A Couple of Words: Profound and (Prescient?)

In Tampa Bay I met a young Southern Baptist couple, Rick and Christie Garrett, who really impressed me with their love for our convention and missions. They have a blog of their own called a couple of words that I believe you will enjoy immensely.

Following is a recent post from Rick and Christie where they make some observations regarding the beginning of our Southern Baptist Convention and their thoughts about the SBC now.

("a couple of words" from Rick and Christie, Sunday, April 2, 2006).

Some time, shortly after the colonies began to settle the New World, Baptists began settling their own colonies and formulating their own churches. They were a fairly independent lot – partially due to their skepticism of the state churches they had pulled away from and partly as a result the persecution these fledgling congregations received at the hands of those same churches. However, "in May of 1814 their missionary conviction led to the formation of a national denominational body which they called the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign Missions.” A lengthy title, yes, but it is interesting that the first national denomination formed – not as a means of codifying their doctrine, not as a means of affecting the political scene of the relatively new nation, not even to as a way to properly train their pastors and missionaries – but rather, the unified body formed for the sole purpose of taking the Gospel to foreign lands.

Interesting. If Baptists are seen here uniting around the need for foreign missionaries. What could possibly cause the divide that would ultimately produce the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention? Yes, it is International Missions again. Let me quote directly from Fletcher – all emphasis mine:

“Organized as abolitionists, people holding these convictions mounted an unrelenting campaign against the South’s “peculiar institution.” After several unsuccessful tries, their leaders in 1845 persuaded the mission boards of the national Baptist body to refuse to appoint a slaveholder as a missionary. This set the stage for the southern churches, defensive and feeling discredited in organizations they had helped create and nurture, to demand their own denominational structure. The Southern Baptist Convention was the result.”

Fascinating how familiar this sounds. Despite the fact that we all agree with the evils of slavery and the need for the abolition of the “peculiar institution,” the bottom line remains: at the heart of the formation of our convention was one group refusing to appoint missionaries from another group - a move so offensive, it led our founding fathers to sever ties with the then current mission board and form their own denominational entity.

My fear is that one day we will again read a similar passage in our history books. Do not be confused, the current issues facing our convention are not matters of doctrinal purity, biblical inerrancy, or conservative versus liberal thought patterns. The issues are simply one group of conservatives, narrowing the parameters of cooperation and refusing to work with other conservatives – despite areas of doctrinal agreement and unity – who do not wish to be confined by extra-biblical guidelines, policies and parameters. If we allow this to continue, the convention will once again be fractured – if not fragmented – the Gospel will be hindered, and a small group of church’s led by landmark pastors will be left to shoulder the full weight of the convention. I pray we will see a conclusion to these matters before it comes to this. I believe it is time we all take a step back and revisit the history of our great convention in hopes of finding a perspective that advances the gospel, unifies the brethren, and allows Baptists to dissent without the fear of rejection and retaliation from the controlling majority.



A couple of words well said Rick and Christie.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson