Unmasking Baptist Identity
The new Baptist Identity initiative in the Southern Baptist Convention is an attempt by some to redefine what it means to be a Southern Baptist. Whereas I believe with all my heart there is room in the SBC for those who wed themselves to the new bedrock convictions of Baptist Identity, there is real danger for the end of broad cooperation within the Convention if Baptist Identity is allowed to be presented as 'mainstream' to what it means to be a Southern Baptist church. Though the non-negotiable principles of Baptist Identity are apt to multiply over time like dandelions in a spring lawn, there are certain 'bedrock convictions' of the new Baptist Identity movement that reveal the movement is neither historically Baptist nor mainstream Southern Baptist in identity. The three main problems associated with the new Baptist Identity iniative include:
(1). A Top-Down Ecclesiology
Baptist Identity people within the Southern Baptist Convention act as if the highest authority in the convention is a document the convention produces (the Baptist Faith and Message), an agency the Convention creates (the IMB, the NAMB, Seminaries, etc . . .) or a person the Convention anoints. The first is creedalism, the second is hierarchialism, and the latter is authoritianism. These three isms typify Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and though there are many Christians within the Roman Catholic church, Baptists have historically resisted the tendencies of Roman Catholic ecclesiology - but not the new Baptist Identity movement. This top down ecclesiology of Baptist Identity people manifests itself in various ways in our convention.
First, the sending out of missionaries. The Southern Baptist Convention historically recognizes that the local church sends out missionaries, NOT THE INTERNATIONAL MISSION BOARD. The IMB was created to facilitate churches sending THEIR missionaries. Recently, that dynamic has changed. Now we have the absurd practice of a local Southern Baptist church approving the baptism and sending of a missionary, only to then have the IMB ordering that autonomous church to 'rebaptize' the prospective missionary because the IMB says the administrator of the missionary's baptism was not a qualified administrator. I say this reverently; For God's sake, and in honor of His Word, will someone please show how it is historically Baptist for an agency to supercede the authority of a local church and order a church to 'rebaptize' someone that the church has already accepted into membership, determining their baptism to be biblical (by immersion, after coming to faith in Christ)?
Second, Baptist Identity people wish to use the BFM as a 'tool of accountability.' They have forgotten that confessions of faith are confessions, not creeds. The historic Baptist practice is for the local church to establish her beliefs and lay them out in local church confessions. Periodically, Baptists would gather together to write a common consensus of faith, called in the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist Faith and Message. Historically, these broad convention confessions were not intended to lay out anything that went beyond "the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament." Let me say that again. The Baptist Faith and Message was initially, and I quote, "not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament." The local church was the place doctrine was narrowed as the church saw fit. The convention was built on cooperation among diverse churches, not conformity among identical churches. Yet, over time, the BFM has been used to narrow the doctrinal parameters of cooperation beyond the simple conditions of salvation. Every time the BFM is narrowed to include more doctrines of a tertiary nature, cooperation among diverse churches within the SBC ends. And, Baptist Identity people applaud this end to cooperation by setting forth tertiary doctrines that go way beyond the fundamentals of the gospel, and then demanding conformity to these tertiary issues by calling them 'bedrock convictions.' Then, the Baptist Identity advocates make extreme statements like:
Cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised.
The Baptist Identity movement has now pushed to to narrow the parameters of cooperation by using backdoor policies at SBC agencies. They claim that the Convention had no idea what it was doing when the Garner Motion was passed in 2007, and the BFM is only a minimal standard of doctrine to which churches must conform. Other policies that exceed the BFM are needed to keep everyone in doctrinal shape. It ought to be a requirement for everyone with an affinity to the Baptist Identity movement to memorize the preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message (emphasis mine) and what Southern Baptists have historically believed about the doctrines contained within our convention confessions:
1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.
This top-down ecclesiology is the first huge problem with the Baptist Identity initiative.
(2). A Loss of Church Autonomy
A natural result of a hierchial, authoritarian, creedal ecclesiology within the Southern Baptist Convention is the loss of local church autonomy. The Baptist Identity movement wishes to exclude from cooperation any church that dares to do it differently than they do. The Baptist Identity advocates use labels in order to attempt to marginalize or neutralize those who disagree with them.
Yet, any study of history would lead people to recognize that true Baptist identity is found in churches that practiced autonomy, that dared to go against religious establishments, and sought to follow Scripture alone as their guide. Of course, humility has been the key component of Baptists over the centuries. A soul that recognizes no authority but Christ is humble enough to acknowledge that he is neither Christ nor His vicar. Therefore, a true Baptist will judge no man until it is time for Christ to judge the heart.
Most Baptist Identity advocates pastor small churches or preside over declining ministries. The attitude that leads to demands for absolute conformity, authoritian control over one's belief system, and separation from those who disagree leads to isolationalism and a declining membership. Avowals that 'I have the truth, and you don't' turn people away. When it comes to the fundamentals of the gospel, we don't mind that people turn away. But it is the demands for conformity on tertiary issues that is harming our convention. It is time for Southern Baptists to realize that Baptist Identity is a fringe movement of the SBC, and displays neither the mainstream spirit or theology of the majority of the people within our convention.
Let me repeat something that all Southern Baptist need to remember: The Southern Baptist Convention was built on cooperation among diverse churches, not conformity among identical churches. We need a restoration of understanding of what local church autonomy means.
(3). An Extra-Biblical Theology
The Apostle Paul put it succinctly in I Corinthians 4:6:
Let us not go beyond what is written.
Extra-biblical convictions, extra-biblical doctines, and extra-biblical traditions are fine when they remain personal. But when you include us, you violate Scripture.
One of our member's family has been raising prized herefords since the Land Run of 1893. He took me on a tour of his large operation recently and explained the process of keeping a growing, healthy herd of cattle.
He said that over time, inbreeding causes mutations and deformities that lead to a sick herd of cattle. He has to travel to North Dakota, Michigan, and other far reaches of the United States to find bulls that are different to breed with his cows. It is the introduction of differences within the herd that keep the herd healthy.
I'm convinced that the Baptist Identity movement is going the opposite direction of my rancher. The proponents of Baptist Identity are taking out any bulls and any cows within the Southern Baptist herd that look different, and are erecting fences to keep different cattle out. If we don't identify the problem and learn to 'cherish' differences then we are going to mutate into a convention that our forefathers would have not been able to recognize.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
posted by Wade Burleson | Thursday, May 01, 2008
142 Comments:
Wade:
First there was the CR to move people out of the SBC and now there is this. Where will it stop?
I see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Great post! Let's see who is the first of the BI crowd to comment. Wouldn't be surprised if some of them horse collared ten people and 'witnessed' to them while talking like the Fed Ex man in those old commercials so they can come here and bash you.
On behalf of my church, my staff (who prints out copies of your post for us to read every week), and myself, I say 'Thank You' and will remain anonymous for my personal ministry's sake, until the changes you articulate come to pass.
An SBC pastor in his 40's.
"Where will it stop?"
Hopefully, in Indianapolis.
Wade, in many respects the Baptist Identity movement is like the Christian Identity movement here in southeastern Arkansas. There are some good people in both groups - it is just extremism to the nth degree. Let's keep our focus on Jesus and loving people. That's enough for me and that's the convention with which I wish to identify.
Amen Pastor Hillard.
Amen.
Thanks for letting your voice be heard!!
"Most Baptist Identity advocates pastor small churches or preside over declining ministries."
Nice conversational terrorism there Wade. You seem to love holding others to standards to which you will not submit yourself.
A simple student at SBTS.
Wade,
Great post, but why have you changed to using "Baptist Identity Initiative" instead of "Baptist Identity Religion"?
Matt,
I consider these
Baptist Identity men brothers in Christ, and not members of a different religion. That's why I call it an initiative.
believe the phrase, SWBTS student, would be ad hominem variant, but that is definitely not how I intended it.
LIFEWAY recently came out with a survey showing we are DECLINING in membership, DECLINING in baptisms, etc . . . and I am positing that some of the decline may be a judgmental, critical spirit toward those who don't agree with every jot and tittle of Baptist Identity doctrine.
I would love to be proven wrong.
I became a Southern Baptist in 1968, having been saved in 1967. I lived in a small town with the choice of churches being SBC--very landmark type--and Methodist.
I chose Baptist because they focused on winning people to the Lord in salvation rather than on changing the world.
I chose Baptist because they taught soul competency and the priesthood of the believer. I did NOT have to sign on to every landmark dot and squiggle to be an active, accepted part of the church.
I chose Baptist because in SS and TU, when folks discussed doctrine they tended to preface their statements with "I believe the scriptures teach". That left room for someone to reply, "Well, I believe the scriptures teach differently." We respected each other and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide.
And I will cease to be an inactive member and once more be active in an SBC church when we return to those exceedingly baptistic ways.
After all, Jesus did teach us not have "fathers" on earth, but rather One Father in Heaven. I think we are forgetting that!
Big time forgetting that!
Linda
rThe Loss of Autonomy...
"The Baptist Identity movement wishes to exclude from cooperation any church that dares to do it differently than they do."
That is not a loss of autonomy. No one in the B.Id. movement is going into other churches and telling them how to function or what they must believe. They are merely refusing to cooperate with churches that advocate positions they deem to be inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can debate the merits of this refusal to cooperate, but to state that it violates local church autonomy flies in the face of sound logic. The issue is about cooperation, NOT autonomy.
If anything, you are violating the autonomy of my local church when you suggest that I HAVE to support tongue-speaking missionaries or those who were baptized in churches that believe in baptismal regeneration. The reason for the guidelines being passed was that a large number of churches (demonstrated by the majority on the board of trustees) wish to be good stewards of their missions dollars and not support missionaries that have not been properly baptized or who hold theological positions we deem problematic.
Southern Baptists have always made statements about issues you deem to be tertiary (try reading the 1925 and 1963 confessions). Your problem is one of history, Mr. Burleson. You confuse John Gill, John Bunyan, and others for Southern Baptists. I would suggest studying Southern Baptist history a bit more before you draw any more hard conclusions about what Southern Baptists have historically believed.
A simple student at SBTS.
"A simple student"
Um, yep. You are.
Wade,
You have just encapsulated the very reasons why we would not add our signatures to the BF&M as missionaries. It was not that we stood in direct opposition to any one statement (although there were statements that we questioned the wording), but because we knew that a precedent was being set that once in motion, would be difficult to reverse. We identified this as a narrowing process that would ultimately NOT unite Southern Baptists, but divide them.
Everything has seemed to follow the pattern we feared that it would. You do not have to live long in the middle of SBC denominational life to see the trends that are taking place from within. The very things we held to with conviction concerning the autonomy of the local church were and are being challenged for the sake of a few who believe that in order to be Southern Baptist, we must look exactly alike. I don't believe in cloning, and don't make a very good clone. However, I can see that many who comment on this blog don't make good clones, either. Sorry, it's just not a historical identity in the life Southern Baptists.
"When it comes to the fundamentals of the gospel, we don't mind that people turn away. But it is the demands for conformity on tertiary issues that is harming our convention. "
This is exactly right. However, they are trying to convince people that secondary and tertiary issues ARE primary doctine.
It all goes back to one thing: Wanting authority over others.
Lin,
However, they are trying to convince people that secondary and tertiary issues ARE primary doctine.
The gold apple for the best comment of the day.
WOW...Simple Student,
You really have a skewed view of Baptist history and cooperation. I am actually embarrassed that you are attending SBTS, which I attended and graduated from very recently. They taught me at SBTS to be much more careful and studious than you obviously are.
Go back and re-read the reasons for the orignial formation of the SBC as its own independent fellowship. Though I abhor the historical institution of slavery, it is true that Baptists in the South didn't take kindly to Baptists in the North saying that it was immoral to send missionaries to the field who were slaveholders. The Baptists in the South refused to allow the "board" to dictate to them that an outsider could determine who could and who could not be deemed a missionary by the local church.
Same issue today. Cooperation is based on the agreement that we affirm the same broad doctrinal convictions, first-order things like atonement, the Trinity, and inerrancy of Scripture. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK THAT 42,000+ Baptist churches will agree on all points of doctrine...EVER...End of debate! For the cause of worldwide missions, we have always agreed on the essentials and allowed for variance on the non-essentials.
If you want to be a Landmarker, FINE, Go for it! Join John R. Rice and his merry band of progressive Baptists in their Landmarkist positions, but STOP trying to drag the SBC to a place it has never been (i.e. Landmarkism). You have the freedom to walk away from SBC life if you don't like the notion of cooperationalism, but you don't have the right to attempt to redefine what SBC life is all about. Its intellectually dishonest and ethically wrong. You talk about the "autonomy" of your church being violated, and again, you are wrong. When your church autonomously chose to enter into the CP, they were agreeing to cooperate together with other churches who held the BFM. The issues to which you refer are NOT ISSUES COVERED IN THE BFM! If they were, this would be a different conversation, but they aren't. Ergo, churches that receive members from other immersing denominations can be totally honest in saying they hold the BFM. YOu however, by expecting everyone else to hold your Landmarkist, Trail of Blood views, cannot. It is your church that agreed to cooperate on broad terms. If they cannot do so in good conscience because of issues outside the parameters of the 2000 BFM, then they seriously need to pray about continuing to support CP life. Consider the BBF or the GRBC, or become totally independent, I don't care, but quit trying to re-create the CP according to your own image.
Oh, and your quip about the "majority of the board of trustees" shows me that you really know nothing about current SBC life, or you are just being dishonest. The boards in all of our institutions are stacked. Its a fact. Nepotism and inbreeding (Wade's word) are currently rampant in SBC life and being appointed to anything, either at the local or state level, is based on how loyal you've been to the big-wigs and how willing you are to "tow the (CR) party line." You can argue till you're blue in the face about this, and you will still be DEAD WRONG! In fact, if you argue this at all, it will just go to discredit you since everyone knows this is true (yes, even the BI guys, who are on the "right" side of the CR crowd, will reluctantly admit this if pinned down). You say the "majority of the churches" (as represented by the BOT...). Really??? So over 21,000 churches agree with the BOT, a hand-picked group representing a myopic and theologically narrow minority (albeit powerful minority) in the SBC?? Are you really ready to stand behind that ridiculous statement??? That's tantamount to assuming that a majority of Americans (over 300 million) agree with tax increases because the majority of the Senate approves them! Ludicrous!
There's more I could say, but I am probably wasting my time. Most of the BI crowd are firmly entrenched and willing to ride this sinking ship down to the bottom, just as long as its them holding the wheel when it sinks!
Please quit using SBTS in your tag-line, it's embarrassing. Use Bob Jones or Tennessee Temple instead, because your ecclesiology is more akin to theirs.
A thoughtful graduate of SBTS
I would be interested in knowing the support for your statement that most of the people who are involved in BI pastor small or declining churches.
Is that a national statistic, or just referring to those who regularly blog?
Wade,
It reminds me of the cookie cutter baseball stadiums of the 70's. They all looked the same. Now people are creating imaginative stadiums. Do we really want all of our churches looking the same. If so, why not merge with the Roman Catholics? Why not have every church preach the same sermon every week? Why not have an approved translation of the Bible? What is next?
Harold,
I still consider myself relatively new to Arkansas (only been here 3 years), but I think I have to take exception to your comparison...
"In many respects the Baptist Identity movement is like the Christian Identity movement here in southeastern Arkansas. There are some good people in both groups."
As I understand the Christian Identity movement, it is a harsh, white supremist, anti-Semitic movement. I doubt I would like to call folks in that movement "good people."
(1) Is that a fair representation of the Christian Identity movement where you are?
(2) Is it really fair to compare the Christian Identity movement to the Baptist Identity movement? Is the Baptist Identity initiative really that extreme?
Dave,
The statement may be more reflective of those who blog, my experience with Baptist Identity trustees and leaders, and personal observation of pastors within this state, etc . . . though I would be happy to stand corrected if I can be shown to be in error. Again, the point is you don't reach PEOPLE with a judgmental, critical spirit - focusing on non-essentials more than you do the gospel.
Aaron New,
The two Christian Identity people I know are good, solid people and members of Christian churches. Though you may be right that most of those in the CI are not like that. All I know is my experience. I was just making a comparison.
All,
Terms of reference for the Christian Identity movement. A 50,000 foot overview can be found both at ReligiousTolerance.org and WikiPedia.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But please remember that this is NOT what Wade is talking about.
Gary
Thoughtful graduate...
You are upset because I raised the issues of tongues and baptism.
Perhaps I should have raised the issues of women in the pastorate and open communion. Both are issues clearly addressed in the BF&M, yet Wade would have my church support missionaries that articulate and teach positions contrary to the accepted Southern Baptist position. Issues that my church autonomously chose to enter the CP. Call them tertiary positions if you like, but they are clearly addressed and identified as major issues in the BF&M 2000. Besides that baptism is clearly addressed in the BF&M 2000 as a prerequisite to church membership and the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Wade apparently wants to redefine that position for the convention as well.
Simple Student at SBTS
thoughtful graduate,
"being appointed to anything, either at the local or state level, is based on how loyal you've been to the big-wigs and how willing you are to "tow the (CR) party line."
I want to make one challenge in reference to this. I began to get involved on the local level a couple of years ago and I am now involved on the state level as of last fall. In both cases, I had to open the doors myself. It can be done and I truly wish more of our young pastors (like myself) would put the initiative forth to do so. I'm not arguing that "inbreeding" or "nepotism" isn't taking place. I'm simply stating that I have found that the opportunities and doors are more open than we think. If we simply are willing to pursue the opportunities and not sit and wait for a phone call.
Ben looks good in that costume.
I propose that if Ben intends to make any motions or offer any resolutions this year that he wear this outfit. Anything he proposes will be sure to pass!
Like most things, I agree with some things that is new organization is promoting and disagree with others.
But I am not convinced that the Barbarians are at the gate.
It's good to know about things like this, but am not going to get worked up anytime soon on this.
Louis
Others are interested in weighty issues. But on the lighter side, I am curious how "one of [your] members has been raising prized herefords since the Land Run of 1893." How old is he???
Mr. Vaughan,
Ooops. His great grandfather made the run. The business has been passed down to three generations.
Thanks!
Perhaps if you had raised those issues, our discussion would be different, but you didn't.
I am curious about a few things...
1. What is the "accepted Southern Baptist position" a reference to? Do you really think there is some etheral, nebulous position on these issues (i.e. women in pastorate and open communion) that is "common and accepted" among the overwhelming majority of SBs? Do you seriously think that a few thousand (fewer and fewer each year) messengers at a meeting, most of whom are there for the Lifeway deals and the politicing anyway, speak accurately for (supposedly) 16 million SBs? Even 4 million SBs?
You speak about the "accepted position" as if all (or even the majority) of SBs have been polled and agree on some certain position regarding these issues? Because I assure you there is a WIDE diversity of positions on these issues in SB churches across this land. I dare you to poll even 1000 SB churches and find out how many practice true "closed" communion. It won't be many. As per women in ministry, I affirm the 2000BFM change. I am a full complementarian and my church supports the biblical injunction against women in pastoral ministry, but how much of a problem has this been for our IMB missionaries? Do we have missionaries ordaining female pastors? You know as well as I do that this issue was about pastors of local churches here at home, and had little to do w/ the support of missionaries on the field. Do you belong to a church in or near Louisville since you are at SBTS? When I was there (just 2 yrs ago) there were still at least 3-4 SB churches in the Long Run Association with female pastors. Does your church fellowship with LRBA? How about the KBC? I know there are churches in KY that differ w/ the 2000 BFM position on women in ministry...so can you fellowship with them in good conscience? If you can't, don't worry, the BI guys will be along shortly to tell those folks they can hit the road. The tighter the parameters, the smaller the fellowship and the smaller the fellowship, the less likely there will be any dissent, and when there's no dissenting voices, it will be easy for a small group of ego-centric powerhogs to run it all.
I respect the BFM. I've studied every word of it. Our church holds it. I affirm closed communion and the restriction on women in ministry. But you miss the point of Wade's post. The local church is exactly where one can be as narrow on these issues as one wants to be. The beauty and (dare I use the pagan word) magic of the CP is that it allows diverse Baptists to rally around essentials and work together.
But you and others don't get that.
A few more comments:
1. "Wade would have my church support...contrary to the accepted SB position." Do we currently have missionaries on the field teaching outside the parameters of the BFM? Please provide some proofs of your claim. Me and everyone else would be eager to know if this is true. I suspect it's not, but it becomes the BI's "boogeyman" that's brought out of the closet to scare the masses whenever they want to make a politically expedient move.
2. "Issues that my church autonomously chose to enter the CP." This isn't even a sentence. I have not a clue what you are saying.
3. What does baptism being pre-requisite to membership and the Lord's supper have to do with this discussion? Every local church is allowed to determine how they determine the "validity" of one's baptism according to the parameters of the BFM according to that local church's understanding. Thus, if someone comes to my church for membership from a Bible Church, and after an interview, I determine that they give credible evidence of salvation and that they were immersed following their profession as a sign of obedience to the Lord, we can choose to accept them as full "baptized" members eligible for the Lord's supper. However, our option to do so is just that...our option. I don't need to be told by a document or a board that our church doesn't have the right to determine the boundaries of acceptable baptisms according to the teachings of the bible alone. As of yet, the BFM does NOT say in statement VII that the baptism must be "BAPTIST" although I suspect that will soon change as well if you have your way. I find it supremely ironic that some of the heroes of the SBTS community (Piper, MacArthur to name two) are non-SBs who would not be welcome to join SB churches by your criteria because their "immersion" was not in a SB church. Ridiculous.
And I believe that more than a few SBTS profs (do I need to name them, because I can, but won't for the sake of perception) have come to SBTS from non-SB backgrounds. Were all of them re-baptized when they came to SBTS and joined SB churches? You know they weren't...but they were accepted into fellowship at local SB churches. I am OK with that, it is you who are going to have to explain the inconsistency of attending a SB seminary where all of the profs are not even "SB baptized" while at the same time calling others to the carpet for being against narrowed parameters on baptism at the IMB/ entity level. Not all of SBTS profs pastor churches that practice closed communion either. I know. I attended some of their churches while there, and they are not closed. Guess we should hunt them down too.
Again...you haven't thought these things through very well. You are being fed a party line, probably by a prof that you admire and respect (or his sons, probably also attending SBTS), and you simply buy it without question. You'll grow out of that.
A thoughtful graduate of SBTS.
Pastor Hilliard,
Thanks for the encouraging comment. I am glad that you are increasingly involved and hope you are making a true difference.
All I can say is that I doubt you are in the same state as I am. Here, it is ridicuously stifling. I was involved for many years at the local associational level and was open to serving in any state capacity offered. I was a tried and true CR/ 2000 BFM guy too (and still am), but never had doors open. I finally found the nepotism too nauseating and just drifted away.
In our state, there is an "unauthorized" group of pastors (all conservatives) who meet regularly "off the books" to strategize. From what I know, it is no more than 100 pastors out of the thousands of churches in my state. I know this for a fact. Many from their congregations and their families get regularly appointed to positions while hundreds of smaller-church pastors are passed over year after year. It's tiring to watch and its no different at the national level.
Sorry to be a pessimist. But I do take your words as encouraging. Keep fighting the fight brother.
A thoughtful graduate of SBTS
I think the Moderates were TO THE LEFT of the people in the pews and had no business taking their money to support the teaching that the Bible might/does contain error.
I think the B.ID people are TO THE RIGHT of the people in the pews and have no business taking their money to support the shutting out of good Baptists from Missions.
Benji,
You are right. And neither side gets that. Many of the current debates are among conservatives and yet many moderates/liberals are jumping in the debate. They want to claim those who are against the BI group are with them when the truth is they aren't.
Wade,
I trust your statement of "Most Baptist Identity advocates pastor small churches or preside over declining ministries" is not meant to imply that small churches are declining ministries or are in any way deficient in their value.
I don't believe you mean to disparage small churches but I thought I would give you an opporunity to clarify this part of your statement.
Thanks.
Les
Anyone who can help:
I don't want to jump into the middle of this debate, but is the BFM really "clear" on the issue of closed communion? As I read it, the BFM says that communion is for "members of the church" but in the previous statement on the church defines the church both in local and universal terms.
So couldn't one be a born-again Christian (i.e. church universal, i.e. member of the church) and participate in communion at a church where his (earthly) membership did not reside?
Doesn't seem real "clear" to me, at least as the BFM is presently worded.
This post has been removed by the author.
Anonymous,
The BF&M states "Christian baptism is the immersion...it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."
I think at the very least it is saying that a Baptist church must not or should not allow a visiting nonimmersed Christian [Methodist, Presbyterian, etc] to partake of the Lord's Supper with them since the nonimmersed Christian has not been baptized first.
I think the inclusion of the word "prerequisite" in the confession makes that clear.
Les,
It would also be interesting to find out what Wade calls a small church.
I thought the wording was indeed weird and wrong. No data to prove and very arrogant in it's perception.
I would agree that the small church statement is poorly worded. I have pastored small churches. I consider them to be churches of less than 200 in attendance.
I was attempting to say that you cannot pastor a church that runs over 1,000 and be critical, judgmental and condemning of people with different backgrounds and convictions. You would run away 3/4's of your church.
I do not know of a pastor who pushes BAPTIST IDENTITY - and not Christianity that is pastoring a church over 1,000 in attendance in the Southern Baptist Convention. But as I said, I am happy to be corrected.
By the way, I have repeatedly said that the real heroes in the SBC are the pastors of small churches. They work much harder, do far more in ministry, than pastors of larger churches.
The issue is not small church vs. large church pastors. The issue is 'in our day can a man pastor a large Southern Baptist church and emphasize Baptist Idenity?'
I say the answer is no.
In His Grace,
Wade
Anonymous,
Do a search on this blog for Lord's Supper and you will find numerous articles that deal with the BFM, closed communion, and how it works itself out in the local Southern Baptist Church.
wade
If it is granted that B.ID people are supporting the exclusion of some people from missions with an agenda that is to the right of the people in the pews, then how is this NOT taking advantage of these people who give their money?
Can a man Pastor a church larger than 200 and even up to 1,000+ and preach the Word without compromise and still be used to grow a church?
Yes
Will Baptist Identity be included?
If the Bible is being taught - yes. Jonathan Falwell is one young man doing this better than even his father did.
And no, not all churches who are not Baptist are in sin or wrong :)!
Wade, thanks for the help with the communion questions.
Benji, thanks for the exchange as well. I understand your point, and agree. My contention is not regarding Christians from other (non-immersing) denominations. They would not receive communion in our church either. However, true "closed" communion is for members of that local body only. We practice this in our church, but I have found that the majority of SBs I know do not take this stance. They "open" the Lord's table to regenerate Christians who have been scripturally immersed, and usually even say "from churches of like faith and order."
I know there are various levels of "closed" communion. My original question though, going hand in hand with the current baptism exchanges, relates to other Christians who are biblically immersed but not members of the particular local church taking communion. I personally would politely turn-down the offer to partake, but again, the majority of SBs I know would say that they would partake with a clear conscience. How narrow do we need to get on this stuff?
So again, my question is "how clear really is the wording of the 2000 BFM on this issue?" I am not trying to be overly "nit-picky" about this, but some of the threads on here seem to imply that the standards for communion and baptism are being narrowed to Landmark-like status, and I am not so sure that this is required by the BFM or that the "majority" of SBs in the pew would agree.
Thanks again, to both of you for your prompt, reasonable responses.
Tim
Interesting that you bring up Jonathan Falwell.
I just read the May/June issue of Liberty Journal, with Jonathan's brother, Jerry Falwell, Jr. the chancellor of Liberty University on the cover. There was an article about Jonathan within the magazine.
I was impressed.
Jonathan will be hosting the INNOVATECHURCH Christian Workers Conference.
Charles Billingsley, Thomas Road's Worship Pastor, Ed Stetzer of LIFEWAY, Jim Cymbala of Brooklyn Tabernacle, Chuck Colson, Tommy Walker of Christian Assembly in Los Angeles and Tom Mullins of Christ Fellowship are the conference leaders.
I can assure you, with no hesitation whatsoever, that the men so named are more interested in the Gospel than Baptist Identity, and I can further assure you that many within the Baptist Idenitity movement of the SBC have been very critical of these men.
So, yes, Jonathan Falwell is doing an EXCELLENT job - so is his brother, Jerry, Jr. But they are moving forward with a focus on the gospel and cooperation among evangelicals and not getting bogged down in a Baptist Identity movement. The Kingdom is better for it.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Wade,
I went through 4 months (last weekend each month) of training, called "Shamgar" in 1969 - 1970. There were 12 of us and we focused on witnessing, scripture memory, and spiritual discipline.
I belonged to a Methodist church at the time, as did 2 of the other guys. I know one was a presbyterian, and the trainer from Texas, I have no idea.
That was likely the biggest thing that happened, to me, in my spiritual journey. We went out and witnessed to people the last 2 weekends, and saw people come to Christ. I dare ANYBODY to try to tell me there was ANYTHING wrong with that.
Nobody cared about "identity". I am not about to start, to go beyond being a Christian.
Amen Bob.
Amen
Wade, I hope the light you see at the end of the tunnel isn't a locomotive headlight! It sure seems that way, coming fast.
This continued divisiveness seems a major problem to me. It all just seems one more attempt at control and narrowing of parameters. The 2000 BF&M narrowed things considerably (and had the audacity to make itself an instrument of doctrinal conformity, which no previous Baptist confession had done, to the best of my recollection) and since then there has just been more of the same. Pretty soon there will be just a few left who consider themselves and no one else true Baptists and they will likely each find fault with all others who do not agree completely with them.
This is not what I have always understood being Baptist to mean. Of course, being female, I already do not have a right to an opinion according to many of them, so they have already excluded me and all other thinking women.
Oh well, God still loves me and I still consider myself Baptist, though obviously not their kind.
Susie
The more I read of this B.I. stuff, the more I am convinced that somebody is intentionally pulling our leg. Surely, learned and respected men with such reputations wouldn't engage in such pointless (practically puerile in a philosphical sense) debating on such questions as whether a church was represented in the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch.
I get the sense that if Wade or the ExComm or some political entity had demanded that the SWBTS faculty invest time in such inapplicable pursuit, the noise of rejection would still be echoing.
Therefore, the Watergate answer has to apply: this is a pursuit of either power or money. Maybe it began with an effort to whitewash the IMB manipulations of truth the past couple years, or to make some other cluster-buck more palatable.
I simply cannot imagine well-intentioned Christians giving this malarkey the time of day! Aren't these leaders of our convention BUSY?
Susie, re your statement "so they have already excluded me and all other thinking women," whom would you identify as "thinking women" and who are "unthinking women"?
Thanks.
I apologize for this post on the previous topic. Somehow part of it was deleted. So, I have tried to reconstruct it so it makes sense. Thanks Mary for calling it to my attention:
One thing that I have observed in reading this blog is how many who post here have the gift of judgment. From one paragraph or two, some are judged as being liberal, fundamentalists, not such as building a larger sanctuary. The pastor was indeed challenged, and proceeded with these plans. But in the midst of his planning, God spoke to him and reminded him of his call and responsibility for evangelism. Chastened, and chagrined, he began a project of contacting every member who had not attended church in several years. First, he wrote a letter to each one, inquiring as to why they had not attended, and what he could do to minister to them. He was amazed at the results, as scores of people responded to his communication with them. Then he began to communicate with people who lived in the vicinity of the church, inviting them to a discussion of the Bible and Christian beliefs. Many responded, and the result was his church began to grow again. Not only that, he led the church to begin several new churches, one of which I was personally involved in starting.
It would seem to me that an encouraging word to the churches would have more of an effect than one which was critical of the manner in which they have reported their membership in the past.
I would suggest a strong challenge to every church to begin a campaign to contact all the members on their rolls to find out where they are, and why they no longer attend the church with an offer to be of service to them. It might actually catch on and have the desired effect of the resolutions.
This all relates to "Baptist Identity" What is it? Some expressions of Baptist identity that I see on these blogs does not sound at all like the church where I first believed in Christ and was baptized--the church where I learned how to serve the Lord and worship together with fellow believers. It was a small country church, but we were very supportive of missions and missionaries. And, it was at that church that God began preparing me for service as a missionary, in spite of the faults and failures of some of its members.
That church is still dear to my heart, and continues to shed the light of the gospel in that community. They have no doubt as to who they are as Baptists, and would resent and resist any efforts by some who would try to make all churches and church members conform to THEIR idea of what Baptists are. Can't we cooperate (the reason we came together in the begining, right?) in sharing the love of Christ with the whole world?
The Southern Baptist Convention was built on cooperation among diverse churches, not conformity among identical churches.
I like that. There is so little in the way of provable hard-and-fast "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" in the New Testament that it has often seemed to me that it would be really weird if all churches looked and acted just like each other.
I'm never quite sure if the quest for conformity--though I'm convinced that there is such a quest in certain quarters--is altogether a top-down thing, though. It seems to me that there is also a certain unwillingness on the part of many Baptists to holler out that the emperor has no clothes, or to critically examine what people say. Just for example, once we had a traveling musician perform at our church. During the performance, he made a comment to the effect that you had better be careful what sort of "Christian music" you listen to--after all, there are ostensibly Christian songs out there that don't actually mention God, or Christ, or Jesus.
I didn't think too much about it, but a couple of weeks later, our pastor (who was actually much sharper than this anecdote will make him sound), brought up that very point during his Wednesday night message. Afterward, I mentioned to him that we sang a song all the time that didn't mention--at least by name--God, or Christ, or Jesus: Be Thou My Vision.
The look on his face was priceless.
The thing was, he was perfectly prepared to accept as sound spiritual instruction the concept that a person shouldn't listen to songs that didn't mention God, or Christ, or Jesus. It sounded good, sounded right--but wasn't.
Too many of us in the Southern Baptist Convention are vulnerable to that sort of thing. It sounds good, it sounds right, it sounds spiritual--but ain't. And until we learn to say something about it, we're going to have problems like the ones you're talking about.
Thoughtful Graduate,
You may be right. Although, I am in NC which is quite a battleground between moderates/liberals and conservatives/fundamentalists. My first association yawned at my presence and I never got involved. My second was much better. As for the State, they needed nominations and the best qualified person to nominate me did. My wife.:)
Don't give up.
Here's what Wade does not understand.
He has a definition of baptism. In its simplest terms it is "by immersion, after coming to faith in Christ". He believes this definition is biblical, supported by the Baptist Faith and Message, Baptist history, and the typical Southern Baptist church. Therefore if a Southern Baptist church approved the baptism of a potential IMB missionary that did not meant the criteria of Wade's definition, he would say the IMB is full within its rights to reject this missionary until he is "rebaptized". So Wade believes in a "Top-Down Ecclesiology" just as much as any Baptist identity Southern Baptist.
Now Wade is going to response and say I am presenting a scenario that would never happen. Yet there are Southern Baptist churches that receive Mormon immersions, Jehovah Witness immersions, Catholic immersions, and even pedobaptist sprinklings. If one of these churches sent one of these members to be a IMB missionary, Wade would want the potential missionary rejected until he was rebaptized, regardless of the fact that this person's home church approved his baptism.
You see it all comes down to what you believe about baptism. Baptist identity Southern Baptists believe that baptism is ""by immersion, after coming to faith in Christ", but we also believe that baptism is only a symbol unlike the baptismal regeneration crowd. And we believe that baptism is an ordinance of the local church and can only be administered under the authority of a New Testament church. We believe the scriptures, the Baptist Faith and Message, Baptist history, and the typical Southern Baptist church supports this position.
- Ben Stratton
If we are indeed heading toward a post-denominational future, I'm starting to think that it can't get here soon enough.
Wade,
This post was certainly thought-provoking. My desire is not to attack anyone. I do desire, however, to inject some thoughts from my perspective as one who sympathizes more with the Baptist identity movement than with the reform/dissent movement. I do not speak for anyone other than myself.
You stated, “The new Baptist Identity initiative in the Southern Baptist Convention is an attempt by some to redefine what it means to be a Southern Baptist.”
I don’t get that impression at all. I think it’s an attempt to clarify historical Southern Baptist distinctives rather than to redefine who we are in the sense of historical revisionism.
You also said, “The Southern Baptist Convention historically recognizes that the local church sends out missionaries, NOT THE INTERNATIONAL MISSION BOARD. The IMB was created to facilitate churches sending THEIR missionaries. Recently, that dynamic has changed.”
The missionary candidate is required to submit a local church recommendation in the application process, so the local church is certainly involved in the sending out of missionaries. When I was commissioned as an IMB missionary, some members of the church where I had served as pastor attended the commissioning service and felt very involved. I continually informed church members about my candidacy after attending candidate conference. On the other hand, however, my church was not the only SBC church that was sending me. The IMB trustees who played a role in my appointment were accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention. I think the system works well. I played a small part in it one year when I served on the Committee on Committees for the SBC. I was not a smoke-filled room. I simply nominated a person to serve on the SBC Committee on Nominations. I would have been required to defend my nomination had it been challenged from the floor of the convention.
You also said, “Second, Baptist Identity people wish to use the BFM as a ‘tool of accountability.’ They have forgotten that confessions of faith are confessions, not creeds.”
I don’t think it’s just BI people who see the BFM as an instrument of doctrinal accountability. That description is now in the preamble of the 2000 BFM, which you referenced later in your post: “Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability.”
Under the section of your post entitled “A Loss of Church Autonomy,” you stated, “The Baptist Identity movement wishes to exclude from cooperation any church that dares to do it differently than they do. . . . Yet, any study of history would lead people to recognize that true Baptist identity is found in churches that practiced autonomy.”
Well, again, I can only speak for myself. I believe that local churches are indeed autonomous. They can do what they want to do. They can even send out their own missionaries. It is also true, however, that associations, state conventions, and the SBC are also autonomous. Thus, associations, state conventions, and the SBC cannot tell local churches what to do, but they can autonomously decide not to cooperate with particular local churches. Conversely, particular local churches can decide not to cooperate with associations, state conventions, and the SBC. Autonomy works both ways, and it is not threatened by a lack of cooperation.
In the past you and I discussed your ancestor, Rufus Burleson (1823-1901). Both of us admire him. Based on the following quotes, do you think he would be even a little bit sympathetic with the Baptist Identity folks?
From The Life and Writings of Rufus C. Burleson, compiled and published by Mrs. Georgia J. Burleson (Waco, TX, 1901):
“On one occasion Rufus went with his father to hear a presiding elder preach on baptism, in reply to an uneducated Baptist preacher, who had been guilty of baptizing some half-dozen of his most prominent members, amid the usual jeers, ridicule and sneers heaped upon the Baptists of that day for their ignorance and bigotry. . . . Rufus reminded his father that when the congregation laughed, under these withering criticisms of the denomination to which he belonged, he hung his head in shame, not that the insinuations were either true or just, but that there was even an excuse for making them. ‘My soul,’ Rufus said, ‘burned as young David’s did when Goliath derided Israel, and Israel’s God, and I want to so prepare myself as a preacher as to make it impossible to cast such reflections on God’s Church and Baptist people.’ ”(38)
“Dr. Campbell withdrew from the Baptists and was, for a time an independent preacher. . . . He seemed to be more hostile toward the Baptist than any other denomination, and Baptist churches suffered more from his preaching and proselyting influence of his followers than any other Christian organization. . . . Mr. Burleson saw the peril of the situation, the break in Baptist ranks, that the issues were vital, and that every man must stay with his colors, and speak, giving forth no uncertain sound as to what Baptists might expect unless the influence of this powerful propagandist was neutralized. He entered the arena, sought controversy, preached many sermons in defense of his own creed, (the Bible) showing the weak places in the code of the new sect, and exhorting his own people in burning eloquence to stand firm. . . . He therefore prepared a series of articles for ‘The Tennessee Baptist.’ . . . In these articles he maintained that we cannot exercise saving faith in Jesus Christ, and at the same time believe in the possibility of baptismal regeneration. . . . These contributions to the press, his sermons and personal work, in this great wave of religious excitement that was sweeping over the country, had some effect in rendering the Baptists steady and loyal to the Church of their fathers.” (47-49)
“Mr. Burleson . . . wrote a serio-comic article, in which he gave the substance of a lecture delivered by a theological professor to his class as containing the only formula then known for killing Baptists, which is here given. . . . ‘The truth is, there is but one way to kill the Baptists, and that way is to hug them to death. I mean kill them with kindness, call them dear brethren, invite them to your communion table, urge them to come unite with you as brethren, and leave off the discussion of doctrinal questions. This is the most effective, indeed the only way, to kill the Baptists. The old Doctor was right, and many weak-kneed Baptists are suffering themselves to be hugged to death every day, while those who are loyal to their convictions are increasing very rapidly.’” (50-52)
“The deacons expressed a willingness to excuse their pastor for a few days, and Mr. Burleson consented. The interesting story of this, his first revival in Texas, we give in his own language: ‘The third Sunday in June, 1848, I went to Galveston to commence a protracted meeting with the Baptist Church. . . . As is always my custom, I explained briefly and lovingly that the beautiful ordinance of baptism is to remind us vividly of our Savior’s baptism in the River Jordan, and also of His burial and glorious resurrection, and that it was also designed to illustrate our future burial and resurrection, and to proclaim to the world that we had died to sin, were now “buried in holy baptism, and raised up to walk in newness of life.” This brief explanation astonished many of that ass