A Real Danger in the SBC

There is no shortage of voices in the SBC claiming that the end is near, that we balance on a precipice over the pit of destruction. I believe most of those voices are mistaken – some out of ignorance and others willfully. Most of the “enemies within the church” they warn us about are bogeymen designed to manipulate us into action, so that they can gain and maintain power.

Wokeism is not a huge danger in the SBC. There is a misguided “woke” movement in American politics, centered in our universities, but it is not huge issue in the SBC. The SBC is filled with conservatives – some more conservative on certain issues and some less conservative. It is not accurate to call the SBC woke. It just isn’t. It is a scare tactic that should be abandoned.

Liberalism is not a huge danger in the SBC. Again, Southern Baptists are on a spectrum of conservatism. We do not all march in lockstep on every issue, but the idea that our disagreements mark us some as liberals is ludicrous.

We have lost the ability to discuss issues with nuance, to be subtle and thoughtful. When there are differences of opinions, some just break out their brickbats and start swinging. “Liberal!” Critical thinking and the ability to discuss issues without insult, without anathematizing our opponents has been lost.

Egalitarianism isn’t the biggest issue in the SBC. If you listen to some folks, churches in the SBC are hiring women pastors by hundreds, perhaps thousands, threatening our convention. It just isn’t so. Of our nearly 50,000 churches, we have miniscule fraction that have woman pastors and quite a few others that have women in ministerial staff positions. Both of these have been true for decades – these are not new trends.

What is new is the growth of self-appointed theological police within the SBC who are not content unless every church conforms to their interpretation on pretty much every controversial theological, political, or social issue. Every year, at our annual meeting, they are seeking to force us to encode their views as the ONLY acceptable view for everyone.

There are a few true egalitarians in the SBC, but they are rare. We are complementarians, but we apply our complementarian views differently. Some take strict views that restrict women’s roles in ministry heavily while others believe the Scriptures only restrict the role of the Senior Pastor to men and allow much greater roles to women in the church.

Complementariansim is not monolithic, despite what some say. Two complementarians can apply the doctrine in different situations in different ways. The CBMW way isn’t the only way.

There are alarmists in the SBC, constantly raising their alarms. The sky is falling! Wokeists are coming. Liberals are taking over. Egalitarians are overrunning everything.

Of course, we ought to be wary of false doctrine – the Bible warns us that the enemy would constantly be sending wolves among the sheep. I was educated in the 70s, before the CR, and had Baptist professors teach me some pretty heinous things. I never want to go back to those days. Vigilance is wise. False accusations are sin. We are not a woke convention, a liberal convention, or an egalitarian convention.

We are a convention of conservatives who have several significant disagreements on tertiary issues, but remain committed to biblical inerrancy, Baptist doctrine, and world missions.

The REAL Problem

Our real problem is NOT wokeism or liberalism or any of the other accusations bandied around. The greatest threat to the future of the SBC today is this:

There is a growing unwillingness to cooperate in missions with churches and fellow believers unless they are in near-unanimous agreement on tertiary issues.

This is a failure to understand the nature of the SBC and will destroy our cooperative mission effort.

The Baptist Faith & Message

Compared to the prominent creeds of church history, the Baptist Faith & Message is vague in many areas. This was intentional. The framers of the BF&M were not inept, but they constructed various passages so that diverse elements could unite around one confession.

It is meant to spell out the fundamentals of the Christian faith, not any particular theological persuasion.
It is meant to define the parameters of Baptist practice.

It was designed to state our common beliefs and practices, a theological skeleton onto which each church could add its doctrinal tendons and flesh.

It is a controlling document for our entities and institutions. Our employees, missionaries, and professors must subscribe to the BF&M, adhere to it, and support its doctrinal and practical standards.
Churches are autonomous and have never been required to sign, submit to, or comply with the BF&M. Dr. Mohler, when the BF&M 2000 was written stated clearly that churches would not be forced to comply with it as a test of fellowship in the SBC.
In the past, local assocations and sometimes state conventions would enforce doctrinal conformity if a church strayed egregiously from our confession by disfellowshiping churches.
In recent years, there has been a growing tendency to begin policing churches at the national level. It began with issues related to homosexual marriage and then more recently, we voted to add the churches that failed to deal with sexual abuse or racism to the exclusionary list. While I support these actions, it must be understood that it is a departure from our historic practice for the national SBC to be disfellowshiping churches in this way.
At this convention, we will likely be asked to vote, in one form or another, to expand this list. There is a group within our convention that wants to expand our exclusionary list. The focal point this year will be women as pastors. They will ask us to disfellowship any church that has any woman as a pastor in any way. We may also be asked to vote on disfellowshiping Saddleback and other churches.

The Saddleback Issue

If I lived near the Saddleback Church, I would likely choose another church, for several reasons. One of those is the fact that they have a woman, the Lead Pastor’s wife, who is a regular part of their preaching rotation. I would look for another church.

However, I have no problem with Saddleback being a Southern Baptist Church.

They are (loosely) complementarian. Watch the recent explanation by Andy Wood, in which he uses Scripture to explain their actions. I do not agree with his conclusions, but I appreciate that he is attempting to be biblical. All of their elders are male and they present a Scriptural case (again, one with which I disagree) for allowing women to preach. They are about as far on one end of the complementarian continuum as you can get, but they are there.

They are (just barely) within the BF&M. Yes, they test the boundaries, but I do not believe they have crossed the line.

I would not attend their church, but I am content with them remaining SBC, if they wish to. I will vote, if they appeal, to keep them within the SBC. They are an autonomous local church. They do not have to do things MY way.

Autonomy of the Local Church

This is the bedrock of the Southern Baptist Convention – the autonomy of the local church. We have a core of doctrine and practice on which we are united, but we allow each local church a wide latitude to interpret and practice its own convictions.

One church can be Five-Point Calvinist and another non-Calvinist or anti-Calvinist (whatever term they are using now) and STILL be SBC.
One church can be Dispensational and another think that’s an awful view and both be SBC.
One church can be politically active and another church not, and both be SBC.
Two churches, both politically active, can have varied views on issues and both be SBC.
Two churches, both complementarian, can have different interpretations of complementarian. One can be strict CBMW and no woman ever be seen in the pulpit for any reason. The other can allow women a much broader set of roles under the umbrella of male eldership (whether the Senior Pastor or a plurality). Both of these churches can be Southern Baptist in good standing.

Are We Rejecting Autonomy?

A growing number of Southern Baptists demand uniformity as a condition of unity. They insist on conformity to their views before they will cooperate in missions. Of course, we cannot cooperate with those who deny Christ, who reject the gospel, but we can unite with those who vote differently, who structure their churches differently, who have different views on tertiary issues. It is the mission of Christ that matters most.

If we continue to demand uniformity and conformity on non-fundamental issues, we risk the future of our convention far more than any fantastical threat of wokeism or liberalism.

What Kind of SBC Do We Want?

Do we want a “march in lockstep or we kick you out” SBC? Do we want political conformity enforced as a theological mandate? Do we want certain theological gatekeepers telling us that anyone who doesn’t adhere to their theology or kowtow to their ideas is woke, liberal, or egalitarian?

Or, do we want an SBC where conservatives, who love Jesus and hold to the inerrancy of the word of God, who practice traditional Baptist doctrines, unite in missions even if they disagree around certain interpretations on secondary and tertiary things?

Which kind of convention do you want?

The votes we take in New Orleans will answer this question. Will we choose gospel cooperation or conformity and coersion?

I prefer autonomy and traditional Baptist ways.