steadfast love shows up, not through direct divine intervention, but through His people displaying divine love through their faithfulness.

This concept is important for us to grasp because we live in a culture of broken promises and relationships where loyalty and faithfulness are rare. People in our world often lie, breaking promises and faith in relationships. Steadfast, faithful love is almost non-existent in our society.

That’s the reality of the world, but it shouldn’t be the reality of the church of Jesus Christ. God has called Christians to steadfast love so we might reflect His character to our broken world. There are three characteristics of this faithfulness to consider from Ruth 3 and 4 as we strive to emulate the Lord’s steadfast love.

First, to emulate God’s steadfast love, we need to understand that steadfast love is relational.

We cannot display God’s steadfast love in isolation from others; we need to be in relationships with people to obey this calling of showing the Lord’s steadfast love to him and the world. We see this relational aspect of steadfast love in Ruth 3. 

In this chapter, we observe the importance of showing steadfast love in our relationships. Naomi shows her daughter-in-law this love by arranging her search for a husband. Ruth shows this love repeatedly to Naomi – especially when she adheres to Naomi’s parameters during her quest for a husband. Boaz even recognizes her love and obedience when he says, “You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich” (verse 10).Ruth also shows this love by being prudent in her search for a mate, seeking to do right before the Lord. Boaz shows this steadfast love by agreeing to marry Ruth.

If we are going to be people who display God’s love and kindness, we must interact and be in relationships with others. We need this kind of kindness in our churches, marriages, families, neighborhoods, workplaces, and so on. As we show continued kindness and grace to others, we will reflect God’s nature and character toward us. 

Second, to be people who show steadfast love, we need to realize that steadfast love is costly.

There is a difficulty that accompanies this kindness, loyalty, and love. It’s easy to be kind when people are kind to us. It’s easy to show love when we stand to gain something from that transaction. It’s easy to be loyal to those who can benefit us. However, the love God has shown to His people goes beyond what is convenient. It is costly. We see this aspect of steadfast love in 4:1-11 with Boaz’s interaction with a possible redeemer of Naomi and Ruth, who did not want to jeopardize his immediate family’s inheritance.

Ruth’s redemption in this story parallels our own – although our redemption is more costly than any human example. Our redemption was purchased, not with earthly riches, but with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1). Because of this amazing redemption, we are now co-heirs with Christ and have received an inheritance. How incredible it is that, unlike the first redeemer in Ruth, Jesus does not wish to guard His inheritance, but shares it with His people because He is our great redeemer.

As we consider steadfast love, then, we see that it is often costly, difficult, and risky. We are called to step out in faith, trusting God for our inheritance, for our protection, for our well-being – not selfishly seeking to protect ourselves from hurt, mistreatment, ostracism, or loss.

For us to love like God has called us to love, we must take risks. We will have to reach out to the person unlike us. We will have to be first to break the silence during a conflict with words of reconciliation and peace. We will have to be willing to step out to help someone we might otherwise pass by. We will have to overcome the fear of being rejected or ostracized when we tell someone about Jesus. Steadfast love is costly, difficult, and risky; it is not safe or convenient. 

Lastly, steadfast love is rewarded.

From verse 12 through the end of the book, we read of one blessing after another. Naomi, like Job, is restored. God has not been against her, but He has been working for her in her suffering, bringing about a great deliverance through her family line. Naomi’s suffering had a greater purpose, namely, the salvation of humanity.

Ruth has a son named Obed, which means worshiper, giving readers beautiful insight of this ending. Naomi went through the valley of the shadow of death and emerged praising the Lord for His goodness. Ruth is also marked as a worshiper of the true and living God, with her husband Boaz.

Christians can be assured that when we arrive on the other side of any trial and see God’s great purposes, we will be awestruck by His goodness and be driven to worship Him, like Naomi and Ruth. It’s not easy to see that promise amid our sufferings. The natural reaction is to rename ourselves Mara from bitterness, as Naomi did when she returned home. For all God’s people, though, the moment of worship comes when we see God’s glory displayed, realizing that His will is always for our good.  

The end of the story of Ruth is just one more step in the story of God’s redemption of sinners. In verses 21-22, we read, “And to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.” This David would receive an everlasting covenant of an eternal kingdom, a kingdom His offspring would rule forever and ever.

The story that began with so much tragedy ends with redemption, salvation, promise, hope, and ultimately, with worship. Boaz steps out in faith, jeopardizes his own inheritance, and becomes an ancestor of the Messiah. Ruth, who has proven her faith of the unseen Lord throughout this journey, winds up being a key person in the genealogy of Jesus. In Matthew 1, there are three women listed in Jesus’ genealogy. Two of them are Gentiles. One of them is Ruth.

Steadfast love is rewarded and blessed. It might be inconvenient, risky, and costly. Yet it is always worth it in the end. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection prove this to be true. 

Proverbs 20:6 asks a pointed question: “Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, but who can find a trustworthy man?” Many people talk about steadfast love, but few practice it. Many people say they are loyal, kind, and faithful to the end, but most of them aren’t. It’s difficult to find a person of true, faithful, enduring steadfast love. Nevertheless, may we as believers of Jesus Christ be characterized by His steadfast love in a world that desperately needs the hope and promise of salvation.

31:1. The bodies of those who have died return to dust and undergo destruction. But their souls neither die nor sleep, because they have an immortal character, and immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous are then made perfect in holiness and are received into paradise. There they are with Christ and behold the face of God in light and glory while they wait for the full redemption of their bodies. The souls of the wicked are thrown into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved for the judgment of the great day. The Scripture recognizes no place other than these two for souls separated from their bodies.
(Genesis 3:19; Acts 13:36. Ecclesiastes 12:7. Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:1, 6,8; Philippians 1:23; Hebrews 12:23. Jude 6, 7; 1 Peter 3:19; Luke 16:23, 24)
Second London Confession, 31:1

A Common Experience of Disembodied and heightened Consciousness.
“The bodies of men after death return to dust and see corruption.” What happens to the relationship between body and soul at death. This in its immediate effects is the same for all persons. At death the bodies of all persons complete their state of corruption by a rapid deterioration to dust. “From dust thou art to dust thou shalt return” (Genesis 3:19). The curse that fell upon all person as a result of the sin of Adam was the certainty of physical death. The special provision made by God for the immediate reception of Enoch and Elijah do not render the general curse doubtful or erratic (Genesis 5:21-24; 2 Kings 2:10, 11). The preacher of Ecclesiastes pointed to this universal certainty in saying, “Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, . . . Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and spirit will return to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:6, 7). 
Paul expected that death would mean that the consciousness of the spirit would be unclothed for the earthly house would be destroyed. He desired to move immediately from residence in this earthly, corruptible body to the “habitation which is from heaven.” Being unclothed, having a heightened consciousness outside the body, was not the ultimately desirable state. He knew, nevertheless, that to be in this corruptible body was to be absent from the Lord and to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. Before we go into the presence of the Lord, these bodies will die and then will undergo corruption unless our mortality is immediately swallowed up by life (2 Corinthians 5:1-8). The vagueness of mind that finds death so impenetrable, the immediate presence of God so mysterious, or the deluded assumption of some that consciousness simply ceases immediately gives way to a presence of the bright personal holiness of the triune God. Both the believer and the unbeliever will be consciously present—conscience, affections, memory, thoughts, unfiltered by devices of self-protection—before the all-knowing, all-seeing Creator and Judge.
The soul neither dies nor sleeps. “But their souls (which neither die nor sleep) having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them.”  The soul is a created thing and does not have self-existence and thus its immortal subsistence is due to something given by God when God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the “breath of life” (Genesis 2:7). “Let us make man in our image,” the triune God said (Genesis 1:26). Out of all the created beings, only man was given responsible moral character, the ability to discern right and wrong, to reflect the character of God in the choice of the good, right, and holy. Man ‘s moral nature made necessary his unceasing life in the light of the eternal relevance of his moral responsibility. Because eternal consequences are at stake in each moral choice, humans can never simply pass out of existence but will bear the consequences, in body and soul, in the way they have responded to God’s righteousness as revealed in his Law. Though man is finite, his interaction with an infinitely holy God gives each of his actions infinite and eternal relevance. Nothing arising from the moral nature of image-bearers will go unanswered and none can perish or sleep for there is never a moment when moral responsibility is absent or the moral judgment of God rests.
Particular blessings of death for the Righteous
The world recedes; it disappears!
Heaven opens on my eyes! My ears
With sounds seraphic ring:
Lend, lend your wings! I mount! I fly! 
O Grave where is they victory?
O death, where is thy sting?
– Alexander Pope –
The event for the righteous, that is, those accounted righteous for the sake of Christ, is an event of unparalleled joy, bliss, and glory. “The souls of the Righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God, in light and glory.” In his great sermon, “A Believer’s Last Day His Best Day,” Thomas Brooks (1608-1680) pointed to six changes on the day of death that constitute the reality of the believer’s hope.  One, there is a “change of place. . . . He changes earth for heaven.” The confession says that the souls of the righteous are “received into paradise.” “Today,” Jesus told the repenting, believing, adoring thief, “you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:40-43). Presently we are not in our place, therefore, we groan. On the day of death, groaning ceases, for believers have departed that environment and “they are with Christ” who has loved us with an everlasting love. 
Second, death brings for the righteous a “change of company.” No longer do the profane, the vile, the wicked, the scoffer poison the society, no longer is the soul vexed with the oppressive jocularity of the skeptic, but the reality of the living God, Jesus the Mediator, the presence of holy angels, the spirits of just men made perfect, the perfect harmony of a redeemed assembly immediately provide a company of true fellowship and undiluted joy. 
A third change becomes obvious when the employment of our energies in a constant fight and warfare against the world, the flesh, and the devil cease. What an unimaginable release from conflict and constant watchfulness is accomplished on the day of death. This fight is exchanged for praise and the consciousness of perfect triumph with no insurrection of enemies even contemplated. 
Fourth, there is a change of “enjoyments.” These enjoyments move from being obscure to being sweet, from imperfect to perfect, and from transient to permanent—“the Souls of the Righteous being made perfect in holiness.” This perfect holiness gives an unchangeable and optimal quality to the enjoyments of the Christian. “Pure are the joys above the sky, and the region peace; No wanton lip, nor envious eye, can see or taste the bliss”  (Isaac Watts). They are not fleeting, partial, fluctuating, and quickly exchanged for distress but reach the goal Paul set before the Philippians, “Make my joy complete” (Philippians 2:2). Isaac Watts wrote:
This life’s a dream, an empty show;
But the bright world to which I go
Hath joys substantial and sincere:
When shall I wake and find me there?
Fifth, death moves the believer to a “change of transience.” He is now free of external changes in location, health, wealth, strength, reputation. He is free of internal changes such as clarity of perception of the truth, strength in times of temptation, and the constant contest between the flesh and the Spirit. 
Sixth, death brings the believer to a change of rest; now the saints “rest from their labors” (Revelation 14:13). He is taken away from the evil yet to come and enters into peace (Isaiah 57:1, 2).
They now await the resurrection and the redemption of their bodies. They see Christ in his glorious body and live with a sense of increased joy in the anticipation of joining him in the glorified state with a new union of body and soul as yet unexperienced. This will be a gift given in eternity by Christ himself “who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of his glory, by the exertion of the power that he has even to subject all things to himself” (Philippians 3:31). We have borne the image of Adam in his corrupted state but then we will bear the image of Christ in his glorified heavenly state. That which is perishable does not intrude into the sphere of imperishability, but the corruptible will put on incorruptibility and the mortal will be exchanged for a state of immortality (1 Corinthians 15:48-54). God has designed us so that the life of the soul finds its most mature expression through the exertions of the body. Paul did not want to “unclothed but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.” The clothing of the spirit with an incorruptible body is the epitome of “life.” Then Paul makes the gripping statement of God’s ultimate purpose for his image bearers, “He who prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee” (2 Corinthians 5:5). The eternal state of living body and soul before God confirmed in holiness and active righteousness was the end for which we were created. To worship and love God with heart, mind, soul, and strength in the condition of having bodies that also were bought with a price brings to maturity God’s original design. The condition of innocence and the possibility of confirmed righteousness and eternal life were forfeited in Adam’s disobedience but restored in a more glorious and God honoring manner by the obedience of Jesus, Son of God and Son of man.
“The souls of the wicked are cast into hell”
The event for the wicked is one of infinite gloom, torment, and eternal fear. As the righteous find heaven and the eternal presence of a gracious God through no merit of their own, so the ungodly are consigned justly to a place of endless darkness and wrath—“the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness reserved to the judgment of the great day.” About this day Scripture speaks with firmness. “According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury tohis adversaries, recompense to his enemies” (Isaiah 59: 18). Having been consigned in accord with God’s wisdom and justice to the place of torment, these souls will await that time of final judgment when all the works of all men will be set before every perceiving being. The absolute justice of God, both in punishment and in salvation, will be on display so that every mouth will be stopped and none will be able to give any challenge. “Fear God and keep his commandments,” says the preacher, “for this is man’s all.” This will be seen without uncertainty, “for God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14). The wicked while in the state of suffering of soul also await a resurrection. Then the body of each will join the soul in a unified sense of personal suffering exactly in accord with strict justice.
There are no other options.
Though both heaven and hell have this two-fold experience for those who died before the coming of the Lord—out of the body and then with the body—no other destinations beyond death are given in Scripture. The confession says simply, “besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.” This amounts to a specific and unequivocal denial of purgatory and limbo in Roman Catholic theology.
In short, purgatory is the destination of virtually all those who have faithfully embraced the doctrines of the Catholic church, have received the sacraments regularly, and thus eventually will enter heaven. Though all their desert of eternal punishment was taken by Christ, the temporal dimension of chastening is proportioned to the degree of purity and perfection in their acts of penance while in this life. Hardly any, except those denominated “saints” have had such purity of penitential duties. All others, therefore, must go through degrees of temporal punishment and purification for the inadequacies that permeated their penance as regulated by the priest. The Council of Trent solidified the doctrinal position: “Therefore the priests of the Lord ought, as far as the Spirit and prudence shall suggest, to enjoin salutary and suitable satisfaction, according to the quality of the crimes and the ability of the penitent; lest, if haply they connive at sins, and deal too indulgently with penitents, by enjoining certain very light works for very grievous crimes, they be made partakers of other men’s sin. But let them have in view, that the satisfaction, which they impose, be not only for the preservation of a new life and a medicine of infirmity, but also for the avenging and punishing of past sins.” 
This concept of satisfaction involving “avenging and punishing” as an element of the sacrament of penance arises from a doctrine of justification in which sanctification constitutes an integral part, in that the sinner is not declared just but made just—“seeing that in the new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of his passion, the grace whereby they are made just.” This “cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof [baptism].” In this way “justification . . . is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man . . . whereby man of unjust becomes just. . . . we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are just, receiving justice within us . . . according to each one’s proper disposition and cooperation. . . . Having, therefore, been thus justified, . . . they through the observance of the commandments of God and of the church [italics mine] faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified.” This, however will not serve finally and absolutely to justify a person, for “If any one saith, that, after the grace of justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened to him: let him be anathema” [Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, “On the necessity and on the Fruit of Satisfaction; “Decree On Justification,” chapters  3-10 and Canon XXX].
The doctrine of “limbo teaches that two spheres short of both heaven and hell and not identified with purgatory are limbus infantum and limbus patrum. Unbaptized infants and the mentally incompetent who have not been cleansed of original sin by baptism but have no guilt from personal knowledgeable transgression are kept in a state of general natural joy but never experience the “beatific vision” of the immediate presence of the glory of the triune God. The fathers prior to their liberation by the work of Christ were kept in a similar state until their ascension to heaven was made possible by Christ.
The framers of the Second London Confession found no scriptural propositions for either of these concepts of the post-mortem position of people. They were in fact, not of neutral quality but antagonistic to the perfection of the finished work of Christ—the consummated obedience of Christ to every demand of the Law (Romans 5:18, 19; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:7-10) and the propitiatory death of Christ (Romans 3:25, 26; 1 John 1:7-10; 2:1, 2; 4:9, 10)—that brought forgiveness of sins and a reckoning of righteousness for those who manifest a trusting submission to acceptance before God only in that redemptive transaction. As the article on justification states [Chapter 11.3]: “Christ by his obedience, and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified; and did by the sacrifice of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead, the penalty due unto them: make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in their behalf: yet in asmuch as he was given by the father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.”

NOTES:
[1]  Thomas Brooks, A Believer’s Last Day His Best Day. Chapel Library, Pensacola: 2019.

Tweet Share

Last week our friends over at CrossPolitic (CP) posted a couple of podcast episodes that understandably offended large numbers of Christians who take God’s Word seriously. They did it in the name of “rowdy Presbyterianism,” serrated edge communication, and even brotherly love. Their original failure was bad enough. But their multiple follow-up defenses of their antics suggest that their mischaracterization of Baptists might be a feature, not a bug.
For the uninformed or slightly informed, what they tried to say is that the rampant individualism that permeates much of the Baptist and evangelical world can pave the way for transgenderism in America. But what they actually said is that Baptist theology “is the cause of” transgenderism. If you want to get up to speed you can go here to see the original source of the lingering stench they created when they intentionally stomped on some cow pies and then continued to track their mess throughout the reformed evangelical house. What they should have done once friends began to complain about the stink and collectively point to the source, was stop, remove their shoes, and start cleaning up the mess they made. That would have been both right and wise.
After all, that’s how Christians live, right? We are both believers and repenters. When the Corinthians became convinced by Paul’s rebuke that they had stepped in it what did they do? They grieved in a godly manner and repented and Paul commended them for it. “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter” (2 Corinthians 7:10-11).
Some may not judge what the CP men did as sin that needs to be repented of. Others understandably see the accusation as slanderous. In the spirit of 1 Corinthians 4:13, I would like to entreat my brothers to own what they have broadcast on their show and recant. Even if they cannot be convinced of sin, I hope they will at the very least realize that their words and actions have certainly catapulted way beyond the walls of wisdom and deep into the fields of foolishness. Either way, what was said should have been simply and plainly renounced.
Instead, they doubled down. “What stink? Let me explain to you why the sights and smells that you find problematic are really due to your hyper-sensitivity and not the poop on our shoes.” That basic thesis has been defended first by a follow-up podcast episode and then three (so far) written essays, not to mention various social media comments. The common theme in each is, “Hey, we didn’t do anything wrong. Why are your knickers in a knot?”
What They Actually Said
Gabe Rench has rightly appealed to people to “deal fairly with what we said.” I intend to do just that because burning straw men serves only to pollute the relational environment and is beneath the kind of good-faith engagement that should mark disagreements among Christians. Of course, the same is true about defending straw men when real men have actually been critiqued. More on that later.
In a CP show called, “From Slavery to Abortion to Transgenderism—The Church Led us to the Trans Movement,” David Shannon, Gabe Rench, and Jared Longshore were joined with video-guest, Jason Farley. Farley explained the rising transgenderism with its attendant mutilation of bodies with this statement (at 14:15): “This is just American Baptist Theology secularized.” At the end of that show, Shannon encouraged viewers to join the Fight, Laugh, Feast Club so that they could hear the rest of the conversation that would take place with Farley “Backstage.” Both of those shows are helpfully embedded in Gabe Rench’s article here.
Burning straw men serves only to pollute the relational environment and is beneath the kind of good-faith engagement that should mark disagreements among Christians.
That “Backstage” episode is entitled, “The Failure of Baptist Theology,” which precisely indicates that for which they actually argue during the next 27 minutes. That conversation, which continued without Longshore, opened with this exchange between Rench and Farley:

Rench: Let’s say I am Baptist Rench and you just said what you said.
Farley (laughing): I know. David gave me permission.
Rench: You came out and said that my view of waiting till my child is ready to confess faith in our Lord and then baptize them is, is related to the identity crisis found in transgenderism.
Farley: Yeah, I didn’t say “related to” I said, “is the cause of.”
Laughter by Knox & Rench
Rench calls that comment “a bomb” that Farley throws into the lap of faithful Baptist families, in essence saying to them, “you are the cause of the transgender problem.”
Farley: Yeah. Well, the pastor is, but yeah.

Farley goes on to talk about abortion being the church’s fault due to Christian parents because “we were the ones that started saying, “‘Not my kids,’ right?—that birth is not enough for me to say that, ‘Yes this is my kid’ because God doesn’t think in those categories. Right?”

Rench responds, “Right.”
Farely: Well, the categories that God thinks in are more real than any of the categories that I think in. So, if God looks at my kids and says,”‘Not my kids,” God is rejecting my kids before I ever do, then that’s a much deeper issue than [he does not finish his thought]. So then when the world comes along and says, “Well, look, they’re not even kids yet, right?”
Rench & Knox: Yeah
Farley: “We can kill them.” Just today, my 16 year old son who just got his driver’s license. We were driving home he was like, “Dad I was talking to my Baptist friend and I said, ‘So why aren’t you baptized yet?’ He was like, ‘Well you gotta make the choice and stuff.’ ‘Well, hurry up and do it.’ ‘Well, that’ s not really how it works, you gotta mean it and stuff.’
And he [Farley’s son] went on to say, “When your parents were adopted by God do you think that wasn’t going to include you? [Like God would say:] ‘I’ll take you but I don’t want your kids?’”
Rench: “Wow”
Farley quoting his son, who continues to speak for God: “‘I’ll be your dad but I won’t be your grandkids’ grandpa?’”
Rench: Right. Wow.

So here we have advocates of CREC theology applauding “God as grandfather” of “covenant kids.” More could be said but stop for a moment and just let it sink in a bit.
The grandfatherhood of God.
What about great-grandfatherhood? Are we to believe that when God adopts parents that He would seriously tell their grandchildren that He doesn’t want them? Does He really say, “I‘ll take you and your kids, but not your grandkids?” If yes, then why? If not, then…at what generation does the logic no longer hold?
I belabor this point for this reason: It makes clear what was actually said, affirmed, and commended by David Shannon and Gabe Rench and later defended by Toby Sumpter and Jared Longshore. You need to keep this in mind when you consider the defenses they offer when you listen to the 3rd video and read their written arguments. Because in the name of defending the points they actually made (as I’ve just documented) they actually try to defend that which they perhaps wish had been said.
What They Actually Defend
My purpose isn’t to critique every wrong thing that was said in this whole fiasco but rather to focus only on the foolish claims the CP guys made about Baptist theology and the problematic ways that they have responded to it once they were called to account. However, I do want to highlight the following comments by David Shannon. They added nothing to the purported explanation or defense of the erroneous and false accusations cited above, but they do reveal a wrong way of viewing the differences between Baptist and Presbyterian theologies (and therefore, practices).

Shannon: “I love my Baptist brothers more than they love me and I have evidence of that. I am part of a denomination, the CREC, that believes that Baptists and Presbyterians should not separate over the issue of baptism…. Every Sunday I am in communion and fellowship and membership with Baptists inside my Presbyterian church and we’re breaking bread at the table…. The way that Baptists view Presbyterians when it comes to be in relationship to them at the table in communion with them in membership in the church,… is that, ‘We’re friends but you can’t be a member of this church. You can’t have communion with us.’… Like if my children grow up and go to a Baptist church they have to be rebaptized.”

The assumption that a lower view of the importance of baptism is more loving than a higher view is unfounded. It is true that Baptist theology forbids any unbaptized person membership in the church. Of course, Presbyterian theology does the same thing—only those who have been baptized are proper candidates for membership in their churches, too. Baptists and Presbyterians are in complete agreement on this point.
Our differences are found in what constitutes baptism. Presbyterians practice paedobaptism. Baptists do not recognize that practice as legitimate baptism. We can fight (and, through the centuries, have fought) over what constitutes legitimate new covenant baptism, but we agree that only those who have been baptized can be members of our churches. There is nothing unloving to hold, following the clear teaching of the New Testament, the theological conviction that “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance” (1689 Confession, 29.2). That means, in Baptist theology, only believers can experience biblical baptism. It has nothing to do with love but everything to do with biblical conviction. This is what causes Baptists to say that baptism is for believers alone.
Toby Sumpter doubles down on Shannon’s point a little later when he says that the practice of closed communion by a Baptist church is a “more extreme thing” than what Farley asserted about Baptist theology causing transgenderism. Both he and Shannon are confusing categories. Farley accused “Baptist theology” of causing transgenderism. A common practice for many (most?) Baptist churches for 400 years has been to fence the table against unbaptized people. The former is a scurrilous gratuitous assertion that scored points for being edgy and cool. The latter is rooted in careful exegesis of God’s Word that has resulted in deep doctrinal conviction that can be (and has been) debated. The effort to compare them and then to suggest that a long-held Baptist practice is “more extreme” than a silly assertion is a swing and a miss.
In Baptist theology, only believers can experience biblical baptism. It has nothing to do with love but everything to do with biblical conviction. This is what causes Baptists to say that baptism is for believers alone.
For what it is worth, I, a Baptist, have at times been uninvited to commune at the Lord’s Table with fellow Baptists while worshiping in their churches. By conviction, they regard the Lord’s Supper to be a local church ordinance for local church members. That is not my conviction, but I hardly find their practice offensive, unloving, or extreme. In fact, I rejoice that they actually care enough about it to take it seriously.
All this brings me back to my disappointment over the ways that the CP brothers have handled this whole unfortunate mess. Rather than deal with what was actually said, their defenses and explanations have centered on other things. For example, Shannon stated, “There are Baptist brothers who I don’t fit inside of the same box as American Baptist theological foundation system.” Gabe Rench echoed this defense in his written response to the controversy.

On our CrossPolitic show on Wednesday, my friend Jason Farley said the American Baptist theology turned-secular is why we have the trans culture that we have today (around the 14 minute mark). To be clear, I agree with Jason, and so did Knox and Pastor Toby. Also to be clear, we said the American Baptist theology, not Reformed Baptist theology. Distinctions matter, right?

Yes, distinctions do matter. Five minutes after Farley’s statement that transgenderism is “just American Baptist theology secularized” (in the original podcast) Shannon personifies the type of pushback that they anticipate that statement will evoke. Portraying Baptists who are trying to follow Christ faithfully he says,

There is a group of people that think that what they are doing—they are doing family worship, they are trying their very best, they are seeking to honor God in how they are raising their kids in every way, and saying, “We’re covenantal, we’re Baptist, but we are covenantal. Right?”

Which Baptists other than those who are Reformed would call themselves “covenantal?” It is disingenuous to suggest that Farley’s accusation was a sniper shot at “American Baptists” that excluded “Reformed Baptists” (or any other kind, for that matter) in light of Shannon’s characterization of the kind of Baptist that they are addressing. Further, the follow-up “backstage” episode during which they elaborate the charge is, as I mentioned above, entitled, “The Failure of Baptist Theology (my emphasis).” No distinctions. No qualifications. No exclusions. Just a shotgun blast with #8 shot.
On the episode that attempted to clarify their meaning (“Baptists vs Presbyterians? Christian Unity & Separation on Theological Issues”) Sumpter goes to great lengths to defend what Farley never said. After setting up his point by noting that Presbyterianism “can grow a certain kind of cancer” he remarks, “I’m a Presbyterian. I just hit myself.” For emphasis he added, “Were a bunch of Presbyterians white supremacists in the South? Yes.” Then he makes what he thinks is a valid point.

There’s really no difference in saying that and saying, “Does Baptist theology, can it grow mold? Can it grow cancer? Can it grow tumors? Can it become a corruption?” Who’s gonna say no? And, if Jason Farley says, “Hey, one of the tumors that Baptist theology can grow is radical individualism”…. James White is not even denying it; he’s saying non-confessional Baptist theology… is particularly prone to grow this kind of mold, to grow this kind of cancer. Does that lead to radical individualism… Does that turn into transgenderism? Yes.

I agree with this completely. “Who’s gonna say no?” But that is a different conversation from the one provoked by Farley’s broadside. Sumpter seems to think that Farley spoke in the subjunctive: “If Jason Farley says, ‘Hey, one of the tumors that Baptist theology can grow is radical individualism….,’” If that is what Farley had said, then no harm, no foul. Play on. But Farley spoke in the indicative. He asserted a statement as a fact. What he actually said is that the Baptist conviction of baptizing only those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord “is the cause of” transgenderism.
I wish someone would actually try to defend what he actually said and not what they might have wished he said. If the theological convictions and practices of Baptists are responsible for the transgenderism in our culture then at least try to make an argument to demonstrate it. Don’t take the worst examples of a theological position, or worse yet, a perversion of a position, highlight its deficiencies, and then claim to have made your case. If Baptist theology is the problem, then at least marshal some theological arguments.
The lack of such argumentation underscores another weakness of all the responses thus far, and that is the lack of any biblical engagement at all. I know some Presbyterians think my Baptist impulse to want actual biblical texts to undergird theological arguments and positions is a quaint type of biblicism. But if you are going to charge “Baptist theology” with failure and with causing the transgender movement in our culture, is it too much to expect at least a modicum of actual biblical exposition showing the error of that theology? If that is a request too great to bear could we at least have some proof texts cited? As I read the written responses and watched the videos it became increasingly evident that if the Bible were a virus then the CP shows and defenses would be in no danger of catching it.
If you are going to charge “Baptist theology” with failure and with causing the transgender movement in our culture, is it too much to expect at least a modicum of actual biblical exposition showing the error of that theology?
Well, much, much more could be said about the failures of the CP brothers in how they have handled the stink they have created. Rather than simply acknowledge the facts—that Jason Farley laid an egg with a slanderous statement that should be walked back—they have doubled down, tried to convince us of what we should have heard, suggested that those who find his accusation scurrilous and indefensible simply don’t know how to communicate like men, with a serrated edge, or especially like Jesus. As one young pastor friend graciously put it, these responses are “honestly close to gaslighting.”
While some might be impressed with all these moves, I, and I am guessing many others, have seen this play before. Rather than take the “L” and move forward, the typical way that most contemporary Christian organizations respond to legitimate concerns is to dismiss them as missing the point, being untoward, or having no relevance. Then the wagons are circled in hopes that the news cycle passes quickly.
Such responses always leave me cold because they are no different from those who have no Savior. Christians have no reason to resist owning our sin and failures. Our Lord was crucified and raised from the dead. We don’t have to pretend that we live sin-free lives or try to obfuscate or coverup when sin or shortcoming in our lives and ministries come to light. We can own it, repent, make things right, and move on in faith.
But that doesn’t seem to be the evangelical way anymore.
I hope better for the CP men.
After writing this I learned that both Jeff Wright and James White have responded to this fiasco. Both are worth your attention.

Follow Tom Ascol:

Tweet Share