This article is a reflection on “Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future,” edited by David S. Dockery. This post is based on the Introduction, “Southern Baptists in the 21st Century,” also by David Dockery. The introduction to this series appeared yesterday.
How important is your rear-view mirror?
It is an important aid in driving, but you cannot make progress through busy streets if all you do is stare behind you!
I’ve known a few Baptists who are trying to steer toward the future by gazing only in their rear-view mirrors! Every problem we face has arisen because we stopped doing what we did back in the 50s and 60s and the solution is to revert to the way things used to be. Preachers in suits and ties, standing behind pulpits flanked by a piano and organ, leading singing from the hymnal, preaching 3 point topical sermons (alliterated to at least the second subpoint!) from the King James Bible, holding spring and fall revivals, maintaining an outreach-based Sunday School (using the principles of the Sunday School Growth Spiral), having RAs and GAs and operating broad-based SBC-approved programs for all ages. If we would simply do today what we did then, we would see today what they saw then!
On the other hand, there are many who want to throw out the rear-view mirror completely. What is past is past and should be rejected as we engage the future. We need to leave behind the outdated relics of Southern Baptists’ (somewhat proud and somewhat shameful) past and move forward with a bright, shiny new SBC that looks nothing like my father’s SBC.
Both of these are mistakes. We cannot drive forward looking only in the rear-view mirror, but neither can we navigate the heavy traffic of today easily while throwing away our rear-view mirror and completely ignoring the past. There is a balance that we need to find here.
But it is a tricky balance. How does the traditionalistic SBC, which once had a monolithic and almost universal cultural bond, face the future where those cultural bonds have been shattered? This is, I believe, the key issue that faces us. Since I have been blogging, we have had our share of major kerfuffles, some of which became brouhahas, and a few turned into ruckuses – one or two even became all-out melees. We have argued over IMB policies about baptism and private prayer language, about tithing, about social consumption of alcohol, about the GCR and the GCB, and of course, the granddaddy of them all, Calvinism. But I think that each of these blogging brawls was a symptom of a deeper question – who are we in this modern age? Are we traditional or culturally progressive? Are we cessationist or continuationist? Calvinist or not? Who are we today?
At the risk of opening a can of rotten worms, I would make an observation about the Calvinism debate. The most noted organization of Calvinists in the SBC calls itself the Founders. A few months ago, a document was published which identified its signatories as “Traditionalist Baptists.” I think it is fair to say that both of these names are seeking to accomplish the same thing – laying claim to the heart of Southern Baptist Identity. As the uniform culture of days gone by has faded, there is an uncertainty concerning who we really are and we all want to lay claim to being the mavens of our denominational heritage.
The monolithic SBC culture of the 50s, 60s and 70s has crumbled. I reflected on this in an article called, “The Tie That Binds? The Sea-Change in Southern Baptist Culture.” In that article I traced the forces that broke down the monolithic culture of the days gone by and made some suggestions about how we could go forward. Much of what I wrote there was based on my reading of this introduction to Dockery’s book.
But, here we are. Bemoan it or rejoice in it, the fact is that our monolithic SBC culture is gone (or at least rapidly going!). There is little profit in complaining about it or wishing it were not so. We are no longer joined by denominational loyalty and cultural similarity. We need to define a new basis for our denominational existence or the process of fracturing will continue until we are a dozen smaller groups that used to be the Southern Baptist Convention and the once powerful SBC is a subject for church history books. We have to find a new basis for cooperation as a denomination that is not founded on cultural uniformity.
We need to figure out who we are, to engage in a process of denominational self-discovery that defines our identity.
Dockery gives some important insights about how we might go about doing that in the introduction to this book.
Summary of “Southern Baptists in the 21st Century” (pages 13-21)
Dockery begins with a discussion of the now-crumbled monolithic SBC culture I have already reflected on and makes the following observation (pg 14):
Today, Southern Baptists seem to be a gathering of loosely connected, if not balkanized, groups. By and large, we don’t know our heritage, our history, or our theological identity.
He then identifies our great need, building a consensus on Southern Baptist Identity that can unite and renew us as a denomination. But he also gives a warning, one that I believe is crucial.
We will need to distinguish between markers of Southern Baptist identity and markers of Southern Baptist consistency. In doing so, we can emphasize primary and core convictions.
The danger to our denomination, he argues, is not in those minor things that separate us, but in our common enemies – the rising tide of “liberalism, neo-paganism, and postmodernism that threaten to swamp Southern Baptist identity in cultural accommodation.”
Having defined the problems we face, he then establishes two broad categories of identity that ought to unite us as Southern Baptists.
First, Southern Baptists must be united by our “Convictional and Confessional Beliefs”
In a culture that eschews even the idea of an identifiable body of truth, we need to hold to a “normative, doctrinal confession.”
What is needed today is a renewed commitment to confess and teach the truth in congregations, academic institutions, and agencies across the SBC and literally around the world.
Of course, this is easier said than done. We have a doctrinal confession, the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000. But many either disagree with the confession (especially on the issues of biblical definitions of gender roles and family life) or are finding the confession to be inadequate. The IMB trustees did not think that the BF&M adequately defined baptism or excluded people with charismatic leanings, and so they added policies that went well beyond what is justified in the BF&M. Some of the resolutions and motions offered at the SBC, especially in NOLA this year, as an attempt to establish a non-Calvinist view as the proper Baptist interpretation. And, of course, LifeWay recently came out with a study that demonstrated that the majority of Southern Baptists are ignoring the BF&M in their Lord’s Supper practices at the local level.
All of that is not to pick fights on those issues, but simply to observe that we have a lot of work to do in defining the basis of our cooperation in doctrinal and theological terms. It is my belief that Southern Baptists need to say, “I am willing to cooperate with anyone whose doctrine and practice conforms to the BF&M 2000, regardless of disagreements on other issues.” I am convinced that Calvinists and non-Calvinists can do more than coexist – we can cooperate in missions and ministry! Of course, Calvinistic crusaders and anti-Calvinist campaigners will never coexist easily, but the rest of us (Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike) can form a broad middle of cooperation in spite of the warring extremes. Cultural traditionalists and progressives can unite around our common doctrine while approaching ministry in vastly different ways – and respect and bless one another in the process.
But, as Dockery notes, it would be a horrible mistake for us return to the days when doctrinal heterodoxy was permitted in the name of Southern Baptist unity. We need to unite around a perfect Bible, a Risen Lord, and Baptist convictions – as defined in (and only in) our common confession, the Baptist Faith and Message.
Second, we must unite around “Collaborative and Cooperative Service.”
We can no longer unite around “programmatic pragmatism or a cultural homogeneity” but must join together in cooperation as an increasingly diverse group. Here is what he says:
Southern Baptist in the twenty-first century are rapidly changing. A quick look reveals that we are Asian, Hispanic, black, brown and white. We have dark skin and light, we are young and old, our churches are small and large , and we worship in rural communities and in sprawling metropolitan areas. We are educated and uneducated, well known and anonymous, bloggers and non-bloggers, rich and poor, theologians and practitioners, and while we remain predominately Southerners, SBC congregations are found across this land in the West, East and North as well. One of the things, however, that gets the attention of the wold and authenticates our confession is the way Christians love each other, celebrate our diversity and serve together in harmony. I believe the absence of such love and cooperation breaks our Savior’s heart.
Wow. Let that one ferment a while, folks.
He continues that we need to have both streams, “collaborative cooperation” and “convictional confessionalism” and not to choose between the two. Our witness to the world and our denominational effectiveness is heavily compromised when our interactions are marked by cantankerousness instead of love for one another.
Initial Steps for Renewal
Dockery closes the introduction with list of twelve initial steps toward SBC renewal.
- Appreciate the best of Baptist history and heritage.
- Balance a commitment to the material principle of the gospel and the formal principle of inspired Scripture.
- Maintain a full-orbed doctrine of Scripture.
- Refrain from imposing doctrinal straitjackets on issues that do not warrant such.
- Recognize that a confession of the Bible’s truthfulness is an important safeguard against the pressure to conform in a rapidly changing culture.
- Reclaim a model of dynamic orthodoxy, rooted in the consensus fidei of the church.
- Remember that Southern Baptists have historically reflected considerable diversity.
- Take seriously the biblical call to unity.
- Remind ourselves where we might be if it were not for the Conservative Resurgence.
- Develop a new spirit of mutual respect and humility as we serve God together.
- Build a new consensus around the gospel of Jesus Christ (as was present at the first Triennial Convention of 1814 and the inaugural Southern Baptist Convention of 1845).
- Trust God to bring renewal to the SBC as we do theology, church and personal relationships as they were intended to be.
I think this last point is key. Our biggest problems are not the things we fight about. They are the symptoms of the problems. Our biggest problems are heart problems that can only be solved by repentance and a return to God’s Word, his will and his ways in all we do.
What a shame it would be, Southern Baptists, if having been rescued from the slow death caused by the poison of theological liberalism that other denominations have ingested, we would commit denominational suicide through division and fleshly behavior.
I encourage you to get Dockery’s book and read it (pages 13-21 for this post), then join in the conversation.
Let me end with my fundamental belief. Most of the stuff we argue over in blogs is evidence of a deep problem among Southern Baptists. We have no idea who we are. The cultural basis of our unity has washed away and we are left wondering what unites us and even in many cases, if it is worth being united at all.
What say you?
NOTES:
- The next discussion will be of Chapter 1, entitled Southern Baptist Identity: Is There a Future? by R. Albert Mohler, beginning on page 25.
- Trevin Wax live-blogged a conference that was held at Union University, October 6-9, 2009, called “Southern Baptists, Evangelicalism and the Future of Denominationalism” which dealt with many of the same issues that were raised in the Southern Baptist Identity book. His summaries are good additional reading if this topic of our identity as a denomination interests you.
I learned long ago that what I have done in this post is dangerous. The topic is defining SBC Identity, but I’ve opened a few cans of worms that would threaten to take us in all the wrong directions.
I’d admonish all to keep on topic, but I’m guessing it would do little good.
You wrote – “We need to unite around a perfect Bible, a Risen Lord, and Baptist convictions – as defined in (and only in) our common confession, the Baptist Faith and Message.”
The last part of that statement – “as defined in (and only in) our common confession, the Baptist Faith and Message,” begs for more explanation.
I had an Executive Director of one of our State Conventions tell me he didn’t agree with all parts of the BF&M and that you didn’t have to in order to be a Southern Baptist. I suspect his view is closer to the majority of where folks in the SBC really are.
There are a couple of parts of the BF&M that I do not agree with. Autonomous Baptists and Baptist churches are free to hold and express those disagreements and still be SBC.
My point has to do with two things – our entities and the basis of our cooperation. Entities should operate within the doctrinal boundaries established by the BF&M and should not go beyond that in limiting participation.
My church can be Calvinist, non-Calvinist, cessationist or continuationist, premill, amill, or whatever.
When we try to make Calvinism or non-Calvinism a point of fellowship, we add to the fracturing that is taking place. When we go beyond our confession in establishing parameters of missional cooperation, that becomes a problem.
In other words, if you believe the inerrant Word reveals a Trinitarian God who revealed himself through the God-man Jesus Christ who was the propitiation for our sins and is the only hope of salvation, which comes by grace through faith alone and guarantees our salvation; if you practice baptism by immersion of believers only as a symbol of salvation, then I can overlook pretty much everything else and partner with you to plant churches, and make disciples here and around the world.
“There are a couple of parts of the BF&M that I do not agree with” (Dave Miller, 2012).
Dave, I said something like this a few years ago and it might as well have been my epitaph.
I actually opposed changes made to the BFM in 2000, not because I was unsympathetic with what the committee was trying to do but because I feared what certain elements would do with the changes. I believe that my fears were well founded: As I now observe, our Christology has been diminished, the neo-conservative social agenda has become our new shibboleth, and women have been marginalized beyond what is right for a healthy Biblical complementarianism.*
(FOOTNOTE: There is a continuum between complementarianism and and egalitarianism/patriarchalism. There are plenty of complementarians who do not buy into the full-blown agenda of the CBWM. Sadly, I hardly ever meet one who is SBC; they just don’t seem to be welcome; honest discussions of their concerns seem to be off limits. If you don’t believe me, try commenting on certain SBC blogs and get marked for permanent moderation.)
My point is that the SBC seems to be controlled by two or three “elements” scrambling for her soul. They don’t always agree with one another but they know who their friends are and who is “unreliable.” If you don’t get on board with one of these groups, you become persona-non-grata, unwelcome anywhere. We used to have a healthy continuum and healthy dialogue within the conservative ranks; now we just have tribes.
Dave,
There are a hundred points worthy of response but I will limit my response to one issue which has been a hot topic recently and will rightfully continue to be a hot topic in the SBC. Confessionalism.
Since before the SBC (>1845) and approaching the middle 20th Century, Baptist churches (and SBC churches) were confessional churches. These churches held to certain beliefs that were non-negotiable for membership. You either believed the church’s chosen articles of faith and were in good standing or rejected the articles of faith of the church and were not permitted membership or removed from membership. This confessionalism was also in place in almost every Baptist association. So, churches were held to the same standards of belief as church members. The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was by and large the standard confession of faith for churches in the South. I have yet to track down any non-Calvinist confessions that churches and associations in the South adopted.
Now, that said, the SBC has by and large abandoned Baptist confessionalism. Associations no longer require strict adherence to the chosen confession, the BFM2000. Churches are allowed to reject certain articles or interpret them in whatever way they see fit. Also, the vast majority of churches do not require their members to affirm the BFM2000 for membership. The only semi-confessional use of the BFM2000 is in our seminaries and institutions, however, this also is not legitimate confessionalism as professors at SBC seminaries are allowed to completely disagree with the BFM2000 on the Lord’s Supper and interpret the BFM2000 in ways contrary to their seminary peers. This is not confessionalism, at least not how Southern Baptists have historically understood confessionalism.
Until we in the SBC get serious about legitimate confessionalism which draws lines in the sand, our doctrine will continue to shift as the sand and we will splinter and divide as we have very little to actually unite around. We must rid ourselves of this “expressionalism” and adopt a real Baptist confessionalism.
I think Dr. Dockery does a good job of balancing the call for confessionalism (and a healthy, robust one) while also calling for unity on tertiary doctrines.
There is a fine line between confessionalism and creedalism – one that is hard to define and to draw.
It seems to me that requiring adherence to the confession in toto would cross that line toward creedalism. Our churches (and individuals) need to be in general adherence, while our entities need a slightly more strict standard.
And I don’t think it is completely accurate to say that we have abandoned confessionalism. It is unevenly applied, but I’ve know associations that applied it (one I was previous in).
Dave,
What do you mean by, “we” haven’t completely abandoned confessionalism?
I was contrasting a former reality that almost all Southern Baptist churches and associations required their members to believe their chosen articles of faith. Currently, the average Southern Baptist is allowed to belong to a SBC church and disagree with various points of the BFM2000. This leads me to conclude that the SBC has almost totally abandoned real confessionalism.
As Dockery points out, the SBC has always been a theological big tent that allowed much diversity within the boundaries of Baptist orthodoxy.
Dave,
What do you think of local churches and associations no longer being confessional?
I’m not sure that they are not.
Really? Perhaps we have two different understandings of confessionalism.
How do you define confessionalism and what does it look like in a Baptist church?
Joshua, just because a church does not have the same confession or one as detailed as yours does not mean it is not confessional. Right?
Southern Baptists have opted for a confession that is inerrantist, Baptist, and non-specific on most other issues.
For instance, we confess that Jesus will return in victory, but we don’t choose one of the eschatological camps. Our confession is intentionally non-specific there.
We define salvation by grace through faith but do not define either a Calvinist or non-Calvinist soteriology.
Again, I will ask – what doctrines do you want defined more exclusively? Calvinist/Reformed doctrine?
Surely. It isn’t about how many articles of faith, it is about actually being united around the articles of faith of the church. This is enforced through membership and church discipline. This is the historic Baptist way of being confessional. My point is that hardly any SBC churches require members to read and affirm their own articles of faith to be members. And, if that member later changes his/her views, he/she is then dismissed from the church. That is not the norm in the SBC. This is why the SBC should no longer be called “confessional.”
It seems to me that you are taking a narrow and fairly extreme definition of confessionalism. Even the imposition of inerrancy as a confessional position was traumatic among Baptists.
But we have never had (in my lifetime) the kind of confessionalism you are advocating. We have a corpus of doctrinal standards, but it not spelled out in great detail.
Dave,
No, I do not want to narrow the BFM2000 for “Calvinism”….no.
I do want us to have a confession that is not intentionally ambiguous and that is required for all Southern Baptist churches to affirm in order to be called Southern Baptist. This may seem radical in our day and time, but this is confessionalism and the SBC has a rich heritage of confessionalism. It is time we return for the sake of our convention and unity.
Or, to put it another way, we can be confessional without being confessional in the way you advocate.
There is a conflicting principle there – the principle of autonomy. We can demand that our entities and employees adhere closely to the BF&M, but there is a limit to how much enforcement we can do in enforcing standards at the church level.
I think that we have been somewhat inconsistent on that, of course. We have enforced the women as pastors part of things, but we have not enforced the open/closed/close communion thing.
Dave,
We can only be confessional in the way that confessionalism works. Practicing “expressionalism” and calling it confessionalism will not do.
This requires putting doctrinal lines in the sand and guarding membership from those who do not believe the adopted confession.
This isn’t some “type” of confessionalism but straightforward historical confessionalism.
Again, I’d be interested to know which points of the BF&M you want defined further. I feel like I’m arguing in the dark without knowing specifically what you are advocating.
Not a big fan of expressionism. More a fan of realism, but in reality I’m not much of an art fan.
Dave,
We are talking past each other, it seems. I’m sorry if I have not been clear.
I am not advocating narrowing anything. I am advocating having the BFM actually mean what it says. Narrowing doesn’t have to take place. The document makes statements of belief just fine. The fly in the ointment is that the framers promoted multiple contradicting interpretations and this is allowed to this day. Also, confessionalism entails requiring affirmation for membership…just like almost every Baptist association in history.
Confessionalism. Expressionalism. Phooey. I’ve got to go get some supper!
That is what matters most to Baptists.
You guys behave.
I do think that one aspect of our unity will have to be thinking through and defining the place of the BF&M in our denominational life.
Here’s what our State Convention’s Constitution says about this very subject.
The doctrinal guidelines for this Convention
and its work shall be the Baptist Faith and Message as
adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention on June 14,
2000, understanding that any Southern Baptist church
affiliated with the Convention has the right to affirm any
historic Baptist confession of faith.
Basically as I understand it this means everything we do together will be done in the spirit of the BF&M 2000 even though affiliated churches may never have adopted that particular confessional statement.
To go further than this is a path I don’t think Southern Baptists would be wise to follow.
That is reasonable.
One more thing, Joshua. All too often the call for “confessionalism” is a subtle call for the institution of my beliefs over anyone elses’ beliefs.
When we advocate for a more narrow, “my way or the highway” confession, we increase the splintering trend.
I think it is good that the BF&M leaves some things undefined – for instance it allows both Calvinists and non-Calvinists to sign on. To have a confession that either encodes or eliminates Calvinist doctrine would be disastrous.
Dave,
That is confessionalism, brother. Southern Baptist churches used to not have a problem denying you membership because you did not believe their articles of faith. Today, such a move is seen as “mean-spirited” or “rude.”
I am ok with the BFM2000 being silent on certain issues. I am not ok with the BFM2000 taking a stance on an issue and then penning the article in a way that allows for multiple contradicting interpretations. Either we unite around an article which has meaning or don’t bother articulating said belief.
What issues do you want a more narrow focus?
None in particular.
Joshua,
I do get what you’re saying, and by and large agree with you. I do also think if confessionalism were imposed, there would be splintering. But in the long run I think that could benefit all involved. i.e. What do Southern Baptists believe? could be answered.
But, I’m wondering about this statement, “Southern Baptist churches used to not have a problem denying you membership because you did not believe their articles of faith.”
Question: Was affirmation to confessions really a requirement for church membership in times past? On a large scale?
Having been a pastor in the PCA (a confessional church…WCF and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms)…that is not how confessionalism works in the PCA.
Affirmation to the confessions in the PCA extends to officers and denominational EEs. Pastors, assistant pastors, elders and deacons must affirm by vows to the confessions. Church member applicants do not.
Just FYI on a good discussion.
Les
Les,
Yes, Paxton details the history of Louisiana Baptists and every church from 1818 onward required affirming every article of faith for membership. This is what helped guard the churches from the Campbellites who were trying to sneak into Baptist churches.
This type of confessional was the norm in Baptist life on into the 20th cent.
Joshua, the SBC has always had some degree of disagreement on how the individual churches should carry out their mission. I suggest that you (and everyone) read Bob Terry’s, (editor of The Alabama Baptist) October 18th Opinion piece called, “Is there a Lesson to be Learned from our History?” In the article, Terry describes how there was a great evangelistic movement in the South as part of the Second Great Awakening in the 1820’s in which many were converted. However, by the 1830’s, there was an “Anti-Missionary” movement as there was opposition to the “whosoever will” theology being preached on the frontier. The churches on the coast adopted a more Calvinistic theology and were uncomfortable with what they were seeing on the frontier. Here is a link to the article: http://thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article-detail.php?id_art=25075&pricat_art=10
I mention Bob Terry’s article to point out that there has been some degree of disagreement amongst Baptists even before the SBC was founded in 1845. The other reality is that the SBC is not a denomination in the sense that the Methodists and Presbyterians are in which the denomination exerts some degree of control on the individual churches. In fact, the pastors of Presbyterian churches are considered to be employees of the denomination and the church property is also considered to be owned by the denomination. This issue has come up recently as some of the Presbyterian Church USA congregations are attempting to leave the denomination since the denomination voted to approve homosexual ordination and marriage. These churches face legal battles as they attempt to leave and become part of the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.
The SBC has allowed the autonomy of the local church and typically it is the local association or state convention which chooses to remove fellowship from a churchover doctrinal issues, not the SBC. To implement policies like the Presbyterian Church in America has which insure that every church is similar on issues of the Lord’s Supper, etc., would be going against almost 200 years of history of Baptists in America. Where would you start? would you remove fellowship over whether the church has closed communion or not? There was a movement called the Landmark Movement which took the position that the saved were only in the SBC and the members’ baptism had to be performed only by someone who also had a legitimate baptism, so anyone who wanted to join a SBC church had to be rebaptized even if they had a full immersion baptism, but it was not in a SBC church.
I understand your concerns, but baptists have existed in this country for over 200 years with both a confession on the fundamentals of their theology and disagreement on the secondary issues.
I think a good start would be removing Red Sox fans!
David,
I have previously read Terry’s article and just read it again. I am not following how his article contributes to the discussion of historic confessionalism in Baptist churches in the South.
I am aware of the anti-missionary movement but this does not undermine Baptist confessionalism. Disagreements will always be with us.
I am also not advocating perfect agreement on tertiary issues, if this is what is implied in your last paragraph.
David: Your reflections on the set-tos or brouhahas and, especially, your rejection of the Past leaven no room for perspective, for maintaining the essence of what is past that might be the key to a brighter future. Perhaps, many would like to think that all I am interested is in making Calvinists. If that were so, I would join the so-called Founders (Ernest Reisinger’s neat little trick), but being truly converted and also truly a successor and a descendant of those who held to such theology before the Reformers showed up, I know the theology is the key to the door and the end, awakening souls and glorifying God. There is much more to this the issue of the past theology than we imagine. Consider how the United States adopted the Baptist doctrine and view on religious liberty. Consider how Protestantism got turned around and then sought to persuade people to the Gospel as the Baptists sought to do. There is, in the words of the Pilgrim Pastor, John Robinson, “more light getting ready to break forth from God’s word.” That tells me there is a theological depth which is the source of mental, spiritual, and ecclesiastical renewal as well educational, political, intellectual, philosophical, scientific, and etc., alterations that can meet the challenges of realities arising in our future. I call your attention to the theme I promote, a Third Great Awakening, seeking the conversion of every soul on earth, and continuing for a 1000 generations and reaching, perhaps millions of planets in a time span of from 20,000 to a half-million or more years. societal changes that sees an end to wars, prejudice, hatreds, a Heaven on earth that the Gospel alone can produce. The theory of crisonist thought that can create the intellectual and scientific climate necessary for such accomplishments is anchored in the theological and biblical truths and how they work in history and how they prepare us for the future. You have some good ideas, but the would be better informed by a deeper and more extensive and intensive research of church history.
next to the last line, but THEY would …
Dave,
Is it wrong to still adhere to the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. and not the revisions such as the one in 2000?
For a church, whatever confession it has is fine. Our confession as a denomination is BF&M 2000.
I think John L. Dagg has wise words concerning not imposing beliefs upon others via confessionalism where the Scriptures are silent (even if one thinks their belief is probably right).
“As the term covenant is sometimes applied to a free promise, in which no condition is stipulated; it is proper to characterize that which was made with Adam as a covenant of works. It was a law, with a penalty affixed. ‘Of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.'[7] No promise was given, that Adam would continue to enjoy the divine favor if he continued obedient; but this may be understood to be clearly implied. Whether higher favor than he then enjoyed, would have been granted on condition of his persevering in obedience through a prescribed term of probation, we are not informed. We have reason to conclude, that a continuance in well-doing, would have received stronger marks of divine approbation according to its progress; and, from what we know of the power of habit, as tending to establish man in virtue or vice, (a tendency which it has, because God has so willed it) the conjecture is not improbable, that, had Adam persevered in his obedience, he would, after a time, have been confirmed in holiness. But, where the Scriptures are silent, we should not frame conjectures and make them articles of faith.” (bold mine)
Book Fourth/Chapter II/The Fall
The 1689 Baptist Confession (a part of 1800’s SB history) contradicts Dagg above by making it an article that “God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling…”
I agree with Dagg. Accordingly, I think one’s perspective concerning 1800’s SB confessionalism needs to be measured (and not idealistic).
Benji,
There needs to be a clear distinction between forcing one’s beliefs on someone and having a standard of beliefs for membership.
You do not have to join a confessional church. Thus, confessioanlism is not about enforcing beliefs onto people but people coming together in unity of beliefs.
I think Josh Breland should “confess” his sin of using this new picture and replace it with the former “lean, mean, fightin’ machine, fresh out of the Army” picture he used in the past.
CB,
Marriage has morphed me into this hideous being that I am today. On the brighter side, God has blessed my wife and I with our first little one due in May! Prayers much appreciated!
Josh,
Serious side of cb here. I shall pray for you and your wife and soon coming child. Children are a blessing from God. Spend as much time as you can with them while they are young. They grow up fast. You grow old quick.
You know this,but I like to say it; Rear them in the admonition of The Lord.
Yeah, I noticed he went over to the young whippersnapper/dark side/bearded look.
Trying to get stunt double work for Duck Dynasty. Got a few years growth yet to go.
Joshua,
I think that is simplistic.
Rightly or wrongly, if someone wants to become a member of a robustly “confessional church” or is already a member of a church which wants to transition to becoming a robustly “confessional church” and is in disagreement or doubt concerning some article, then they may feel the pressure (i.e. force) to conform.
And then if they do not join because of conscience and can’t find any other church to join (because of apostasy?), then don’t be surprised if they are accused of being an “individualist”. Thus the catch 22 of it all.
Ladies and gentlemen, there has been a Benji Ramsaur sighting!
Benji,
I think you hit the nail on the head. In that case, they would either need to leave or conform. That is the whole point of a confession. The fact that we have shifted from this form of church membership in the SBC is what has brought us to where we are in the current SBC context.
Drew,
Your last sentence is an example of what has provided “confessionalists” ammunition to use to promote their cause. However, I do not think their perspective is as measured as John L. Dagg’s.
I think Dagg understood the danger of what has been called “Paper Popery”.
Also, I noticed your recent blog post concerning the commentary of former Southwestern President Scarborough on confessionalism. I think if you look at the commentary of the 1st President of Southwestern on Spirit Baptism, you will see it conflicting with the wording, at least, of the BF&M 2000.
BF&M 2000 “The Holy Spirit…He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ”
B.H. Carroll–”Suppose we take the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. If you want to get muddled you should read what the commentators say on the subject. What is it? It reads in the King James Version this way: ‘By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.’ It reads in the new version, ‘In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.’ Notice the difference in the two renderings. The King James Version makes the Holy Spirit the administrator, ‘By one Spirit.’ The Holy Spirit never administers baptism. He is the element, not the administrator.” (bold mine–”The Holy Spirit”; Pg. 29 from AGES software)
I do want to clarify that the apostasy[?] I was mentioning above was apostasy in the surrounding churches (not in the person abstaining from joining churches).
And, once again, if any of you folks see a future chapter in the book you’d like to tackle (or write a different take on this one) let me know!
davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com
Dave:
An excellent statement of today’s situation relative to SBC identity.
I don’t know exactly where we go from here.
I believe it is valuable to maintain a common Baptist identity, constistent with the idea of each church being autonomous. For me, the benefits of “cooperation” — such as supporting the six seminaries and the two mission boards — outweighs the negative aspects of having to “adhere” — even if “voluntarily”, to some confessional statement. In fact, I’d argue that having a confessional statement – even one that we don’t all follow to the letter — is good since it gives us a common core around which to operate the instiutions that we are supporting via our cooperation.
Fundamentally, that is my belief – that the work we can do together through CP missions is worth the effort find a path to cooperation.
Drew,
Broadly speaking, I think the fragmentation of SB beliefs did not come immediately after the waning of confessionalism.
I think Baptist Training Union was [a major part of] the means that kept a consensus of SB beliefs for some time (after confessionalism had waned).
Then after BTU waned, I believe fragmentation happened.
In 1958 Pope Duncan in his book “Our Baptist Story” stated:
“The phenomenal growth of the Southern Baptist Convention since 1944 has been paced by the growth of the Sunday School Board. Not only have its functions and services been ever enlarging, but the results of its efforts have been spectacular. For example, during 1944-1958 Sunday school enrolment more than doubled, increasing to 6,823,713. Training Union enrolment more than tripled. The total Sunday school and Training Union study course awards increased more than threefold, or to nearly one and a half million awards in 1956. The board’s receipts from all sources increased several times over. In 1956, its net sales amounted to more than twenty-million dollars.”
At the risk of being waaaaay off of the thinking of this thread I would like to open another line of thinking. Identity as the SBC understood and experienced it in the past was about much more than doctrine. As important as doctrine is, it is not enough to create and sustain denominational identity for the people in the pulpit or the pews. Identity comes from similar ways of seeing the world and similar ways of seeing the ourselves. Identity is the story we tell ourselves about ourselves. If that story is not the same, it’s very difficult to create a common identity. We have virtually no models of successful identity forging amidst the diversity that will be our reality.
That is why we have to form a theological and missional identity instead of a cultural one.
I agree, Dave.
Our identity as believers, as adherents to the biblical gospel, as children of God, and finally as Baptists is not about us, our ethnic or socio-economic heritage. Our identity as believers is about Jesus.
Jesus stated in in John 14:21, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Baptist identity is not about culture. It is not about self-identity. it is about identifying one’s self with Christ and taking up the cross, dying to self, and following Him in obedience to His teachings. It is a journey, but it is a journey of obedience to Christ and continual conformity to His image.