The old question is often asked, “Are we Baptist because of what we believe or because of what we do?”
Some might respond with a simple, “Yes!” to that question and such a response is certainly appropriate. But I’d like to posit a more nuanced answer to that question.
I am a Baptist because of what we believe. I am a SOUTHERN Baptist because of what we do.
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is made up of voluntarily cooperating Baptist churches who pool their resources for the propagation of the gospel. Yes, there are beliefs involved. Baptistic beliefs, to be sure, which have always been assumed… and been deliberately, broadly defined (consider the vast differences among our churches in the areas of soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.)
Let’s Get This Right
This might come as a shocking statement to some, but technically speaking, the Southern Baptist Convention is not a denomination. It is a group of gathered churches which only exists for 2 days of the year, when they convene for business. We use “denomination” terminology because that is the lingua franca our world has adopted to talk about divisions in Christian sects. However, unlike other denominational groups, the SBC (1) is not organized in a hierarchical structure, (2) there is no top-down authority, (3) we do not have a system whereby local churches take direction from other ecclesiological bodies, entities, associations, networks, or affinity groups, and (4) we have no creed or confessional statement to which we are beholden.
It is a fact that our confessional statement has never been a litmus test for entrance into the SBC. There is no requirement to adopt a particular statement of faith to join us in our work… not even the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) in any of its forms.
I’m, of course, speaking of affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention at the national level. There are a few state conventions and a number of local associations who require adherence to the BFM for affiliation, but that’s never been the case at the national level in the SBC. In fact, no church has ever joined the SBC by signing on to the Baptist Faith and Message. Rather, churches who join the SBC do so primarily through a financial contribution to our voluntary-oriented cooperative work in the form of CP giving (through the state convention), other Great Commission Giving, or allocation budget gifts sent directly to the SBC.
Keep in mind, an SBC church leaving the Convention (for whatever reason) does not cease to be a Baptist church. They simply cease to be part of the cooperative work of the SBC. They cease to participate in the pooling of resources for missions and theological education. There are other Baptist denominations they may or may not choose to join. There are also independent type Baptist churches who don’t partner with other churches at all (except for preaching conferences, apparently).
Regarding the idea of independence within Baptist life… I would even argue that it might behoove us to think of the SBC as actually made up of a whole bunch of individual (independent-ish) Baptist churches who simply work together for a cooperative impact for the Kingdom of God through the best missions giving program in the history of the Christian Church.
The SBC is also not an affinity group in the likes of Founders, the Pillar Network, the Center for Baptist Renewal, 9Marks, Acts 29, Connect 316, CBN, CBF, G3, dispensationalists, landmarkists, or any other more closely-aligned group who hold to similar doctrinal or philosophical positions. We are NOT that. We have never been that. We have representatives of those affinity groups among our number, but our parameters for cooperation have simply included churches which have, “a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith.”
I posit that this tie that binds us together is deliberately a loose tie. A rope of sand as some have identified it. It has been purposely inclusive of beliefs of all different types of Baptists from the last 400 years of our existence. Which leads to a question I’d like us to ponder.
What about the 1963 BFM? Does the 63 express “a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s (currently) adopted statement of faith?” Surely, we would say yes. What if some of our churches identify with the 63 and not the 2000? How close does a “faith and practice” have to be to the current iteration of the document before a church is found to be “out of compliance?” What about the 25? The New Hampshire? The Philadelphia? Or any other historic Baptist Confession of Faith. Do those describe a “close faith and practice?” Wouldn’t many of us who know those statements likely answer yes to that as well? At least to some degree?
What about our current kerfuffle? How can we say that a 63 affirming church (without the male pastor language) does not have a “close faith and practice” to that of the 2000?
Friends, let me be clear. I feel very strongly that the “chief under-shepherd” of the local body of Christ should be a male (as should any ordained elders). I believe that is the clear teaching of scripture and the Biblical model. It is a strong conviction of mine. Further, after hearing from at least 2 different members of the BFM 2000 Study Committee, who were responsible for introducing the “pastor limited to male” language added to the 2000, it is clear they were only talking about the role of the lead/senior/head/pastor of the local body (I just asked one of them again this past week).
We must be careful here
We currently have a motion offered at Anaheim now being considered by the Executive Committee which seeks to amend our constitution to bring about the expulsion of any church in the SBC who might have a female with a title of “pastor,” be it “worship pastor,” “youth pastor,” “children’s pastor,” “administrative pastor,” “missions pastor,” etc. As a personal opinion, I find using the title “pastor” for a female confusing, but friends, should the SBC begin policing what churches call their staff members? I think not.
Surely such a motion to amend will be defeated. However, I’m actually much more concerned about the move to codify the BFM as the litmus test for cooperation in the SBC. If we do that, we will be doing something which has never before been done.
The Executive Committee recently removed churches from the SBC for the first time in our history (as far as I know) using the BFM as the instrument of disfellowship.
Again, I have strong personal opinions about the female pastor matter itself, but here is another issue to consider. A couple of the churches with women senior pastors who were recently expelled have been part of our number for years. At least one was an active cooperating church for a couple of decades and there was never a move to disfellowship them from the SBC. Why was there no action to remove them after the adoption of the language in the 2000 BFM? Because… we were all reminded at that time that adherence to the BFM was not to be understood as a litmus test for fellowship. Churches don’t join the SBC with adherence to a statement of faith, and they are not removed due to a lack of adherence.
We are a voluntary group of cooperating Baptist churches who pool our resources for gospel advancement. We have a statement of faith that identifies and articulates to others what we “mostly” believe as a group of cooperating Baptists. So, why can’t we allow those who might not line up completely with each stated entry in the BFM to still participate with us, if they choose to do so while having “a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith?” Further, since the BFM is rightly binding on our entities (our entities are required to function within the parameters of the BFM), if these churches choose to continue to partner with us, with the understanding that our shared entities are bound by a statement with which they might have disagreement, why not continue in friendly cooperation?
For those who are concerned about our ability to disfellowship a church, might I offer the following. We certainly could (and should) remove a church who devolves into actual theological error, such as a denial of the divinity of Christ, a rejection of salvation through Christ alone, the denial of the Trinity, etc. And how would we do that? Simply put,? They DON’T have “a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith?”
We need everyone to remember who we are and why we have been organized in this way.
Ultimately, I believe we need to do these few things immediately:
First, we need to understand who we are and reject the use of the BFM as the litmus test for cooperation. It’s been 23 years since the edit was made to the BFM which added the language that “the office of pastor is limited to a male” and we had not removed those few female-led churches for lack of adherence. That is because, at that time, we knew the BFM was not supposed to be used that way.
Second, we need to formulate a study group to identify how closely a church must adhere to the BFM to be considered in friendly cooperation. Dr. Adam Greenway was right in Anaheim when he encouraged the convention to do just that.
Third, we need to provide the relatively newly formed Credentials Committee with the proper tools with which to make the decisions they are called on to make (likely based on the findings of the study group proposed above). That is what the Credentials Committee was asking us to do in Anaheim when the request was unfortunately rejected. These are good people, and they are trying hard to do what is right. It is a grave disservice that they have been put in such a terrible position without a leg on which to stand.
Fourth, we ought to immediately change the language of Bylaw 8, Section C to exclude the Executive Committees’ involvement in the process of disfellowshipping a church. When the time comes that we do have the responsibility to remove a church from our Convention, it should published ahead of time through Baptist Press and then should be done by vote on the floor of the convention with every registered messenger having the opportunity to cast their ballot. This should be regarded as one of the most serious things we do as a Convention of churches and it should be a very rare occurence. I mean, it had never been done until 1992 and is with all the baggage of the landmark issues of the late 1800’s and the evolution debate of the 20s.
Finally, regardless of our own opinions on the subject matter, we need to defeat the constitutional amendment which would require the removal of any church who has a female staff member who happens to have the title “pastor.” We must consider the authorial intent of those who formed the statement which was added to the 2000 because the focus of the edit had to do with the lead pastor of the church. Such an amendment is a step too far and it will cause disastrous aftershocks.
We are going to be Baptists. That is a fact. The question is, are we going to continue to be Southern Baptist because of the things we do together, or will we morph into an SBC that exists because of what the BFM tells us to believe?
Is there not a strata of levels of importance to things we have included in the BFM? Surely the divinity of Christ is more important than our thoughts on last things. Our belief of the reliability of Scripture is most certainly more vital than our view of whether or not a non-member gets to take the Lord’s Supper. If not, I suppose someone will soon report First Baptist Church of Westwego for its lack of adherence to Article 7. This is an article we regularly transgress because we are not a closed communion body. We will plead guilty to that.
Shew… I’m sure glad we don’t use the BFM as a litmus test for fellowship.
I emplore you to encourage everyone you can to remember who we are, why we are, and also… what the Baptist Faith and Message is… and what it is not.
