The Hammers and Anvils of Orthodoxy

Going to the blacksmith shop is a learning experience for a young lad. To watch the blacksmith heat up the iron, take it to the anvil, and beat out the exact shape he wants to create is truly watching an artist at work.

In the same way that iron is shaped by heat and pressure, orthodoxy is shaped. Prior to the reformation Christian orthodoxy was shaped at the blacksmith shop called church councils. A form of these councils continues in the Catholic tradition with the writings of Vatican I and II. In the evangelical world, we use a blacksmith cut from a different cloth. There is no hierarchy of a council; rather, there is open debate. In years past this has occurred at an associational level, a state convention level, a national convention level, in seminaries, in newspapers, in personal communications, and of late in the world of blogsville. Each of these avenues has served to test ideas and methodologies against the scrutiny of others with a desire to be true to the Lord and His Word.

In Baptist history classes we learned of the free worship tradition that began in the rebaptizer movement. Preachers were not allowed to carry Bibles into the pulpit. They were expected to rely upon the unction from the Holy Spirit for all they said. Some brave preachers went against the grain and today you are highly criticized if you do not read from the Scripture during a worship service. And then there was the original worship war over music. Again some brave Baptist souls introduced music into worship. As they sometimes say, “the fight was on.” Today it is difficult to imagine a Baptist worship service without music.

These historical facts teach us something about the present debate in Southern Baptist life. We are not perfect and we never will be. Change is difficult but worth the struggle. It is the anvil and the hammer that shape something into a form that is worthy of the struggle.

An argument continues that needs serious evaluation. The call is growing louder that bright young leaders are leaving the SBC because the parameters are to tight. Truthfully, they are only felt when someone seeks to be a denominational employee. Otherwise, church autonomy continues to rule. Very few churches have been denied a seat at the annual meetings.

How should these young leaders respond? It is imperative that they allow their ideas be tested against the prevailing tides. They must know that their ideas and new methodologies will be tested. Recently I read where some in the so-called emergent church movement were seeking to distance themselves from others involved in the conversation. Their ideas were being tested in the market place and they were finding the ideas of others to be outside biblical orthodoxy.

Rick Warren is an excellent example of what young leaders must do. They must establish their path and let it be criticized and examined. While some continually criticize Rick, his influence on Southern Baptist life is massive. (Oh, and he has never held a position yet even preached for that old fundamentalist, Jerry Falwell.)

Elder statesmen must encourage these young leaders to stay the course, remain in the tent and let their methodologies be tested against time and examination. This is the hammer and anvil of orthodoxy in a post reformation Christianity. Will they be criticized, yes and so was Benjamin Keach.

The most difficult place to test these ideas is not in the political life of the SBC but in the local church. The hammer and anvil in the local church is hotter and with more force than denominational powers. If you don’t believe me, just walk in an established traditional church and introduce drums in worship. Our young pastors must learn that the path of least resistance is rarely the correct path. To leave the denomination because their methods are in question is to assume that there will be no resistance or other issues in the world of independence or nondenominationalism. This is a false and dangerous assumption.