I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1979 when two momentous events occurred. First, I was able to attend my first SBC Annual Meeting, one that was in every way historic. Adrian Rogers was elected president and the denomination began several years of struggle and transformation. Another event transpired that year – the Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy convened to define the term that has become such a political and theological hot potato.
Back at school in the fall, my theology prof was talking about the findings of the Chicago Council. I asked him a question. “Dr. Blum, will the Chicago Statement have any effect on the conflict going on among Southern Baptists?”
He looked at me. “I doubt it,” he said. “Southern Baptists live in their own world and do not, as a rule, interact with the broader evangelical world.” I think that at the time, it was an accurate assessment of SBC life. We had our own schools, our own publishing house, our own missionary agencies. Most importantly, we had our identity, our culture, and our ways.
There were always oddball churches in the SBC. You’d hear of a formal, liturgical SBC church or one that, from time to time, “went charismatic.” But by and large, you could be magically transported into the pews of a Baptist church and tell if it was SBC or not. We sang the same songs from the same hymnal with the same instruments. Our sermons were well-alliterated three-pointers (no, not that kind) with flourishes of poetry and a clear gospel message followed by an invitation. We had Sunday School at around 10, worship at 11, Training union at 6 and evening worship at 7. On Wednesday night you had prayer meeting and RAs and GAs for the kids. The pastor wore a dark suit with a white shirt and a spiffy tie. Churches took up offerings and a strong percentage of 10% or more probably went to the Cooperative Program. We had little thermometers or light-up boards to track our goals for Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. Our preachers all had degrees from one of our seminaries.
Even when travelling you could find the nearest SBC church and feel like you were part of the family. We had a culture and an identity.
Then, everything changed. First of all, our world changed around us. I doubt that there has ever been a fifty year window of time in which cultural attitudes have changed as much as they have in the last fifty years. Think about the world of 1961 (if you can). This is not your mother’s USA! I was watching footage of a sporting event from some time ago. Almost everyone in the stands had on formal wear. For a tennis match! Music has changed. In 1961, parents were moaning about this new-fangled rock and roll. No one envisioned death metal or gangsta rap at the time. TV? I was floored a few years ago to be channel-surfing and find Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-in on Nickelodeon, a channel for children. Folks, when Laugh-in first came on it was considered somewhat scandalous and inappropriate for adults. Ten years ago, it was considered suitable children’s programming.
And the Baptist world has changed. I’m not a sociologist, but in my experience Promise-Keepers was one of the Christian world’s defining moments – at least for Baptists. Men went to large stadiums and were led in what we now call contemporary worship – which before had been the sole domain of the charismatics. And they liked it. They came back to their churches lifting their hands in worship and asking for a drum beat and some electric guitars at their churches. Now, according H.B. London of Focus on the Family, studies have shown that musical style is the top priority for people as they search for churches.
In our world, denominational loyalty and brand identity have waned, even among Southern Baptists. Recently I saw a story in the national news about a Baptist church. I wondered it they were Southern Baptist. I went to their website. Honestly, folks, on many Baptist church websites today it is almost impossible to find out if they are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention or not. We hide denominational affiliation like a state secret.
The world has changed and that has left Southern Baptists with an identity crisis. Who are we? What is a Southern Baptist? I have written several articles recently on this, and Howell Scott has also written well on it (though from a slightly different perspective). I think it is time that we made some definitive steps toward defining our identity and the parameters of both fellowship and leadership.
(Note: I will use the term Southern Baptist Identity to describe who we are. I am not referring to the so-called Baptist Identity movement in any of this post, unless I use that term specifically).
Once there was a distinctive Southern Baptist Identity that united us; an evangelistic, missions-minded, theological, social and cultural identity. It does not unite us any longer. Frankly, the concept of the “Southern Baptist Identity” divides us into camps, causing the splintering I have mentioned (and Dr. Lemke mentioned in his series). Many groups lay claim to the mantle of “Keepers of the SBC Identity.” The “Founders” seem to advocate that true Baptist heritage demands that we embrace Calvinism. Others, obviously, say that Calvinism is a departure from the SBC culture we grew up in. Both have a point, by the way. Growing up as a Calvinist in the SBC, I can tell you that we were a lonely bunch back in the 60s and 70s. But there can be little doubt that many of our key founders embraced Calvinism.
But I wonder if the key divide is not more cultural than it is theological. The Calvinism thing is a biggie, no doubt. But I have a suspicion that some of the angst about Calvinism may be focused not so much on the tenets of the doctrine, but the trappings of it. Elder leadership in churches. The Acts 29 network. Moderationism. A more hip, culturally-relevant focus.
We are in a quandary about what it means to be a Southern Baptist. In the middle of the quandary, many voices are stepping in to define the denomination for us.
Howell Scott said this today in a comment.
This is part of the bigger picture and the ongoing struggle for the heart and soul of the SBC and where we head in the future. As to determining who is and who is not a “true SB,” that is an open question that you and others have asked.
I think he is spot-on in that comment – we are in an “ongoing struggle for the heart and soul of the SBC and where we head in the future.” The problem is determining a direction. We all have an idea where we should go, but there is no consensus position.
Here is my thesis: The Southern Baptist Convention needs to define its parameters of fellowship and leadership.
In a sense, this is contrary to Baptist tradition. A church has been a Southern Baptist church by giving to the CP, being in general doctrinal assent to the BF&M and by filing an ACP. In reality, if you give money, even a few dollars, your church is SBC. For over a century and a half we did not really define what it meant to be SBC.
Perspectives:
1) It is not contrary to autonomy for the SBC to define the boundaries of fellowship. If we told churches, “this is what you have to believe and do,” that would be a breach of autonomy. But if we say, “this is the basic requirement for inclusion in SBC life,” the church is then free to decide whether it wants to be SBC or not. No church and no person has to be SBC to be blessed by God. The SBC has every right to define the parameters of fellowship, service and leadership as it so chooses.
2) Most of our key constituencies are too large for them to be forced out or marginalized. If we tried to force out any particular segment, we would essentially destroy the SBC. When I was in college and seminary, SBC Calvinists were a rare breed. But now they are everywhere. Will that segment continue to grow? I don’t know. But the Calvinist branch of the SBC cannot be excised without bringing our missions effort to a grinding halt. Current SBC life demands both sides. And the traditionalist/”new way” divide breaks down the same. If the GCR debate and subsequent discussion has told us anything, it is that neither side has a controlling majority. Neither side can force the other out without ham-stringing SBC work. Megachurch vs Minichurch? As Les Puryear has demonstrated, the minichurches (I hope the term offends no one – I just mean churches under 200) make up about 80% of Baptists. On the other hand, the majority of Baptists attend churches that are considered megachurches.
I remember counseling a couple that was having marital problems. But they were also strapped financially. I told them, “You cannot afford to split and divorce, you might as well learn to get along.” That is the SBC. We can bicker and quarrel, but the SBC needs its various constituencies to keep the missions and educations programs we support rolling. If we make some of the splits we have heard discussed, the entire missions program will likely come crashing down.
We simply cannot afford to splinter.
3) So, if we cannot divide, we must learn to get along, to coexist in Christ. Many have pointed out how hard it will be to bring these disparate factions together. I agree. It will not be easy. But it must happen.
Alan Cross made a statement (at least I think it was him) that struck me to the core. The ground of all Christian unity is Jesus Christ. The more we love Jesus, the more we honor him and the more we serve him, the less time we have for some of the quarrels that we engage in. To me, the divisive state of affairs in the SB
Oh, I am not saying that the doctrines of Calvinism don’t matter. We should study, discuss, debate and perhaps even argue these points out. But when we are filled with Jesus we will keep that doctrine (pro or con) in its proper place. We will put serving Jesus together in a higher priority than winning the doctrinal battle. If we are consumed with the love of Jesus, then megachurches and smaller churches will walk together in grace.
We will never be monolithic (and in some ways, we never were.) The SBC is never going to have a single culture again, not unless it is willing to become a small denomination with a small missions program. If we are going to do anything, we have to define who we are and then work together.
I know the “Big Tent” is going to be hard, but I don’t see any other way for the SBC to survive and more than that, to prosper.
Here is my attempt to define the “Bigger Tent” parameters for the future of the SBC.
Note: I’m using denomination and convention interchangeably. I know that some prefer not to use the designation denomination, but maybe we could argue that one another day.
A Proposal for Parameters of Fellowship for the SBC
1) We are Biblical (and Inerrantist) Denomination.
Like it or hate it, the SBC has decided that we are going to be a convention of churches committed to inerrancy and that the belief in the perfection of scripture and its absolute authority over us is going to be mandatory in our seminaries an leadership.
2) We are a Doctrinal Denomination
We are not creedal, but there are some doctrinal standards to which we are accountable. We have set up the Baptist Faith & Messsage statement to further define our doctrinal consensus. And even on some of those issues there is wide dissent. For instance, in Iowa I don’t know of many churches that do not practice open communion. The BF&M defines a form of close communion as our standard. We may need to think through this and figure out what we are going to do about issues like that. A lot of people who have been forced to sign the document have done so with caveats – a practice that others have severely criticized.
Of course, there is a difference between what is required for fellowship in the SBC and what is required to be an employee or a professor. We need to define just exactly what our doctrinal parameters are.
- I believe that the BF&M statement currently adopted by the SBC (2000) should be the sole doctrinal parameter of fellowship in the SBC. No entity or person should be allowed to require participation above that which has been
- I also believe (and yes, some won’t like this) that for churches, the standard is “general agreement” to the BF&M. The document is not scripture and inerrancy does not apply to our doctrinal confession. One needs to be in essential agreement with the SBC doctrinal position. (Duck, Dave. Incoming!)
3) We are a Baptist Denomination
Duh.
But that means something. It means that we believe in baptism by immersion of believers. Simple as that. Are there other doctrines that are endemic to SBC Identity? Some would say that those who elect elders to lead their churches are outside the Baptist fold. Do Baptist churches have to have flags and give invitations. We have had discussions of each of these in recent months.
I have an opinion. I believe each church should be allowed to decide its own polity and this is not a huge issue with me. For others, these things matter.
My point is that we need to decide. If a church has elders, are we going to disfellowship them? Ask them to stand in the corner? We must decide.
4) We are a Great Commission Denomination
No, lets leave the GCR and its task force out of the discussion for now. We are a missionary sending denomination. In fact, I would say that this the primary reason to even have a denomination today. Simply put, we can do more together than we can do separately.
Now, here is the rub. How much is enough? I really don’t know. We have never set a minimum standard. But times are different now and maybe we need to take some sort of new approach.
- It seems silly that the dollar amount for messengers is the same now it was when I was wearing diapers. Back then, giving $250 per messenger meant a little more than it means today.
- Maybe we should not grant messengers on the basis of dollars, but on the basis of percentage of undesignated gifts. A church that gives up to 1% gets one messenger. Giving up to 2% gives you two messengers, up to the total of 10 messengers.
- I do not think that we can set a specific amount of CP giving for elected office in the SBC, but I can tell you it matters to me when I vote. I had no idea who Frank Page was when I voted for him in Greensboro. But I voted for him largely because of his CP percentage. It is an issue to me.
5) On everything else*, we have freedom
*Those issues on which we do not define participation. I am sure my list here is not complete or exhaustive. I would hope that the discussion will help us define things more clearly.
We can argue any issue, but we must do so as fellow-sharers of the SBC House. We can be Calvinistic Southern Baptists and non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists. We can have big churches and small. We can have hipsters and old fogeys. If we agree that Jesus is the only hope of salvation in this world, that the Word of God is truth without any mixture of error, and if we are committed to making Christ known in this world, we can walk together – even if each of us has a slightly different gait.
This “in Christ” option that Dr. Lemke has defined so well is the solution. We need to walk together in agreement about the Bible, the Gospel, and the Great Commission. And we need to learn to love one another and accept one another on other issues.
We cannot afford to divorce, so we need to learn to live together.
Liked this post, but one issue with your re-formulation of messengers (which I generally support):
That’s going to require a Constitutional amendment which:
1) most churches don’t care about…after all, it’s not biblical inerrancy or “my mission money going to that liberal seminary”
2) The Executive Committee is going to reject…bureaucracy has a tendency to maintain the status quo
3) will need two years’s worth of emphasis to accomplish
That said, I hope to see such a motion proposed…and I think I might just vote for it!
Yeah, I understand that, Andrew. And I am not wedded to that idea or anything. I’m just saying we need to reexamine that.
Well said, Dave. Focusing on the things that we agree on and that can unify us will do more for the Kingdom of God (and the SBC) than focusing our discourse on what divides us. We can’t simply gloss over the issues on which we disagree, of course — these are real and important issues. But focusing our discourse on the things that unify us may help us limp by the things that divide us.
I honestly believe that your fourth post (the “in Christ” option) should serve as a template for ongoing discussions. I hope that view will win the day.
Love, love, love the idea of the BFM 2000 being used as the only doctrinal parameter for cooperation, especially if churches are expected to be in general agreement. Maybe the few remaining moderate/moderate friendly congregations would FINALLY get the hint and take a hike. 🙂
I’m thinking of those dually alligned and those that are not.
Joe, Joe, Joe,
What are we going to do with you. You can’t tell someone to “take a hike.” That’s not nice.
Ok, how about Viens, viens? Or Vaminos?
“But I wonder if the key divide is not more cultural than it is theological. The Calvinism thing is a biggie, no doubt. But I have a suspicion that some of the angst about Calvinism may be focused not so much on the tenets of the doctrine, but the trappings of it. Elder leadership in churches. The Acts 29 network. Moderationism. A more hip, culturally-relevant focus.”
I disagree. The General Baptists got into the “hip, culturally-relevant” thing long before the “new Calvinist” Particular Baptists did, and even now they far outrank their Particular counterparts in numbers and influence. Why the “young, restless and Reformed” have become such a blight on the SBC in the last 5-10 years when Rick Warren is a beloved and embraced figure for having done the same for over 30 needs to be explained. The same deal with the tendencies of some Particular SBCers to seek ties outside the denomination … where have these folks been the last 60 years while Billy Graham was doing it, and not just with – gasp! – Presbyterians, but inviting Roman Catholic priests to “minister” at his revivals?
The “hip, culturally relevant” issue needs to be separated from the Calvinism issue if any honest dialogue is going to be had, quite frankly because anyone who objects to the self-styled “hipsters” on the other side of the limited atonement divide needs to address the ones on their own side first.
And that is actually a battle worth fighting. As someone who just a few years ago was glued to the crass decadence that is regularly flaunted on TBN, the issue of a theology of ministry and worship that reverences God rather than pleases the flesh is worthwhile, and approaching it from a theological/doctrinal standpoint rather than relying on “open to interpretation/difficult to define/quite possibly anachronistic” ideas as “traditional Southern Baptist culture.”
A couple of blog posts – by 5 point Calvinists! – would be excellent starting points on that regards, especially since the latter is written by the man who now heads Charles Spurgeon’s church. Adopting and adhering to a stance that “Southern Baptists must fellowship and worship like Baptists” is much more sound for a host of reasons than contriving arguments against Particular Baptist theology in the SBC.
http://5ptsalt.com/2009/06/22/the-merger-of-calvinism-and-worldliness/
http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Sword-And-Trowel/Sword-and-Trowel-Articles/The-Merger-of-Calvinism-with-Worldliness
As to why I singled out Rick Warren, well it happens that the blog that paved the way to my exiting Pentecostalism by exposing T.D. Jakes as a modalist heretic was a Calvinist one who also oft-denounced Warren’s “relevant” ministry (among a host of other excesses in evangelical worship). The folks who ran that blog blamed the worship and other issues (which ranged from wacky to outrageous to heretical to obscene) on “easy believism”, which I suppose is “hyper-free willism” or something.
So, in a few short years, I have gone from reading Calvinist blogs that attribute “relevance” to a rejection of the doctrines of grace in favor of man-exalting free will doctrines, to reading SBC blogs that attribute “relevance” to Calvinism. The Calvinist blogs called “relevance” a free will movement that (along with the emergent church) would destroy evangelical Christianity, now the SBC blogs are calling “relevance” part of a Calvinist conspiracy to hi-jack and destroy the SBC.
The anti-Particular Baptist agenda is a scam and a sham and should be treated with the spite that it deserves. But both General Baptists and Particular Baptists can and should unite to set parameters that would oppose questionable doctrines and practices in the SBC, and that certainly includes vulgar, crass, man-exalting, God-dishonoring “worship.” If Southern Baptist identity of times past acted against such things, then yes, that is an identity worth reclaiming and promoting.
Ironically, the old fogies and the hipsters all dress the same. 🙂
Great post, Dave. Maybe something good can from Iowa. 🙂
Now when you say that all the entities should use the BF&M2K does that include a certain seminary?
Some of us don’t get the inside reference to the certain seminary, and for those who do you might as well have just said the name. Could you, for those who don’t know and for those for whom the name is practically already written, go ahead and say what seminary you are talking about?
Josh, i don’t know exactly how to approach that.
Obviously, Southern was formed under an abstract of principles that predated the formation of the BF&M. So, that is a conundrum that I do not have an easy answer for.
Jeremy, Southern Seminary has its own doctrinal statement, called the Abstract of Principles, which has guided it since it was founded.
Thank you.
Amazingly, when the IMB was required to have their workers sign the BFM the fact that a process existed to determine basic doctrinal agreement was insufficient. It was an actual process, with candidates writing out their opinions of a number of basic issues and answering for those positions. Even so, signing a piece of paper was deemed by SBC leaders to be more important, regardless of what it communicated to long-standing workers in the organization.
And yet, Southern has their own piece of paper, not a process, and that’s good enough? Wow.
Is setting up the BFM2000 as a parameter really anything new?
I mean, the only way to determine a SBC church is one the gives money to the SBC/CP and they do so while acknowledging their agreement to the BFM2000.
The problem isn’t the BFM2000, it is the desire of some to set up OTHER parameters to define being SBC. As I have said elsewhere, I really only see one group doing that. You mentioned the Founders, (I may be wrong) but I don’t believe they are seeking to say their view is the ONLY way to define being SBC or baptist nor are they seeking to eliminate those who disagree. I also think they are trying to demonstrate validity of their view rather than isolate it as the sole view. That is a HUGE difference from the BI group.
Same could be said of the Acts 29 or moderationist or eleder-led people. They are not seeking to say their view is the ONLY view, they are simply saying their views are among the accepted and biblically viable views. They also are not seeking to divide the convention or demand everyone accept their views.
The reality is that the SBC has never been truly homogeneous…and even when it appeared to be, it never REALLY was, or else we would not have had the CBF issues, or state convention fights, etc. To try and go back to the 1960s and make us all LOOK alike again is a fruitless pursuit. To pretend that everyone has been in complete unity on all theological and polity issues all along (until now) is naive. The BI people are nostalgic for something that never REALLY existed, IMO. They have shared experiences and, as we know, personal experience isn’t the arbiter of truth. I have many shared experiences with them…but to take those experiences and beliefs and then DEMAND everyone get in line or leave, is crazy, not to mention ironic considering one of the baptist distinctives of autonomy.
But on the whole I agree with the tenor of your post. Thanks for posting it.
‘THERE IS NO OTHER STREAM . . . ‘
The idea of conforming to a denominational identity based on a unity ‘in Christ’ makes a lot of sense, seeing that all Christian people must eventually come to quench their thirst from the same sacred stream.
C.S. Lewis wrote a wonderful account of a young girl who was thirsty, but fearful of approaching a brook to drink, because the great lion Aslan was there.
They spoke together for while, and then she said,
this:
” “I daren’t come and drink,” said Jill.
“Then you will die of thirst,” said the Lion.
“Oh dear!” said Jill, coming another step nearer.
“I suppose I must go and look for another stream then.”
“There is no other stream,” said the Lion . . .
Unity in Christ means, first of all, unity in the truth. Paul wrote there were false gospels and false Christ’s. Therefore, not everyone who claims to be a Christian is–they may have been deceived by a false gospel or a false Christ. For instance, anyone who claims:
*people from other faiths can be saved by God through Christ without consciously trusting in Christ.
*people who proclaim that the only proper expression of sexuality is between a man and a woman in marriage is outdated and fails to recognize the basic worth of homosexual persons.
*the Bible is just a collection of the words of men rather than the inerrant word of God.
prove by those positions that they are not real Christians. Therefore, real Christians have no unity with people like that since those people have not believed the biblical gospel.
Preach it – one more time please!
Gladly
Dave,
Great stuff! I really, really like your idea of adjusting the giving requirements of churches to reflect inflation. $250 then would be at least $2,500 today. But your real stroke of genius was to tie the number of messengers to the CP percentages. Megachurches giving one percent or two percent through CP would no longer be able to bus in their voting blocs. Leaders would be more fully invested in convention work. This is a great idea!
By the way, I believe you are also absolutely correct that it is not the soteriology of the new regime that people find egregious. It’s all the cultural “Acts 29” style contextualizing baggage. If you remember Louisville, very few people got irate about five pointers, but they were standing in the aisles to distance Southern Baptists from Driscoll. Great analysis!
Dave,
Excellent analysis. As I suspected, you did leave me wanting more. You accurately described an identity or culture that was prevalent (and to a large degree, still is) within the SBC in the 1950’s and 60’s. The SBC culture has obviously been impacted by the changes taking place in the culture at large. Some of these changes are good and some not so much. Is there a current SBC identity/culture — however broadly defined — that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists could rally behind? While I am still skeptical, you almost persuade me 🙂
There are two issues at play — one in the technical/legal court and the other in the court of popular opinion. As to who is technically/legally a SB, the SBC Constitution/By-Laws specifies this:
Article III. Membership: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows:
1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention’s work during the fiscal year preceding.
Unless the SBC Constitution is amended (2/3 vote of the messengers at two consecutive annual meetings), then this is the barebones legal definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist. Contrary to what some have stated, there is no requirement that a church be in agreement — general or otherwise — with the BF&M2000 or any other confession of faith. That’s why many BGCT and BGAV churches can still consider themselves Southern Baptist even though these churches have never adopted the BF&M2000. I do not see the legal definition being changed anytime soon (if ever).
That brings us to the court of public opinion and how that court defines what it means to be a Southern Baptist. Many times, the messengers to the annual meetings of the SBC define this. That may change from year to year, but I think your categories, generally speaking, are about right in terms of fellowship and leadership within the Convention. I particularly like how you discuss the BF&M2000 and the “general agreement” that churches should have with that document.
While I would allow more leeway for cooperating SB churches to agree to previous versions of the BF&M or agree with other confessions of faith (i.e., Abstract of Principles, London Confession, Philadelphia Confession, New Hampshire Confession, etc.), there must be a limit to the size of the big tent. Where that limit is will be what drives this debate in the court of public opinion within the SBC family. Overall, I like your optimism, even if I have strong reservations as to whether or not your optimism will be vindicated. Thanks for making us think! God bless,
Howell
Don’t you already have a cultural identity? In addition to the tight relationship to southern culture, Southern Baptists are mostly Republican, anti-gay rights, anti-abortion rights, anti-women ministers, anti government regulation, anti-Islam, anti-tax, anti-feminism, anti-environmentalism, anti-multiculturalism, leaning anti-public education, leaning anti-birth control, etc.
Many of those are very countercultural positions that generally unite Southern Baptists in addition to the influence of southern culture (customs and traditions).
BDW,
Just for the record everything you stated in the negative could be stated in the positive. Your choice belies your bias.
For example I’m pro-life, not anti-abortion rights. Though I realize that the outcome is the same, the nuance of using the word “anti” as the prefix of choice is I’m sure to put Southern Baptists in the worst possible light.
The one that is difficult for me to look at in a positive sense is: “anti-tax.” I’m actually pro-property rights, but that’s an awkward way of stating it.
Another difficult one is “anti-gay rights.” I’m anti-immorality to be sure but I support the civil rights of all people. The only qualification is you have to be a “people.”
I think it was Frank Page who often said during his presidency that Southern Baptists need to do a better job of articulating what they are FOR rather than what they are against. Not trying to hide my perspective but Page’s oft-repeated remark was rooted in some truth.
I recognize that some might quibble with my choice of phrasing.
Whether stated positively or negatively, I do believe that those positions and ideologies have united Southern Baptists – at least those involved in denominational decision-making – to a large extent in recent decades.
As a side note, you can probably find a better way to characterize your opposition to gay rights than asserting that civil rights are those rights contingent on meeting the qualification of being a “people” in light of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 🙂
Some people make the distinction between pro-life and anti-abortion-rights because many (most?) pro-lifers are also enthusiastically pro-capital-punishment. Just saying.
I think BDW’s list is pretty accurate. For too long SBCers have only (mostly) been known for what we oppose. Too prominent a focus on the culture war.
Anti-tax is probably not accurate. I don’t think any SBCer would suggest that we should pay no taxes. Most SBCers are also pretty pro-military, and that means taxes. Perhaps anti-anymoretaxes would be more accurate.
Being pro-life and pro-capital punishment are not mutally exclusive. The government has the right to execute criminals for crimes. It’s called Romans 13:4.
Mothers do not have the right to murder their babies. Therefore, government does not have the right ot give women that right. Again, Romans 13:4 (ESV) “he (the government) is God’s servant…”.
That is why all Christians are anti-abortion (or they may prefer the term pro-life) and only vote for anti-abortion rights (or pro-life) candidates. If they are, as many of them are, pro-capital punishment, there is no inconsistency.
And yet sometimes we are painted into a corner by those who wish to view us as anti-something, or by those who look for divisions.
For example, if someone comes along promoting the rights of automobile-Americans, simply by disagreeing with them we earn the label of anti-auto. We could even stop at affirming the notion that animate objects are more likely to experience oppression than inanimate ones and still earn the “anti-” label.
I agree that at times we do too much to let people know what we oppose, but sometimes it is done for us.
Jeremy, I am clearly anti-auto!
But your comment is insightful, in my opinion.
Howell, I think that we clearly have two “SBC Identities”. First, you are absolutely right about the legal one, and that probably will not change.
But we have been discussing whether people who clearly meet the legal definition meet that more nebulous definition we have been straining at.
Couldn’t the issue of the size of the big tent be helped to a great degree by insistence on idea of biblical inerrancy?
Yes. I don’t want a tent any bigger than inerrancy. Within that boundary we can argue who is in and who is out. But I can tell you this: if the SBC tent ever expands beyond the borders of biblical fidelity again, I’m checking out.
BDW:
Despite your phrasing, the SBC agencies have done a good job representing the feeling of the majority of its constituents.
Many historically conservative denominations have not, and the actually trumpet the minority position within their denominations on many doctrinal and political issues.
The CR has been very successful in that regard.
I agree with what Frank Page said about being positive.
But the SBC needs to be careful that it is not shamed into “shutting up”, which seems to be the tactic of some opponents nowadays.
The agencies that deal with these issues (Seminaries, LifeWay, ERLC) are very clear about these issues. Being obtuse is not anymore virtuous than being obnoxious.
The positions these agencies take are consistent with what most folks in the SBC think about these issues, and I believe they are clearly positions that are consistent with Christian discipleship and stewardship in a democracy. We obviously could use some help with messaging at times.
I do not yearn for a return to the day when these agencies were actually at war with over half the Southern Baptist people. For example, being pro-life is not the “Catholic” position, as Dr. Valentine used to say.
And I do not year to mimic others who don’t seem to have either the confidence to say what scripture says because it is now countercultural, or hold a doctrine of openness that is so wide as to have drowned out any Christian moral conviction on many of these matters.
Amen.
I don’t know how we can quantify the “done a good job” part. There’s no denying that in large denominations the decision-makers have taken positions not in line with the views of the majority of pew-sitters. That’s true across the board whether we’re talking about Presbyterians divesting themselves from Israel or the Pope declaring the only Catholic permitted to wear a condom is a male prostitute infected with HIV.
Truth is, there have not been enough studies specifically of Southern Baptist pewsitters to quantify whether agencies have or have not “done a good job” of passing the message on. We can draw some basic observations and conclusions here though. Denominational decision-makers are much more uniformly Republican than pewsitters, etc.
Back to my initial point, many of these positions help to define what I and others see as the SBC’s cultural identity as a denomination. Whether decision-makers accurately reflect the views of pewsitters or not, it is the decision-makers who primarily are responsible for shaping an identity – theological and cultural.
This would head us into the exactly wrong direction. We need to accept and celebrate who we are and always have been: not a denomination at all. We are a huge network of generally like-minded, independent congregations who have voluntarily agreed to cooperate together.
I am confident that the heart of our problem is that we act too much like a denomination as we continue to move along a path of cultural rejection of institutions. To further define ourselves as an institutional denomination is to hasten the death of our network.
I’d love to hear you flesh that out a little more.
And thanks for taking a break from America’s Cup yachting to log on. Sorry, I’m sure you never get jokes like that.
I repeat from other contexts that the original freedom for variation started with the founding fathers in Virginia with the uniting of Separate and Regular Baptists in 1787. In that union they allowed for the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man to be no bar to communion. This was due to Hebs.2:9 and the inability of a few to see the context as explaining every man. Also a few of those early people who varied and had suffered for the faith by undergoing imprisonment and punishment like the great majority of Sovereign Grace believers. Liberalism (not modernism or skepticism), that freedom of spirit and allowance to differ on a number of things (think of Elder John Gano (the last person to speak to the Continental Army and the man reputed to have baptized Goerge Washington during the Revolution in the presence of 60 or more witnesses) going to communion with the great Evangelist George Whitefield and preaching from the same platform with Whitefield). Also note Elder Oliver Hart being assigned by Ev. Whitefield to see after a fallen foe (a Black man who had come to mock and who had been knocked down and out by God’s power, cf. Thomas Kidd’s The Great Awakening) and who led the man to Christ after he came to.
I took the training to be a mediator with the Superior Courts of North Carolina and never got to approval status as I never got to do five observations. Nevertheless, it came to me that theological mediators would be a good investment. We need such people trained in the theology of Baptists (and I mean all of it), aware of the differences, able to treat those who differ with respect, aiming to produce a unity that honors Christ and yet allows for a sense of freedom. We must provide for room to differ and room to change without totally becoming to rigid and thus shattering under stress or becoming too limp like a noodle and standing for nothing (so relevant you are irrelevant). My research in Baptist History, especially the era from 1740 until 1820, provided me with insight and understanding of how the biblical teachings are so constructed which would enable us to allow for variations and changes and maturity and yet maintain the true essentials. The doctrines are all, apparently, two sided and contradictory, that is, they cannot be reconciled and are not meant to be. What they do is set up a beneficial tension in the human mind which enables one to adjust, to adapt to the reality of this world, to be balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic or, in short, mature, attractive, winsome personalities. Most tensions are seemingly destructive, undesirable, and are usually and rightly jettisoned, but some tensions are experienced as desirable. This is because the allow one to be faithful to basic principles and yet be able to adjust to changing circumstances.
The period from 1740-1820 is one of the most creative in church history (after the Reformation and the original Good News of Our Lord, of course, and that is absolutely primary). What enabled our ancestor and predecessors to do so well had to do with the grip of these two-sided, apparently contradictory truths which enabled and empowered them to cope with their situations from perpective of blessing. We still have those truths available, though we might not have them in their fulness or undertand all of their implications an applications. We really need to address the past and the present, the current issues, and how our truths that we believe really work. Most of our Calvinists know so little about their past and how their truths really worked that they have a rather heavy handed approach. The truth of the matter is that our forebearers were a lot more sophisticated and subtle than we imagine. Biblical teachings have away of instilling wisdom in its adherents and advocates and agitators. The wisest man I ever met, for example, was a body shop mechanic who repaired Buick cars and had a high school education and had done ten years of research in the history of United Baptists for which his church excommunicated him. I can still here his soft spoke and wise and gentle remarks from more than 40 years ago. One question he asked me totally demolished my eschatology after about 6-7 years.
We need a new appreciation for the depth of the Book, The Holy Bible. After all the mockery I have heard through the years, I know from experience and knowledge that we have the deepest, subtlest Book of books, one inspired by Omniscience and one that reflects the effect of profundity commensurate with that cause. My prayers for 38 years has been for a Third Great Awakening, one that wins the whole earth and every soul on it beginning with this generation and continuing for a thousand generations, and I believe when we see blogs like this one by Brother David and the comments of many in response to i that the visitation is drawing near. I certainly pray that it is. Gloria in excelsis DEO!
Long blog articles can be tiring to read, but this one captivated me and I read it twice.
I appreciate so much what you have communicated here. I was worried you would once again outline the challenges and close with a brief paragraph of how we should be unified in Jesus name and it be over. You, instead, listed parameters for fellowship.
My general feeling on those was good. Part of that is because I have a number of friends who, over the past 20 years, have expressed in one way or another an identification with a particular splinter to the detriment of the SBC as a whole.
1. Biblical and Inerrantist. – Perfect. There are quite a few different directions that people can go under this “tent,” but doctrines and practices will not diverge excessively with this as an anchor.
2. “General Agreement” to the BF&M – Perfect. How many colleagues in ministry have come to me and made an issue of two words in the entire BF&M. The anchor is the inerrant scripture the consensus guideline is the BF&M. There will be an outlier here or there, but under the tent of inerrancy, it should not be absurd.
3. Baptism by Immersion – Perfect. Believer’s baptism by immersion should be the standard form of obedience to Christ’s command to baptize. This is very uniting to our identity as a convention.
4. Cooperative Program – Yes. A reason for having a convention is to cooperate in missions efforts and do more together than apart. Yes, the representation system needs to be reworked. Yes, people will complain. It is time to think about that. Good point here.
5. Freedom in non-essentials of convention participation – Simple. Yes.
I think you have given a simple basis to rally our convention to a stronger unity. This is easy enough to hold on to and short enough to communicate effectively. I appreciate this greatly.
One complaint. If the SBC fractures, our missions efforts will not come to a grinding halt. The funding might, but the effort … it will not.
God bless you.
Stephen M Young II
http://stephenmyoung2.blogspot.com
http://beyondoutreach.blogspot.com
http://smy2brazil.blogspot.com
4.
For clarity, I did not intend to say that our missions efforts would come to a halt. I was saying that our current missions program would, because the funding would dry up.
I fully agree with what you said about that, so if you perceived that I was saying something else, that is a communications snafu, not a disagreement.
I imagined you didn’t, but I wanted to make sure it got said.
By the way, the point you make about being too expensive or too large to split up is interesting. What would be the real result of that, and what would be the advantage to any of the splinters if it did happen?
I just can’t see an advantage in any split over the major issues that are out there.
One more observation, I remember a couple of professors of mine, one at ETBU and the other at NOBTS relating that the convention used to split somewhat frequently, until the annuity board… then not so much.
Dave:
I agree completely with your analysis and solution. My fear is that many will continue to refuse that the BFM 2000 — which is “loose” in many areas — is a suitable doctrinal parameter as it now stands. Both Calvinists/Reformed and non-Calvinists may subscribe to the BFM, yet many are still calling for the expulsion of Calvinists. The essential claim is that those who affirm elder-led/congregational polity, particular redemption, etc., are outside those parameters, or that a new confession needs to be drafted. That very point has been argued by many recently, in fact. Again, I think you make great points, but the question is whether or not your proposal will be met with equal enthusiasm in the various camps. From what I’ve seen, heard, and read, I’m not confident it will.
I think that the so-called Baptist Identity movement will continue to believe and act as if they are the sole keepers of the Baptist flame.
On the other hand, the convention votes have not supported that viewpoint, from the Garner motion, to the election of presidents to the GCR’s approval.
So, I am afraid that you are right, Dr. Galyon. The fight and the fighting seem destined to continue.