Ten Words

One name for the Ten Commandments is the Decalogue, or the Ten Words. The reasoning is that in early Hebrew, the Ten Commandments were expressed in ten, simple words. A short, concise version of the Decalogue is:

* You shall have no other gods besides Me
* You shall not make for yourself an idol
* You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
* Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
* Honor your father and your mother
* You shall not murder
* You shall not commit adultery
* You shall not steal.
* You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
* You shall not covet

This set of principles, so marvelously simple and direct, yet so comprehensive in scope, has inspired thoughtful dialogue for centuries. In fact, those who penned the American Constitution drew from the Decalogue directly and indirectly. Further, the high ethical standards of the Ten Commandments have defined the limits of acceptable behavior for American society for most of its history.

Yet, we sadly must speak of the Decalogue and its place in the public and political life of America in the past tense. Speaking of God in the public square often gets one shouted down; the very nature of marriage and the family is being rethought completely; murder of innocents has become a choice; and, what one does in the privacy of his own home is sacred (which should be the case), but such private actions are no longer informed by any absolute standard of good.

Some have problems with what is viewed as the narrow, severe, and unchangeable character of the Ten Commandments. In fact, such is the case. These Laws are narrow in that they clearly define the boundary between right and wrong, good and evil. The Laws are severe in that they refused to be changed. The definition of good and evil embodied in this Code remains the same today as they were when given by God to Moses, despite modern America’s relativizing ways.

In the modern era, many describe the Constitution as a "living" document, one that is every evolving. Ironically, the historical document remains unchanged. The nation, through a very demanding process, has at times amended the Constitution. Basically, though, the amendments clarified the freedoms and responsibilities of the citizens of America, and enhanced the nature of the document without changing the essential nature of the Constitution. Like the Decalogue, the Constitution is itself somewhat narrow, severe, and unchangeable.

In the Ten Commandments, most of the commands are stated in the negative. Clarifying the "no’s" is far simpler than defining all the "yeses." When Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, he included a list of character traits called the Fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5.22-23). After that catalogue of positive virtues, the Apostle stated, "against such there is no law." In other words, no limits exist on doing good; only bad behavior needs to be controlled.

Our Constitution is devoted, in part, to controlling bad behavior (laws against murder, stealing, bearing false witness, etc.). Other parts of the Constitution insure that some things are available to all (the right to worship, speak freely, assemble, etc.). Ironically, some abuse these rights and freedoms, yet, their right to do so is defended.

The three branches of the Federal Government have a vested interest in guarding the civic, social, and political boundaries defined by the Constitution. Society is both protected and perpetuated as constitutional safeguards are upheld. Churches have an even greater responsibility to uphold the ethical standards found in the Ten Commandments. In so doing, informed and free citizens can function responsibly in a constitutional society. When the government fails, freedoms are eroded. When the church fails, free people become undisciplined people.

In modern America, too often the government has redefined the boundaries for fear of offending some smaller segment of the larger community. And the church? Too many times, churches and Christian denominations have themselves redefined the demands of the Law. Consequently, some are confused and frustrated, while others indulge their wants, no longer restrained by constitutional or biblical principles.

The writer of Proverbs, perhaps anticipating such a condition, stated, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." When the "vision" of right and wrong disappears, the people, society, does perish.

Old Landmarks

In his book, Old Landmarkism What Is It?, written in 1880, J. R. Graves sought to explain the appellation given to the strict view of the church he espoused, Landmarkism. He pointed out that J. M. Pendleton, in the tract "An Old Landmark Reset," had stated that the name came from Proverbs 22.28, and was intended as a term of opprobrium, not one of approbation.

Graves’s narrow ecclesiology does not have widespread appeal today. Yet, while we might not accept his definition of church, we still can appreciate his attempt to clarify the concept. Graves was involved in his day’s debate over the nature of Baptist life. He attempted to make sense of the changes of his day.

Baptists have been changing, or growing, since the birth of the movement in 17th century England. As alsays has been the case, some in Baptist life have viewed change with great fear; others have adopted overwhelmingly any and every change. Most wonder how to make sense of all that takes place in their time.

The key, as most recognize, is found in understanding historical Baptist principles. As Baptist life has grown and developed, certain truths have provided the foundation for the changes. If the principles are changed, then a new entity comes into existence, a kind of hybrid being. Again, some reject the new growth, others embrace it.

For those, such as I, who wish to preserve the name Baptist and the truths such name represents, some changes are unacceptable. We ask the question, "How far can one go in adopting new beliefs without moving past the boundaries that define Baptist life?"

In a current series of sermons, I have presented a broad view of Baptist history as a prelude to several sermons on Baptist biblical and theological distinctives. The first message on theology was entitled, "Bible Freedom or a Distinctive Authority." (Among other resources, I am using Stan Norman’s More Than Just a Name, and Walter Shurden’s The Baptist Identity.) Historically, what Baptists have believed has been firmly rooted in Scripture.

The second message had the title "Soul Competency or Soul Freedom." In this message in particular, I sought to show the tension that exists among Baptists today over how to understand this important tenet of our denominational life.

One writer, in an on-line article, defined his own view of this doctrine. For him, soul competency means that each individual should be able to interpret Scripture "according to the dictates of conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

The question raised in my mind by that assertion is whether conscience should inform our understanding of the Bible, or the Bible set the standard for our conscience. One must legitimately ask if this "conscience standard" is a traditional Baptist distinctive, or a new one.

From the earliest days of Baptist life, matters of conscience, whether about infant baptism or relations with the state, were first and foremost matters of Scripture. Early Baptists arrived at new understandings of church practices based on their studies of the Bible. So, the truth of Scripture informed the consciences of those early Baptists. Had they first had an informed conscience about state interference in religion, why would those early dissenters have needed a Bible?

So, we must raise the question of competence. Let’s say that a Muslim is converted to Christianity. How competent is this new believer to interpret Scripture, based on the dictates of his conscience? Scripture itself recognizes the limits of human competence, and freedom, by the way, to interpret the Bible "for oneself." While a person might make an individual decision to trust in Jesus, nevertheless, he immediately is placed into a vital corporate relationship within a body of believers. In that context, under the tutelage of pastors and teachers called by God, individual believers, under the authority of a local congregation, learn how to understand the Bible.

If a person becomes a part of a Baptist congregation, he will learn how Baptists understand the Bible, and how Baptists are distinguished from other groups. Thereafter, if he retains his Baptist character, that believer will exercise his competency, and limit his freedom, within the boundaries of Baptist life. To not do so is to become something other than a Baptist.

Where uninformed, untrained conscience is the arbiter biblical truth, one quickly ceases to be Baptist.