Thoughts on Paul Chappell's message Eight Calls to America's Pastors

Paul Chappell emailed me the link for this message, preached at his annual Spiritual Leadership Conference in June of 2013. It came along with the subject heading "I missed you at the conference" and an invitation to download his e-book "America Tomorrow." I downloaded the book (but have not yet looked at it) and listened to about 3/4 of the message which was delivered in what he called a "session."

The message begins early on with a sound bite from the most recent Democratic National Convention where it was voted (but was more like railroaded down the throats of the participants) that there would be no mention of God at the Convention. Chappell uses that as an appeal to his patriotic Baptist delegates that America is in trouble spiritually and suggests that this message is intended to give us direction as to how to help America in her time of trouble.

Some observations I have concerning the message:

It was certainly not expositional. 

Men like Brother Chappell insist that expositional preaching is the only kind of Scriptural preaching but they often break away from it when they want to say what they want to say. 

He pushed the concept of prayer and revival

This was first and foremost and gave the rest of his message a sense of legitimacy because he did the spiritual thing first. However I have come to question whether it is Baptist to believe in revivals (in the sense that most of us think of them) at all. The revivals all cited in the past were clearly without Baptist involvement and were promoted, reported and participated in by all but Baptists. Even quasi-Baptist Charles Spurgeon did not participate in the revival work of D.L. Moody and clearly had the opportunity to so. 

Chappell mentions a group of Baptists in the later part of the 1800s as the catalyst of the revival that happened afterwards. I would mention that by then Baptists, both North and South, were so influenced by Protestantism as to hardly count as a Baptist movement. 

Chappell's comments in this point are nothing short of Protestantism and Universalism. His appeals for men to stop criticizing and to start getting along and sets himself up so that those points he will bring following can hardly be challenged without the challenger being guilty of quenching revival. 

Chappell proceeds from there to give a number of points I commend:

• We must preach clearly biblical messages
• We must become men of integrity and report crimes rather than cover them up

He then makes the claim that, though the size of a church does not matter, the only thing that will save America is soul winning. 

A number of things come to mind from this segment of the message

First when did saving America (or any country) become the priority of the preacher? 

It certainly was not the priority of Jesus. It was not the priority of any of the Apostles. It does not appear to be the priority of any Baptist prior to the American Revolution, which was manifestly Protestant. 

Second this is a complete reversal of his first claim that America needs revival. 

Chappell wisely begins by claiming dependence upon the Lord but eventually ends up where religion always does; with man being the ultimate savior. 

Thirdly Chappell becomes what he had insisted would prevent revival

He embarks on a number of snide, rude and obnoxious remarks against those whose ministries do not reach the number of souls his does. He has fat jokes, jokes about proselytizing and etc. While he does not announce the number of people in attendance at his church he is sure to tell us how many people from his church go door knocking and how many doors were knocked the previous year, using that to make his mocking of others seem legitimate. 

He also claims that, though they do not publish the attendance of his church, the vast majority of people who attend were saved through his church ministry. I would like to see hard statistics on that. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

Thoughts On the Work of Pastor James Altar

A couple of observations concerning Brother Altar's material here shared:

Brother Altar has done much to help the strengthen vision for Baptist history in our ranks. He is a passionate preacher, which is a blessing. I appreciate his zeal to tell Baptists not to quote from Protestant preachers but to do their study and research among Baptists. However,

He claims the book of Acts is transitional. 

While that view feels like it solves a few problems some have with Acts, i.e. provides a short answer to Pentecostalism, it also diminishes the authority of the book for New Testament Baptists today. There is no biblical authority for assigning it a transitional place in Scripture. It is rather a leap Altar asks his audience to accept without any real proof it is a Biblically credible. I instead see the Book of Acts as what it says it is; the Acts of the Apostles. I view it as a representation of what all of the Apostles were doing at the same time Paul was evangelizing in the Middle East and shores of Greece and Italy. 

Brother Altar claims that the Gospels are "Jewish" 

This also denigrates the authority of Scriptures for New Testament Baptists today. I would not deny that there are certain Gospel passages that find their primary application among the Jews. But I would deny that Matthew 16:18, Matthew 28:18-20 and all of the Gospel references to John the Baptist are Jewish. These passages clearly relate to the church that Jesus founded in the Gospels with members all baptized by a Baptist preacher. 

I certainly do not mean to be argumentative but I do believe we at least need to hear from differing views that we may learn from them. 

(This is in response to the following e-mail sent to the GIBF forum. I have not sent this response but wrote it as an exercise.)

On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:11 AM, David Warner <dwarner@ctcn.net> wrote:

"Brethren,

Some may have already gotten these studies on Baptist History but it seems not everyone did. The link below allows you to download the studies AND the PowerPoints on Baptist History as well as two that accompany the Word Doc studies.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qwemie1q33mclpv/lwHl0vfk3M

The two main studies are the work of James Altar, Sidney, OH who is also the author of Ancient Baptist History.  If you are not familiar with his website, you should be.  He has great material and does tremendous work on our Baptist Heritage.

http://www.ancientbaptist.org/Index.html)"

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

Baptism Before Membership

The practice of baptizing a person prior to membership into the local Baptist church is not a new thing. Jack Hyles practiced it in Hammond, Indiana. A considerable number of those who were followers of Hyles practiced the same. However it is now becoming an increasingly popular practice among those who are of a background different than those trained under and followers of Hyles. This has come about because of the failure to make the clear distinctions between those who leaned more heavily on the Protestant "fundamentals" than the Baptist distinctives. 

I do not question that many of these men are good and well intentioned men. But they are more Protestant in their doctrine and ministerial philosophy. On the West Coast we see their model of ministry being embraced almost without question and almost universally among Independent Baptists. Those Baptists are assuming more Protestant like doctrines and philosophies of ministry. 

Among those Protestant like doctrines would be the baptizing of individuals prior to membership and not as a door into membership. It is:

I. Blatantly Unscriptural

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 KJV

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

  

We read these verses and recognize immediately that baptism is the door into church membership. A person is baptized into the membership of that body.

Acts 2:41 KJV

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

   

These three thousand souls were saved, baptized and added to the church the same day. Baptism came after salvation and was both the prerequisite to and means of entrance into that church.

II. Manifestly Protestant

The only argument which can be made against 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 teaching baptism as the door into church membership is to deny:

• That the baptism here spoken of is water baptism (and assign to it the Protestant idea of Spirit baptism)
• That the body here spoken of is a local church (and assign to it the Protestant idea of an invisible universal church)

III. Inherently "Cain - onic" 

Just as Cain was happy to serve God as long as he could do so in the way that was most practical for his circumstance and self elevating in its nature, so is placing baptism before membership.

It is pragmatic in that it is a position that allows for the most results with the least resistance.

It is self elevating in that it allows for faster growth and higher "yield" in the church - making a man appear to have accomplished more than others (who were more conscientious with the Word of God).

Marvin McKenzie

In the field