SBCWitness

Most Southern Baptists are connected, at least financially, to a number of different "levels" of Baptist polity. By using the word levels, I do not mean to imply any type of hierarchy or some sort of connectionalism. Rather, I am contending that in most cases, members of Southern Baptist churches are in some way tied to other Baptist entities outside of (but not more important than) their local church. A looming question among Southern Baptists is how these different levels of polity inform an individual Baptist's identity.

First, the caveat. I am well aware that we are living in what many call a post-denominational era and that many Christians are totally unconcerned with and sometimes even appalled by descriptors like "Baptist." A case in point: I require students in my Baptist History and Distinctives class to write an ecclesiastical identity paper wherein they give me biblical, theological, and historical reasons they are members of Baptist churches. If a student is not a Baptist, he or she is free to tell me why they are not a Baptist. Almost all of my students are Southern Baptists, and a great number of them spend paragraphs giving me a bunch of qualifications: I am an evangelical that happens to go to a SBC church, I am a Christian first and a Baptist second, I go to a SBC church but I am really non-denominational, blah, blah, blah. And these are students at one of our theological seminaries. So I am under no illusion that the "average" Southern Baptist in the pew is even thinking about his or her Baptist identity.

But there are some Baptists that do care about these things, especially if they have a pastor or other church leader who takes the time to teach about Baptist distinctives, history, and traditions. And one mostly non-theological issue many of these folks want to know about is why their church is associated with all those other levels of Baptist polity and what that means for the type of Baptist they are.

Let's begin with Billy Baptist, a young man who made quite a splash in a Jerry Vines sermon in the late 1980s. Billy is a member of Knobby Hollow Baptist Church in Biting Gnat, Georgia. So first and foremost, Billy is a Knobby Hollow Baptist because that's the church he has covenanted with in membership.

Knobby Hollow Baptist Church is not an Independent fundamentalist church, so it is a member of the Unbearable Humidity Baptist Association in Southeast Georgia, which includes eighty-four churches and two missions. So Billy is not only a Knobby Hollow Baptist, but theoretically at least he is also an Unbearable Humidity Baptist.

Knobby Hollow Baptist Church is also a member of the Georgia Baptist Convention. The church gives 8.5% of their undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program. They have hosted a state convention-sponsored Sunday School Teacher Training Seminar in their meeting house. Almost every year, Knobby Hollow's pastor, his wife, and a handful of the church's members attend the annual meeting of the state convention as messengers. Bro. Billy is not only a Knobby Hollow Baptist and Unbearable Humidity Baptist, but he is also a Georgia Baptist.

By virtue of giving through the Cooperative Program and not ordaining homosexuals, Knobby Hollow is also a Southern Baptist congregation. They use LifeWay curricula, have Southern Baptist missionaries speak at the church from time to time, and give annually to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. About every other year Knobby Hollow's pastor and sometimes another member or two even attend the annual meeting of the SBC. Besides being a Knobby Hollow Baptist, an Unbearable Humidity Baptist, and a Georgia Baptist, Billy is a Southern Baptist.

So here is the million dollar question: if Billy is the type of Christian who is actually a Baptist by conviction, which level of polity best reflects his identity? In other words, when Billy is talking to his Methodist cousin, Cletis, does he tell Cletis that he is a Knobby Hollow Baptist? An Unbearable Humidity Baptist? A Georgia Baptist? A Southern Baptist? Or, does he just tell Cletis he is a Baptist and then chastise his cousin for having little Brant and Clementine sprinkled down at the Stinky Gap Methodist Church?

This question assumes that Billy is a member of a conservative church that does not give money to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Georgia or the national CBF. If Knobby Hollow is dually aligned, then of course Billy could be everything mentioned in the paragraph above and also be a CBF Baptist or simply a "moderate" Baptist. He could also be one of these latter two instead of being a Southern Baptist or even a Georgia Baptist, depending upon where Knobby Hollow sends their money.

So assuming that Knobby Hollow, like most churches in South Georgia, does not give money to CBF and thinks churches that do are not really Baptist, which of the above levels does Billy most identify with?

I think this is an important identity queston in our denomination, and it has nothing to do with alien immersion, Calvinism, charismata, or blogging. I have met many Baptists who consider themselves to be primarily North Carolina Baptists, which is considerably more important to them than being Southern Baptists. I have also met many who prefer to think of themselves as Southern Baptists who happen to live in North Carolina, the implication being if they moved to Arkansas they would likely be Southern Baptist who live in Arkansas. And of course many think of themselves as members of Calvary Baptist, but if they moved to another town and all the Baptist churches were in disarray, they would be just as happy to become Covenant Presbyterians, Trinity Methodists, or Fellowship Bibles.

What does this diversity of self-identification mean for the future of each of the levels of polity? How does this diversity affect how people feel about Nashville, or their state convention, or even in some cases their association? How have various programs and denominational emphases, at whatever level of polity, played into these assumptions? These are questions I have been wrestling with for about two years, and I do not pretend to have answers. At the moment, I am just intrigued by the situation and the questions that are raised by it.

For the record, here is my own thinking on this subject:

I am primarily a convinced Baptist. In my biblical-theological understanding, claiming to be a Baptist by definition makes me a type of evangelical Christian (I would argue the most biblical type). It is of course possible to be a Baptist and not be an evangelical Christian, but such folks are not really Baptists in a biblical-theological sense so much as they are Baptists in a cultural or sociological sense, their protests to the contrary notwithstanding. I think the Bible models several basic ecclesiological convictions that, since at least the early 17th century, have been denoted by the label "Baptist."

As a convinced Baptist, I choose to be Southern Baptist because of our basic doctrinal convictions, heritage, and missions efforts. I do think there are other good churches and denominations comprised of baptistic Christians. If I lived somewhere where there were no Southern Baptist churches within a reasonable commuting distance, I could in good conscience unite with a handful of other ecclesiastical groups. But it is my firm conviction that the Lord has led me to be a Southern Baptist, for the reasons mentioned above, and so I intend to remain a Southern Baptist unless He moves me to some place where that would be simply impossible.

I live in North Carolina, which also makes me a North Carolina Baptist. While I am glad to be a North Carolina Baptist, and have become increasingly active in my state convention, my primary denominational identity is Southern Baptist. In the past I have been a Georgia Baptist and a Kentucky Baptist, and one day in the future I may again be a Southern Baptist who is a non-North Carolina Baptist. All that to say, while I like being a North Carolina Baptist, it is the case for me that I am a North Carolina Baptist because I am a Southern Baptist living in North Carolina.

I am an active member of the First Baptist Church of Durham, which makes me a FBC Durham Baptist. I am a member of this church because it is the Southern Baptist congregation in my area that best represents my own theological, methodological, and even cultural convictions. But there are a couple of other SBC churches in our area I could have joined and been quite pleased with, so my identity as a FBC Durham Baptist, though strong, is not necessarily permanent. If FBC Durham (God forbid) moved in what I was convinced was an unbiblical direction, there are other SBC churches in the Raleigh-Durham area I could join.

My membership in FBC Durham makes me a Yates Association Baptist, but this is admittedly to my chagrin. While I am actually an outspoken proponent of associationalism, my own association is too much of a theologically mixed assembly to be of any Kingdom worth. And I am not talking about secondary doctrines, unless you include things like the exclusivity of Christ and the approval and even endorsement of homosexuality as secondary doctrines. I don't. Right now, FBC Durham gives a small percentage of our budget to our association. If we took a congregational vote this Sunday as to whether or not we will remain a part of the Yates Association, I would publicly speak in favor of separating from that body and cultivating greater cooperative efforts with like-minded churches in Durham like The Summit, Greystone, Springs of Life, and Bethesda. Perhaps like many of you, this is the level where my identity is the weakest, though I wish this were not the case.

Tags: Baptist Identity by Nathan Finn
4 Comments »

This month B&H Academic is officially releasing the long-awaited systematic theology textbook A Theology for the Church. The book is edited by Southeastern Seminary president Danny Akin and includes contributions from some of the brightest theologians in the Southern Baptist Convention. The following information is from B&H's website:

A Theology for the Church, an immense 992-page work edited by Daniel Akin, with contributions from leading Baptist thinkers Albert Mohler, Jr., Paige Patterson, Timothy George, and many others, addresses four major issues in regard to eight Christian doctrines.

What does the Bible say? Each Christian doctrine is rooted in the Bible’s own teaching in both the Old and New Testaments.

What has the Church believed? Christians have interpreted these doctrines in somewhat different ways through the centuries.

How do the doctrines fit together? Each Christian doctrine must cohere with the other doctrines.

How does each doctrine impact the church today? Each Christian doctrine must be meaningful for today’s church. It’s sure to become a widely-used resource in systematic theology study.

Those of us at SBC Witness highly recommend this valuable new reference work for pastors, seminarians, collegians, and other thoughtful Southern Baptists.

Tags: Books, Theology by Nathan Finn
No Comments »

As many of you are aware, a booklet titled Building Bridges was distributed to all the messengers at the SBC Annual Meeting. Drs. David Dockery and Timothy George were the authors of the booklet, which included their recent addresses from Union University's Baptist Identity II Conference. A rumor has begun to circulate in the SBC blogosphere that Dr. Richard Land verbally accosted Drs. Dockery and George in San Antonio because of the former's alleged disagreement with Building Bridges. According to Dr. Dockery, it did not happen. The rumor is not true. If you have posted this rumor on your blog, please be advised that it is false and kindly remove it from your blog or print a retraction.

This is another example of why it is incumbent upon bloggers to make sure they have their facts straight before they post their thoughts where the whole world can read them. Southern Baptist bloggers who claim the name of Christ should especially be known for the integrity with which they blog. No doubt we will all make mistakes from time to time. But we must be diligent to stick with the facts, especially during this period of our convention's history when information is so often used as a weapon and where internet rumors and innuendos damage the reputations of godly men, local churches, and the entire Southern Baptist Convention.

Tags: Blogging by Nathan Finn
1 Comment »

I was not in San Antonio this year. I wanted to be there, and as recently as March I still had a room reserved. But other responsibilities took priority and I needed to stay home. But like perhaps many of you, I did follow the convention via the live feed on the internet. I read the pertinent blogs that discussed all the issues. I had friends in Texas who were emailing, calling, and text-messaging updates back to me. So I am very familiar with much of what happened, though I admit my insights are limited. Still, I want to offer my thoughts about the San Antonio convention and the future of the SBC. 

First, the much-discussed resolution on the BF&M is not very important. I listened to the debate. I read the blogs. I spoke with eye-witnesses. I read the statement for myself. There is absolutely, positively more than one way to interpret the resolution. Some people voted for it because they thought they were simply reaffirming the importance of the BF&M. Some people voted for it because they thought they were sending a message to the trustees at IMB and Southwestern. Some people did not vote for it because they thought it was a step toward making the confession a “creed.” Others did not vote for it because Dwight McKissic spoke in favor of it. Confusion reigns because the resolution was worded in such a way that both Bart Barber and Wade Burleson could read it and claim victory. So it is not very important, whatever any given individual may think happened when the messengers cast their votes. 

Second, for the second year in a row the convention rejected Tom Ascol’s proposed resolution on integrity in church membership. In other words, for the second year in a row Southern Baptists publicly genuflected to the Religious Right but refused to go on record as Baptists. It is amazing to me that this resolution continues to be stifled every year. Last year it was stifled because the chair of the resolutions committee claimed that inactive church members make some of our best prospects for evangelism. This year the committee claimed that the resolution is a threat to local church autonomy, which is absurd because none of the scads of other resolutions that encourage churches about what to do are perceived as such a threat. Malcolm Yarnell argued against the resolution because it did not mention the importance of believer's baptism by immersion alone, which is a reasonably concern to be sure. At the same time one must wonder if such an affirmation is necessary in a resolution put before a body that is already 100% pre-committed to believer’s baptism by immersion. 

I have another theory about this resolution. It is not a nice theory. Some readers may be perturbed that I even suggest it. But I think it is a legitimate possibility. I think this resolution got no traction because Tom Ascol is the one proposing it. I think, just maybe, the hesitancy to deal with this resolution is at least in part a reflection of an anti-Calvinist (or at least anti-Founders) bias among many Southern Baptists. If I am right, it is a shame that we would rather go on record as being sub-Baptist than affirm a good resolution just because many disagree with the personal soteriological convictions of the man proposing the resolution. Serious question, asked in good faith: would this resolution have been killed if it had been proposed by Johnny Hunt or Steve Gaines? 

Third, it seems clear to me that there is a division among members of the Great Commission Council and other SBC leaders over the future vision of the convention. I know that some of you will be irked that I am posting that publicly on this blog, but I think it is self-evident and others have already alluded to it. For the record, I do not think this is a great divide; our agency heads and leading pastors and theologians agree on much more than they disagree. But I think there is a difference in priorities, or at least nuance. I do not think that the “dissenters” have created this difference of opinion among SBC leaders, but I do think that the blogosphere has created an atmosphere of debate in the convention that has allowed previously held differences in perspective among the “status quo” to become more public. Perhaps the SBC is not a two-party system after all. 

Finally, SBC politics in general and San Antonio in particular seems to be creating a shift in the blogosphere. Bart Barber became much more political in the weeks leading up to the convention, to the delight of some and the chagrin of others. Timmy Brister blogged about the convention much less, though admittedly he was already moving in that direction, just as Steve McCoy, Joe Thorn, and Kevin Bussey did earlier in the year. Wes Kenney seemed to move closer to the positions held by those considered to be status quo. Les Puryear seemed to move closer to the positions held by those considered to be dissenters. Just this morning Marty Duren announced he was disbanding SBC Outpost, arguably the most influential blog in the SBC. Art Rogers announced that he was changing the emphasis on his blog and would be blogging less about the convention. Wade Burleson and Ben Cole appear to be staying on their earlier course, though it remains to be seen what they have planned for the coming days. Jeremy Green and Robin Foster haven’t budged either. It will be interesting to see what happens on SBC blogs in the coming year. 

I think it is apparent that the SBC is at something of a crossroads. There are burning questions about ecclesiology, confessionalism, miraculous gifts, and Calvinism. All of these are important issues. But finding agreement (or peace) on any of the above issues will not bring renewal to the SBC. Neither will overhauling the bureaucracy, live-blogging conventions, holding more conferences, or reigning in allegedly rogue trustee boards. Many of these things are helpful, but none of them are the solution to our biggest problem. 

If the SBC is to have a viable future in God’s economy, then we must recover the gospel in our local churches. We must repent of our programmatic idolatry and recommit to being a gospel presence in our communities and to the uttermost parts of the earth. We must be willing to hold forth the words of life to our culture and not just condemn it for its moral ills. We must be willing to be self-critical. We must be willing to admit that we do have problems that more baptisms will not solve. We must be willing to quit labeling those with whom we disagree as “fundamentalists” or “liberals,” no matter how much it helps to further our personal agendas. In fact, we must be willing to jettison our personal agendas. Our only agenda should be the gospel, presented with what I call a “Baptist twist,” by which I mean our Baptist understanding that the gospel is best lived out in the context of local bodies of regenerate, baptized believers sold out to the lordship of Christ and committed to the Great Commission. 

Brothers and sisters, the only hope the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention have for real revival is a gospel revolution. Some will say we do not need it because we are not liberals or because we still baptize 350,000 toddlers, previously immersed believers with tender consciences, and transferring Methodists and Presbyterians every year. Some will oppose it because we may have to change the way we do some things. Some will think I am blowing smoke and that the real problem(s) in the SBC is one of the above-mentioned skirmishes. But I’m not buying it, and neither should you. I hope you will join me in praying that God will bring real revival to the SBC.   

Tags: Uncategorized by Nathan Finn
6 Comments »

From the official press release at Union University:

JACKSON, Tenn. – June 6, 2007 – A booklet by Union University President David S. Dockery and Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George will be available to all messengers at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13.

“Building Bridges” is a compilation of the addresses by Dockery and George at the second Baptist Identity Conference, held at Union University in February. In those addresses, Dockery and George called for a renewed emphasis on Baptist history to foster a greater sense of cooperation among Southern Baptists today.

Published by Convention Press in Nashville, Tenn., the 64-page booklet includes a forward by Charles Colson and a preface by Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources. Convention Press printed 14,000 copies of the booklet for distribution at the SBC’s annual meeting.

“David S. Dockery and Timothy George have charted a wise and faithful course for Southern Baptists for the 21st Century,” writes Morris Chapman, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee, on the book’s back cover. “Their invitation to renewal is one worthy of following. I am extremely pleased and thankful for this consensus building project.”

In Dockery’s chapter, “A Call for Renewal, Consensus, and Cooperation,” the Union president asserts that Southern Baptists are in danger of losing the gospel itself if they continue the infighting that has characterized the denomination in recent years.

“It is time to move from controversy and confusion to a new consensus and renewed commitment to cooperation,” Dockery writes. “We need to take a step back not just to commit ourselves afresh to missions and evangelism as important as that is. We need to commit ourselves foremost to the Gospel, the message of missions and evangelism, the message that is found only in Jesus Christ and His atoning death for sinners.”

Dockery traces the history of Southern Baptists to show that they have never been a doctrinally uniform group – but rather one committed to the authority of Scripture and cooperation in reaching a world with the gospel.

The ultimate danger to the gospel doesn’t lie in the nuances of differences of opinion on secondary matters, Dockery writes, but in the rising tides of liberalism, neo-paganism and postmodernism that threaten to swamp Southern Baptist identity in cultural accommodation.

George’s chapter, “Is Jesus a Baptist,” addresses similar concerns. He advocates a retrieval of Baptist heritage as a means of renewal for the convention today. “We will not meet tomorrow’s challenge by forgetting yesterday’s dilemma, but neither will we win tomorrow’s struggles by fighting yesterday’s battles.”

George argues that a return to Baptist teachings and beliefs of the past will help Southern Baptists deal constructively with the issues and controversies they face today. “Yes, by all means, let us maintain, undergird, and strengthen our precious Baptist distinctives – our commitment to a regenerate church membership, believers’ baptism by immersion in the name of the Triune God, our stand for unfettered religious liberty, and all the rest,” George writes. “But let us do this not so that people will say how great the Baptists are, but rather what a great Savior the Baptists have, what a great God they serve!”

From Nathan:

I think this is very good news. I was unable to attend the recent Baptist Identity Conference at Union, but like perhaps many of you I have listened to the conference papers via Union's website. On the whole, I was very impressed with the what the speakers had to say. And I was particularly pleased with what I heard from Drs. Dockery and George. It will be of great benefit for SBC messengers to have this book made available to them. I hope it will help provide a clear and balanced voice during this time of great confusion in our convention. 

Tags: Uncategorized by Nathan Finn
1 Comment »

The churches of the Southern Baptist Convention are not perfect. The people in those churches are not perfect. The way we do things as a convention are not perfect. We have not always gotten everything right, and I have a hunch we will continue to get some things wrong from time to time. How could this not be the case when you ask 10,000 sinners to attend a business session? So I admit up front that, at least in my opinion, there are some flaws in how we do things as Southern Baptists. There are rough edges. There are loop holes. The tricky part is figuring out how we can avoid throwing out the convention baby with the flawed bathwater.

The Southern Baptist Convention exists for the purpose of uniting autonomous Baptist churches together in cooperative missions and those other ministries that assist us in cooperative missions (education, publishing, cultural engagement, ministerial annuity). Cooperation for missions was the driving force behind the formation of the SBC; all of the economic and racial issues were tied in some way to the question of missions. The fundamental thing (no pun intended) that separates Southern Baptists from the Independent Baptist movement is that we believe we can accomplish more together than we can separately. Specifically, we believe we can accomplish more for the cause of missions.

But there is a fly in the ointment. We disagree about a lot of things. Maybe not inerrancy. But almost everything else.

The nineteenth century SBC enjoyed significantly more theological unity than we do at present. This is one reason why the SBC did not adopt a confession of faith in 1845. Some argue that the SBC did not adopt a confession because W. B. Johnson, the first president of the convention and an ardent opponent of confessions, represented the views of the majority. But this is clearly not the case. Every church that sent a "delegate" to the foundational meeting of the SBC adhered to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, including Johnson's church. I do not wish to speculate too much as to Johnson's motives, though I suspect some of his reasoning may be linked to his own unsual soteriological views. What I do know is that Johnson's "no creed but the Bible" position places him closer to Campbellites than historic Baptists, despite the fact that most progressives (and not a few conservatives) continue to believe that Johnson's view is the historic Baptist position.

The fact is the SBC did not adopt a national confession because they did not need one–all of the churches held to the same confession. And even after the New Hampshire Confession became popular in the latter part of the century, most churches held to one of these two confessions (which, by the way, are not contradictory, despite revisionist claims to the contrary). There was substantial theological unity in the convention.  
 
That is not to say that Southern Baptist churches were in lock-step agreement on everything. There were always some churches, especially later in the century, that were uncomfortable with the doctrine of definite ("limited") atonoment. There were always a minority of churches that held to either some form of open communion and/or refused to reject potential members on the basis of an alien immersion. Churches and individuals who held these positions, especially the latter two, were in the minority. Many times they were excluded from their associations. But they were still in the SBC. There was some amount of diversity in the SBC.

Flash foward to the early 20th century, and we find that Southern Baptist theology was in transition. The increased emphasis on efficiency led to a slow decline in practices such as discipline and the marginalization (if not elimination) of practices such as adopting confessions and covenants. Furthermore, the SBC became considerably more diverse theologically as more Southern Baptists moved away from 19th century Calvinism and adopted more of a hybrid between Calvinism and Arminianism. There were some churches that continued to reject closed communion and accept alien immersions, but this continued to typically result in expulsion from associations (or even state conventions) into the 1950's and 1960's.

Besides the above, the influence of modernism began to increase among SBC leadership. That is not to say that SBC leaders were all liberals–very few were. But there was the influence of progressive theology, particularly the historical-critical method and evolution. These things became even more prominent after World War II.

The convention adopted its first confession in 1925 in the midst of and largely in response to the evolution controversy. It was a revision of New Hampshire. The convention revised that confession in 1963 in light of the controversy over Ralph Elliott's interpretations of Genesis 1-11. Both versions were adopted to address progressive theology, and both were largely symbolic gestures that quieted the conservative masses but made no impact on the institutional life of the SBC. This was especially true of the 1963 confession, which contained the absurd preamble that turned it into a suggestion rather than a confession and codified a sub-biblical view of personal autonomy that better reflected the Enlightenment than Baptist history. Soul competency became the triumph of personal preference, drawing on the earlier teaching of E. Y. Mullins. For many progressives (and too many conservatives), the preamble is the only part of the 1963 BF&M that matters, because its the part that makes sure the other parts don't matter.

Things were different by 1998 and 2000. There was more consensus in the SBC than there was in 1963, though probably not as much as 1925 and certainly not as much as 1845. The miraculous gifts movement, in all its manifestations, influenced many Southern Baptists in how they talked about the Holy Spirit and how they ordered their worship (even many who are cessasionists). The fundamentalist and neo-evangelical movements advanced a lowest-common denominator "conservative ecumenism" that downplayed ecclesiologicl convictions, always a problem for a people who historically believe the gospel has ecclesiological and not just soteriological consequences. Atheological pragmatism turned many Southern Baptists into practical Arminians, though they are typically "Arminians in denial" because of the misinformed assumption that Arminianism doesn't square with "eternal security." At the same time, many Southern Baptists were reembracing Calvinism, either through intra-SBC Reformed influence (Founders, Calvinistic professors), SBC-friendly Reformed influence (Together for the Gospel, IX Marks), or the wider evangelical Reformed movement (John Piper, Reformed conferences and pastors, Reformed collegiate ministries). All of this is simply scratching the surface.

The point is, the SBC is still very diverse, albeit the diversity is different than it was in 1960. There are those who claim that "some SBC leaders" want to "narrow the parameters." This is certainly one way to interpret what is happening in the SBC. But might I suggest another, more historically accurate way to interpret current issues is that the SBC lost its doctrinal center long ago, so now any attempt to return to our historic roots in any way is perceived to be a threat to cooperation. And it is.

So the question before us is whether or not we should consider revising the Baptist Faith & Message so that it can address some of the current controversies in the SBC. Should the SBC take a stand on some of the isues that divide us? Personally, I am opposed to further revisions at this time. Let me explain my rationale:

First, if the BF&M continues to be revised every time there is a theological controversy in the SBC, then it ceases to be a confession in the historic sense of the term. Instead, it becomes a lengthy position paper that is revised with every wind of change. Now hear me out–I do not believe confessions are non-revisable. What I do believe is that it is possible to over-revise a confession. Southern Baptists would do well to sit on the BF&M for awhile unless a genuine threat to either the gospel or the nature of Baptist identity is presented. In my understanding, none of our current controversies would fall into this category.

Second, the BF&M is already so broad you could drive a Mack truck through it. It is a remarkably "big tent" document, progressive protests to the contrary notwithstanding. It allows for significant diversity of belief in a number of areas. Those areas it is most narrow are ecclesiological, which is understandable in a denomination-specific confession, especially produced by a bunch of Baptists.

Third, the SBC is far too divided right now to try and revise the confession. Now I realize some of you will disagree with me that the SBC is really that divided. Others will suggest that the confession needs to be revised precisely because the SBC is so divided. But I don't see it that way. At present, the BF&M is only really important for those of us who have to affirm it as a term of employment or denominatonal service. It doesn't matter to many churches, and I would hazzard a guess that it doesn't even really matter to the vast majority of churches that claim to believe it. And that's a shame, as well as a departure from how Baptists have traditionally valued confessions. The problem is not in the confession, though in my personal opinion it could be improved in some areas. The problem is with the convention itself, where multitudes of our pastors cannot articulate the gospel and where Baptist distinctives are increasingly downplayed, redefined, or ignored alltogether. To be candid, I fear what the BF&M would look like right now if some of the folks in our fair convention got hold of it. I would rather us be patient and pray for renewal before we touch the BF&M again.

So to clarify, I am actually all for eventually revising the confession. But we are not ready for that yet. We are far too confused about who we are and what we are here for. But as we work through some of our issues over the next generation–and it will take a generation–perhaps the Lord will prepare us to revise the BF&M in a way that really draws us together and really empowers us to be a gospel-driven, gospel-proclaiming convention.

Tags: Uncategorized by Nathan Finn
1 Comment »

Back in the fall I wrote a series of articles on my personal blog. That series began with a post titled "Why I Don't Want to Be a Southern Baptist Sometimes" and was followed by sixteen posts on "Possible Solutions for What Ails the SBC." Because I am no longer blogging on my personal site, I have had requests in recent days to make hard copies of those posts available in some other format, just in case I decide to take the old website down. I have no intentions of taking the site down–I hope to convert it to a personal website in the near future. But I have decided to make the posts available in one place by editing them in booklet form and making them available as a downloadable pdf document. If you would like to read these posts, you can download the booklet as an attachment from this post. I also intend to put the booklet somewhere on my old blog site at some point in the coming weeks.

Tags: Uncategorized by Nathan Finn
No Comments »

Conservative, confessional Presbyterians adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Other Reformed pedobaptists still hold to the Heidelberg Confession. Many confessional Lutherans affirm the Augsburg Confession. The "capital R" Reformed Baptist movement embraces the Second London Confession. Conservative Anglicans affirm the Thirty-Nine Articles. With the exception of the Westminster Confession, which was revised by progressive Presbyterians during the 20th century, to my knowledge all of these confessions remain basically unchanged since their final drafts were written in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Not so with Southern Baptists. While most Southern Baptist churches affirmed either the Philadelphia or New Hampshire confessions in the 19th century (or abstracts of those confessions), the SBC as a denomination did not get around to adopting a confession of faith until 1925. As most readers know, it was a revision of New Hampshire. In 1963, that confession of faith was revised. It was amended in 1998. In 2000, another revision was approved. That's four changes in a seventy-five year time period, all of which were tied in some way or other to theological controversy in the SBC.

The SBC is now once again in the midst of theological controversy, albeit most of it is taking place among fellow conservatives. Some question whether or not Southern Baptists should codify in our confession a particular stance on controversial issues like miraculous gifts, alien immersion, etc. Others complain that the confession's explicit endorsement of closed communion is out of touch with contemporary Southern Baptists. Still others wish the BF&M was either more Calvinistic or revised in such a way that strict Calvinism would be incompatible. A few even want the 2000 revisions either reversed or downplayed; some want us to back off on the female preaching thing and/or re-insert Hershel Hobbs's preamble to the 1963 edition, which basically argued that confessions were important until you disagreed with them, and then you could reject them because your competent soul is a higher authority than the opinions of the believing community. But I digress.

As the SBC moves forward and seeks God's face for our corporate future, do you think we should revise the Baptist Faith & Message? If so, what areas need to be revised? If we do not revise the Baptist Faith & Message, what do you believe is the best way to address present and future theological controversies in the convention? 

Tags: Southern Baptist Convention by Nathan Finn
11 Comments »

In commenting on the SBC Controversy, Timothy George once quipped that the replacement of one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy does not a reformation make. Others have echoed George's sentiment, most noticeably Nashville pastor and conservative historian Jerry Sutton. I used to as well,but lately I have wandered a bit from my earlier interpretation of the Conservative Resurgence on this particular point. It is not often that I disagree with Timothy George, and on this issue I want to affirm his general sentiment but cast the matter a bit differently. The replacement of one bureaucracy with another is exactly what the Conservative Resurgence was intended to accomplish. But it does not a reformation make. Which is one reason we find ourselves at something of a crossroads as a convention.

When we talk about the Conservative Resurgence, especially those of us who are post-Controversy conservatives, we sometimes claim that our convention agencies and board have been fixed, but our churches still need renewal. Or, to quote one megachurch pastor who spoke at Southeastern's chapel a few years back, "the battle for the inerrancy of Scripture has been won, but the battle for the sufficiency of Scripture has just begun." I think what he means is that the bureaucracy has been rescued, but the churches are still in need of reform. And I agree with him 100%. But first we need to decide just what exactly the Controversy was really all about.

First, we need to recognize that the Conservative Resurgence was never about reforming the churches of the SBC. Far from it. The Conservative Resurgence was about a small group of pastors and others who believed that their churches were already in pretty good shape. Their pulpits were occupied by inerrantists. Their congregations were evangelistic. Their cultural convictions were conservative. And these men were convinced that the vast majority of SBC churches were more like them than they were like the progressives who taught at the seminaries and served as agency heads. So they convinced other conservatives, most of whom were connected with conservative churches, to go to the SBC and vote for presidential candidates who would undermine the progressive bureaucracy that had dominated convention leadership for the better part of half a century. The Resurgence was not about reforming SBC churches, but rather was about folks from conservative churches replacing progressive convention leadership so that the churches would not need renewal at some future date. They obviously succeeded, at least in the immediate goal of changing the character of convention leadership.

Second, this means that the Conservative Resurgence was precisely about replacing one bureacracy with another. It was not about renewing churches, but making sure that theological conservatives were teaching future ministers, training future missionaries, administering Cooperative Program funds, and accurately representing the moral convictions of most Southern Baptists in the public square. The Resurgence was not revival, and it was not intended to be. The resurgence was bureaucratic restructuring.

Third, it is good that the Conservative Resurgence was not about reforming churches. You see, if the Resurgence was about church renewal, then it would have represented an abdication of historic Baptist polity. We are not a "top-down" denomination. The highest spiritual authority on earth is a local church that is self-consciously submitting itself to the lordship and leadership of Christ. For the Resurgence to change churches for good or ill would have meant taking the "Baptist" out of Southern Baptists. The Resurgence was the churches sticking it to the man.

The Conservative Resurgence was a resounding success because it effectively replaced one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy. But Dr. George is right that this leadership overhaul does not a reformation make. At very best, the Conservative Resurgence created an atmosphere where we can begin to ask some hard questions about what it is going to take to see spiritual renewal among the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Which goes a long way toward explaining why the SBC is currently embroiled in so much controversy among theological conservatives.

Notice the things that Southern Baptists are not fighting about. We are not fighting about the historicity of some biblical miracles. We are not fighting about the need for non-Christians to consciously place their faith in Christ in order to be saved. We are not fighting about the ordination of homosexuals. We are not fighting about whether or not God knows all future events. Unfortunately, progressive Baptists are not fighting about all of these issues either. But for different reasons. Which is why we needed a Conservative Resurgence.

Now think about the stuff we are fighting about. We fight about baptism. We fight about the Lord's Supper. We fight about miraculous gifts. We fight about church discpline. We fight about elders. We fight about Calvinism. We fight about worship styles. Most of those things are not issues that progressives even care about, let alone fight about. They are too busy debating whether or not they should allow unrepentant homosexuals to join their churches and whether "those who have never heard" will be saved.

So, back to the part about renewing our churches. One of the problems in the SBC is that the churches felt that it was the bureaucracy that needed renewal, not the majority of Baptist congregations. And let me say loud and clear that if the choice is between even the most problematic of conservative churches and the pre-1988 faculty of Southeastern Seminary, I'm with the First Baptist Church of Carnal every time. But it is definitely a choice between the lesser of two evils, and I would much rather their be no evils in the equation.

The first thing We need to do is admit that many of our churches are in need of renewal. Maybe even most of our churches. We have confused the gospel with responses to the gospel. We have replaced evangelism with salesmanship and gimmicks. We have cheapened worship by making it a matter of preference. We have traded a robust Baptist theology for a lowest-common-denominator commitment to inerrancy and immersion. Well, sometimes immersion. We have rejected prophets in favor of pretty-boys, we have exchanged expositors for life coaches, we have confused pastoral care with syrupy self-help. We are a mess, and I find it highly unlikely that the solution to our problems will be found in glitzy programs, catchy slogans, or even more baptisms, especially if so many of the latter continue to be preschoolers and recovering Methodists.

Ironically, many of those issues we bicker about are intended to offer the hope of renewal, whether it is practicing miraculous gifts, embracing Reformed soteriology, rediscovering our Baptist (or for some, Anabaptist) roots, or preferring a particular style of worship. And maybe some of these things can contribute to the renewing of Southern Baptist churches. You never know.

This much I do know–the SBC, by which I mean the churches of the SBC, will not experience authentic renewal until we are willing to confess that we need renewal. The first step in that process is admitting that the Conservative Resurgence is over. It was over by the mid 1990's. But the Resurgence was only the first step, the initial impetus to get Southern Baptists to the place we now find ourselves: a convention of conservative local churches wrestling with the implications of the gospel that is the central story line of our inerrant Bibles. It is my prayer that this wrestling will result in genuine spiritual renewal among the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Because the replacement of one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy does not a reformation make.
 

Tags: Southern Baptist Convention by Nathan Finn
5 Comments »

I would not presume to speak for my fellow Witness contributors, but one of my favorite bloggers is Dr. Bart Barber. Bart serves as pastor of First Baptist Church in Farmersville, TX, and teaches Baptist history adjunctively at Southwestern Seminary. He also has the best named blog in the Southern Baptist blogosphere, Praisegod Barebones. Over the last ten months or so (since I discovered Bart's blog), I have agreed with about 98.4% of what he has written. And that's saying something, 'cause I am pretty doggone opinionated. Just ask my wife. Or my mom. Or Philip Tyre. Or Jason Fowler. But I digress …

The way I see it, Bart has hit a grand slam with his most recent post, "The Myth of Hard-Hearted Southern Baptist Conservatives" (read it here). I agree with Bart 100% on this one–Southern Baptists need to be more involved in the mercy ministries we are already involved in, but our number one priority should be taking the gospel to the ends of the earth. Its the gospel plus social justice, not social justice in lieu of the gospel. Lets put a coat on the man and see the man in that coat come to saving faith in our Triune God. 

Anwyay, you should really read the post for yourself.

Tags: Southern Baptist Convention by Nathan Finn
2 Comments »