Dave Miller has posed this question, and the answers we’ve seen and given range from tragic to comic to, well, just this side of ridiculous. This is a challenging question. In recent years, there’s been an apparent shift to a post-denominational world in American Christianity, with many of the fastest growing churches either being non-denominational or being the head church of a new denomination. Then there’s the age-old argument that Southern Baptists aren’t a denomination at all, but that’s another argument. If solved in the comments, great, but if not, we’ll table that for another post.
Part of the challenge in answering this question is that any short definition will require using words that, in turn, require their own defining statement. To take an outside example, one can define being President of the United States as “being the chief executive of the United States government.” This defines the role without telling you anything, until you examine “executive” “United States” and “government.” Likewise any definition of Southern Baptist Church will be difficult.
For example, I used the definition that included the term “Bible-believing Christians.” However, what do we mean by that? While many of us hold different viewpoints, and while some will accuse others of not believing the Bible, how many Christians don’t count themselves as Bible-believing? How do you get the word Christian without believing at least part of the Bible (Acts 11:26)?
So, if we define a Southern Baptist Church as an association of Bible-believing Christians that gather to worship and cooperatively engage in and support the work of the Great Commission, what does that get us? It gets us a definition, but not a distinctive one.
However, this problem is not new to our generation and times. In his book The Baptist Spirit by I.J. Van Ness, published by the Baptist Sunday School Board in 1914, he stated that Baptist life consists of three things:
- A belief in New Testament Principles
- A desire for the New Testament Spirit
- A proper zeal for the great purposes to which this spirit naturally and surely leads
Who can disagree with this description of a church? Yet it gets us no closer to knowing what to expect when I show up at Fourth Baptist, No Hope Baptist, or any other Baptist Church.
Van Ness also recognized that this definition was inadequate. Rather, like the one I gave above, he called these three items essential to have and understand before you dig into the distinctive Baptist principles. A further word from his book: our principles without spirit make a cold creed and an attempt to deny the principles while imitating the spirit is like trying to make a stalk grow without roots.
Likewise, we see that today, there are certain principles that should be assumed in any church that claims to be a New Testament church. These would be recognizing the deity of Christ, the validity of Scripture, the personal work of the Holy Spirit, and the need for and provision of atonement. Many of these are named in Dave Miller’s list of “Brick Wall” doctrines, but since I’m writing without the benefit of an internet connection, I’m not for certain.
Churches that lack those doctrinal markers are for a different discussion, namely whether they are a church or not. The real question is how the churches that do, at the least, allege to hold those doctrines differ and become Southern Baptist or not.
Here are 4 items I would find as distinctive of Southern Baptist Churches:
1. Observed Ordinances and not Saving Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pictures, symbols, reminders of the life of grace, and not the means of grace.
- Baptism by immersion after salvation. This is part of our Baptist side. Not only the mode and method, but the timing is necessary. We also hold that local church membership comes after baptism. We will accept the testimony of a trustworthy church regarding your baptism, but it has to have happened somewhere.
- The Lord’s Supper for those who are disciples. Even though there may be lousy disciples, like Judas, present, we hold that the Lord’s Supper is for believers to remind themselves of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The sacrifice is sufficient for salvation without the supper, but the supper is a vivid reminder and an ongoing testimony of the cost of our salvation.
2. Expected Evangelism: a Southern Baptist Church understands that if believers don’t tell about Christ, people will not hear. Therefore, people will not become believers, and will go to hell. We can split heretics all day over resistible grace or irresistible, but you have to get on the fringe to find “Don’t tell” as a policy in Baptist churches. A mark of a Southern Baptist Church we see is that Southern Baptist Churches expect someone to evangelize.
3. Multiple Missions: Southern Baptist Churches fund multiple efforts, or missions, of the church. The missions include: caring for children, healthcare, education, national evangelism, international evangelism, and national religious revival efforts. In all, though, a Southern Baptist Church has a method to fund a multitude of missions, more than they can individually vet and verify. Currently that method runs through a combination of the Cooperative Program and special offerings, including designated giving. As the years pass, this will all be called Great Commission Giving for a little while, and then it will be something else. However, one of the markers of a Southern Baptist Church is multiplied missions funding as compared to individual missions funding, where the church selects each individual it supports.
4. Word-based Worship: while this needs a closer look, Southern Baptist Churches make the Word of God the focus of their worship. The service revolves around presenting the Word, whether in song or sermon, drama or dance (ed. Interpretative movement).
While there have been others at times, many of those may be common, but they are not universal. Others are better known in stereotype than in reality. Local church autonomy remains a mark of many Baptist groups and non-Baptist ones, so I’ve left it out.
What have I ignored? What am I wrong about? What am I right about?
You KNOW this is a post filled with great wisdom when the four main points are alliterated. That is the marker of great Southern Baptist writing!
Point 1 is even DOUBLE alliterated!
You know that took effort.
For anyone that comments about something other than the alliteration, just a quick note:
I’m not ignoring any criticism (nor any praise), but I don’t have internet access at the office, and Friday I’m with a school field trip. I do want to interact with your rebukes and suggestions, so please be patient.
Doug
For me, I take the BF&M definition of a local church as being a local assembly of baptized believers. Add to that the requirements that we be in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC and contribute to the Cooperative Program, and I don’t think we should go any further with a definition.
Doing so will open up too many other worm cans that simply don’t apply to everybody. It’s not like some guys in Des Moines and Tampa knows what it takes to reach people groups in Boston and Albuquerque.
Bob,
I think what I’m after is what is “friendly cooperation”? And the by-laws of the SBC do not require contributing to the CP, only “supporting the Convention’s work.”
My goal was to provide a little clearer picture. Given that it’s not necessary that a church agree with the BF&M to be a Southern Baptist Church, what do we agree with?
I think that’s one of the interesting quirks: all SBC entities are supposed to be in agreement with the 2000 BF&M, but nothing at the SBC level requires that a cooperating church agree with it.
Doug
Given the SBC affirmation of the autonomy of the local church, and the explicit statement in the Preamble to the BFM, that any group of baptists can compose their own confession of faith, I don’t think it’s the intent to be any more specific than what’s been said.
I’ve been in a lot of denominations. They were all quite specific. My guess is that the “looseness” in the SBC is intentional.
I would think so as well. However, that doesn’t give a person from outside who says “What is an SBC church?” much of an answer. That’s part of what I’m trying to address.
“all SBC entities are supposed to be in agreement with the 2000 BF&M”
a ‘quirk’? or planned ahead of time, very, very carefully ?
Were there any people who raised a protest before this was voted on as policy, and if so, did they state what they saw coming as a consequence of that policy?
Any SBC’er that is receiving a paycheck from the SBC has no right to not sign the BFM 2000. There is nothing in there that is unbiblical. While it is only a man made document and not inspired by God, it is a pretty good overview of what Baptists have believed and agree to be true.
If I were still inthe SBC I’d wish the churches had to affirm it as well. Sure would make separating the wheat from the tares a whole lot easier.
There’s nothing unbiblical about the 1963 version either…
It’s a manmade document that gets revised every so often. I’m sure we’ll have a BFM 2020 or something and we’ll all be talking about how great that is and how we all ought to be signing that one too because of how biblical it is compared to the 2K version.
And I’m sure someone will be using your wheat/tares argument as well…
The 1963 version had the liberal/moderate’s favorite loophole about “…Christ is the interpretation of the Bible…” or however it was worded which allowed them to say for instance “Oh, Paul couldn’t have meant that about homosexuality because Jesus would NEVER have been that exclusive so that can’t be what Paul meant.” Closing that loophole was one of the best things they did. Too bad churches don’t have to affirm it.
Another consideration:
Both the 63 and the 2K versions of the BF&M share this teaching: ” The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired . . . ”
But they differ in how that sentence is completed:
1963 BF&M ” and is THE RECORD of God’s revelation of Himself to man”
2000 BF&M “and IS God’s revelation of Himself to man. ”
The two sentences do NOT have the same implication.
Right, because the Bible is NOT the record of God’s revelation–that is the moderate baptist position (Neo-orthodox is the technical name actually which is neither neo nor orthodox. They were basically left wing nut jobs who were BARELY to the right of all-out liberals). Christians, on the other hand, recognize that every word is inspired by God and the Bible is therefore not man’s attempt to record what they thought God was telling them but rather it is God’s word to man.
Well, since it was a 1-year process of changing it, then adopting it, then the individual trustee boards had to decide what to do with it, there was plenty of time to question consequences.
The end result is that, just like any other employer, the boards set the employment conditions. Sometimes those conditions change, and around 2000-2002 those conditions changed. Some people willfully left, others left unwillingly.
That was the result, for good or for ill.
Oh, it was for the good. Very good.
Well, I didn’t want to derail into discussing that, since it never goes smoothly. Although on the subject, some days it seems like it was good like surgery is good for you: not without side effects you’d have been better off without. However, I’ve grown up in the post-CR SBC, so my perspective is different. By the time I paid attention, Dr. Rogers was the elder statesman, Dr. Mohler was the old guy at Southern, and Dr. Patterson was moving from SEBTS to SWBTS. All in all, a different time than some of you who saw the other side of… Read more »
Doug, You wrote concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pictures, symbols, reminders of the life of grace, and not the means of grace. I take that to mean that you are saying that the ordinances are not the means of saving grace. Certainly all Baptists would agree with that. But, I am wondering: Would you take that a step further to say that the ordinances are not “a means of grace” in any way? I ask this because it seems you would be saying that Reformed Baptist Churches who follow the 1689 Baptist Confession… Read more »
By grace I meant saving grace, that is the idea that you won’t miss heaven for missing the Lord’s Supper. Likewise with Baptism. However, and I haven’t read that confession and that catechism recently, I did not intend to cast doubt that the ordinances are critical in the life of a believer. Perhaps a comparison of diet: man can live on bread and water, but man thrives on a balanced diet. Likewise, the Christian can live without the ordinances, but will likely not thrive without them. My intent was to show the separation between Baptists and those who hold that… Read more »
If anybody wants this without finding it at sbc.net, here’s what the SBC Constitution says about membership: 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. 2. One… Read more »
When it comes to churches that care enough to send messengers, I think there is the additional commonality of believing the fundamentals of the faith. Doctrinally speaking, I think these churches believe in the fundamentals and believer’s baptism. However, once you go beyond that, then I think there is a lot of diversity when it comes to doctrine, style, and practice. I think securing inerrancy, in a sense, also brought about the doctrinal commonality that we have. I think it is pretty hard to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus if inerrancy is accepted, for example. However, if there is… Read more »
Churches that care enough, certainly.
However, if you get to the letter of it, a slew of other churches could cut checks to any work of the convention and send messengers. At the very least it would be a mess about whether to seat them initially.
Iam mark from kenya and iwould like to afiliet you and your work. Hope to hear from you.God bless you.