Archives For SBC

A recent BaptistPress article reports that Lifeway Research has discovered an alarming trend among Southern Baptist churches. And perhaps most alarming is the lack of voices calling for an alarm.

Who may participate in the Lord’s Supper at your church?

52% of pastors polled answered that anyone who has put their faith in Jesus Christ may take of the Lord’s Supper. A significantly smaller percentage (35%) opens the table only to those who have been baptized as a believer. 5% open the table to anyone at all (though quite honestly, I don’t know how that differs from having no specifications to begin with).

To put those numbers in perspective, of all of the churches surveyed in this research, two out of three churches do not require baptism by immersion as a prerequisite for coming to the Lord’s Table. And that’s not just two out of three churches – that’s two out of three Baptist churches. I’ve never been one to fear that we’re losing our distinctives, but I’m about to join that club.

Herschel Hobbs, who wrote the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, argued that the Lord’s Supper was not the issue. He begins with the premise that non-baptized believers are not permitted to observe the Lord’s Supper. What distinguishes the Southern Baptist practice of limiting the Lord’s Table to baptized membership from any other Christian group is that Baptists only baptize believers. There should be no such things as non-baptized believers or a baptized non-believers to begin with.

“Christian groups generally are agreed that baptism must precede the Lord’s Supper. With this Baptists agree. The question is not ‘communion’ but baptism. What is New Testament baptism? If anything then, Baptists are ‘close baptismists.’” (Herschel Hobbs in What Baptists Believe)

According to this survey, only 4% of SBC churches practice closed communion. Closed communion is the practice of limiting the taking of the Lord’s Supper to one’s own church. And if this sounds too much like Landmarkism to you, consider Article VII in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming

Southern Baptists are having an identity crisis.

And we’re bickering and fighting over the wrong things.

Some will, no doubt, take this opportunity to throw another rock in the Calvinism/Traditionalist argument and blame Calvinists for opening the table to those baptized as infants. I’m sure it’s been done, but let’s not think that this problem exists only in Reformed ranks. Every Baptist church that I’ve ever served on staff in (and none would be considered Calvinistic) has opened the table to anyone who has professed Christ as Lord.

Whether we land on the side of the Calvinists or the Traditionalists (or somewhere in the middle), the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message casts a wide enough umbrella for all of us.

Brothers, we’re fighting the wrong battles. Calvinists and Traditionalists alike must abandon the vitriol and recognize that while we’re building arguments and making accusations against other Baptist brethren who ascribe to the very same statement of faith, we’re actually losing what it means to be Southern Baptist.

lordssupper-final

Click for full-size image.

For Further Study:

[Can't see the video above? You may need to click through to the website to view it.]

“You know, I couldn’t imagine anything more wonderful than to get to heaven and have somebody come up to you and say, ‘Hey, you know, I probably wouldn’t be here in heaven if it weren’t for you. I mean, Jesus is the one who saved me, but you’re the one who told me about Him. And if you hadn’t have told me about Him, I might not be here. And I’ve been waiting on you to come to heaven because I’ve been wanting to thank you for sharing with me. I might not be here if it weren’t for you.’”

[This is the fifth of five posts reflecting on my experience at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans, LA in 2012. For more information, or to see the other posts in this series, click here.]

Despite the excitement of the business sessions of the convention (and I happen to be the particular brand of person who enjoyed each session), my favorite moments in New Orleans came around them. I had the opportunity to share a hotel room with my pastor – one of the men of whom stories are told. He was one of the many who slept in their car for lack of hotel funds during the Conservative Resurgence. He was one of the many who would pack a lunch and stay at each convention from the opening wrap of the gavel until the final amen. He told stories of what the conventions were like during those years. He encouraged my participation in the convention and charged me with the task of living in the light of the Conservative Resurgence.

I was humbled that he would spend that time with me. I was honored to meet others who had similar stories, and in doing so, I was reminded of the great heritage we have as Southern Baptists. I was reminded that I am the beneficiary of the sacrifices they made in order to restore the convention to the inerrant Word of God. I pray that my generation will live in that light and never take it for granted.

[This is the fourth of five posts reflecting on my experience at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans, LA in 2012. For more information, or to see the other posts in this series, click here.]

David with Fred Luter

I’m notorious for blurry photos

It is my belief that the 2012 Southern Baptist Convention will be remembered for one thing – Fred Luter’s election as president of the convention. It was an honor to stand in support of his unanimous election. The weight of that election in not just Southern Baptist history, but religious history in America, was not lost on the thousands who cheered for our newly elected president.

Words fall short in describing the momentous occasion. However divided Southern Baptists had been leading up to that moment, all stood united as a convention founded by slave owners elected the first African-American president in their 167 year history. Even those not given to public displays of emotion found difficulty restraining tears from escaping their place of hiding. In 1995, the convention had adopted a resolution apologizing for their part in propagating racism and slavery. Seventeen years later, the convention was released from the shackles of the past and made a definitive move by looking past a man’s skin tone and electing a great man to the office of SBC president.

[This is the third of five posts reflecting on my experience at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans, LA in 2012. For more information, or to see the other posts in this series, click here.]

sinners-prayer

A resolution was brought to this year’s meeting that sought the convention’s approval of the use of the Sinners Prayer as a Biblical expression of repentance and faith. Discussions regarding this resolution were some of the more frustrating discussions of the entire convention. The resolution itself was worded in such a way to defend the Biblical practice of urging sinners to cry out to God in repentance and faith for salvation. Those opposing the motion spoke of the frustration of counseling those in their congregation who were resting their assurance on their having repeated a “sinner’s prayer,” who had not truly believed on Christ for salvation. One saw great value in it’s use evangelistically. The other, saw it as a dangerous hook upon which to hang one’s assurance.

Neither side was willing to concede to the other’s valid point. Those in support of the resolution spoke of the Scriptural command placed upon sinners to receive Christ and be saved. No argument can stand in light of Scripture in repudiation of that fact. However, those opposed to the resolution repeatedly decried the misuse of calling sinners to, “Pray after me. Dear Jesus, I know I’m a sinner…” and assuring the one repeating the prayer that, “if you prayed that prayer, you can know that you are saved.” This, they argued, places the assurance not in Christ, but in a magical incantation.

Perhaps the entire discussion would have been better served had the original author of the resolution removed a few quotation marks. Many who had difficulty stomaching the idea of affirming the use of a “sinner’s prayer,” would have had no such problem with affirming a sinner’s prayer. Nevertheless, the resolution carried and was adopted by the messengers by an almost 2-1 vote.

[This is the second of five posts reflecting on my experience at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans, LA in 2012. For more information, or to see the other posts in this series, click here.]

sbc-name

One of the more interesting discussions at this year’s convention surrounded the adoption of an official alternative moniker for churches desiring to refrain from the use of Southern Baptist Convention. Many objected to the manner in which the task force was formed that studied the name-change in depth. They referenced the fact that each time a name-change was brought to the floor, the motion was voted down by the messengers, and that the formation of this task force was in direct opposition to the will of the convention.

On this day, however, the motion was not voted down. In fact, a showing of hands was far too close to call. After a ballot vote, the convention would wait until the next morning to discover that the motion had passed by a 53% majority. With about 7900 messengers in attendance, the difference was less than 400 votes.

In light of such a close vote, it is my opinion that Southern Baptists and Great Commission Baptists alike should move forward with great caution. However one feels about the decision of the convention – whether excited or saddened – it simply cannot be stated that we are unified on this. It is notable (to this author at least) that every voice that spoke in support of this motion was from a task force member. (I am aware of the practice within the convention of securing the floor microphones in effort to pre-determine what will be said on behalf of a given motion, but it is my opinion – and that of several others – that this practice in this particular instance almost cost the task force their motion.) Alas, the vote passed and the convention has now provided an official alternative name for the use of churches who perceive that their ministries are hindered by the designation, “Southern Baptist.”

In a church setting, it would be unwise to proceed with a motion passed by such a small margin unless it were a core theological issue. Perhaps it would be best to table the discussion until the congregation came to a greater unity on the issue. However, at a convention level, such a decision would create more confusion and frustration.

At this point, we must pray for both Southern Baptists and Great Commission Baptists – that their ministry may be fruitful, that the Great Commission would be fulfilled, and that others may come to know Christ as Lord.

[This is the first of five posts reflecting on my experience at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans, LA in 2012. For more information, or to see the other posts in this series, click here.]

tribble

During the first business session, Southern Baptists met Richard Tribble, pastor and messenger from Emmanuel Baptist Church, Decatur, Illinois. Pastor Tribble made not one, but four motions from the floor microphone. He made a motion to prohibit messengers from debating motions or nominating officers from the platform microphone. He submitted a motion that the Executive Committee schedule the convention during the last weekend of June, to prevent conflict with Father’s Day. His third motion was to require officer nominations to include the nominees church name and percentage of undesignated receipts given to the Cooperative Program. He also motioned that the Executive Council develop a policy and procedures manual for convention officers.

Other motions were presented, but in one brief session the stage was set. Tribble had come to the convention with purpose. In a non-business session conversation, his genuine motives were revealed – he had studied for nine months in order to dispute and defeat the motion to adopt an official alternative name to The Southern Baptist Convention (see next post in this series). In this endeavor he failed – not as a result of a lack of study and preparation, but of discernment. Every motion made by Pastor Tribble was worthy of discussion. Every one. And yet, despite his best attempts, he could not manage to be taken seriously.

Speaking with experienced pastors between sessions provided great wisdom and insight into Tribble’s trouble. He had a good argument. However, his motions lacked the focus of defeating this particular vote, and as a result, each time he took to the microphone, the crowd collectively murmured and giggled. Speaking afterward, my pastor instructed me to be judicious in selecting issues to speak on, and even then, only take to the microphone once in a given four year period. By doing this and ensuring that you have something credible to say, he said, will prevent you from being classified with those with less discretion.

This is not written to disparage Pastor Tribble in any way. His motives appeared to be pure and I believe he had only the good of the convention in mind. The key, as others have stated, is to refrain from maligning him and learning from his plight.

sbc2012

Several years ago while serving in another denomination, I noticed in my twitter feed that many friends and acquaintances were attending that year’s Southern Baptist Convention. Following their updates and comments served as another reminder that though I was outside of the Southern Baptist fold, I was of it. Those updates, stories, and business sessions (I watched live via the internet) pained my heart because I recognized even Southern Baptists were “my people.” Now, having returned to the Southern Baptist Convention and attending Southwestern, I was thrilled to have the opportunity to attend this year’s convention in New Orleans.

I had debated whether the trip to New Orleans would be worth the expense, but upon discovering the historic occasion of this year’s convention, my attendance was certain. This was to be the year that a denomination founded in 1845 by slave-owners would elect their first African-American president, Fred Luter. This was to be the year that an alternative moniker, “Great Commission Baptists,” was to be adopted for those who would desire it’s use. I did not attend with any agenda for or against these items. In fact, I did not even have a vote. However, I wanted to be there. I wanted to experience the Southern Baptist Convention up-close and in-person.

Over the next few days, I plan to publish a few thoughts on the convention through the eyes of one attending the convention for the very first time.

Posts in this series

sbidentityWhat does it mean to be Baptist? “Ask any Baptist this question and you will receive as many answers as there are Baptists” (43). While some might claim Baptists are those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, others might cling to the soul freedom and the authority of religious experience. Some argue they originated during the English Reformation, while others contend that we draw upon our history as the Second Front of the Magisterial Reformation an entire century earlier. Some might even still contend that Baptists have existed since Jesus was baptized in the Jordan. Sadly, Baptists are a people who cling to a shared history and identity while not necessarily agreeing upon which particular shared identity that might be.

“From time to time there has been a need for Baptists to once again reflect on who they are and what they believe, particularly in light of what can be called the historic orthodox consensus throughout the history of the church” (11). In response to that need in our day, David Dockery, President of Union University, has edited this compilation of articles and presentations by several leading Southern Baptist voices on the topic of Southern Baptist identity. University and seminary presidents, pastors and former convention presidents, and others serving at the denomination level join together to revisit our shared history, recognize the challenges of our contemporary culture, and set forth a unified identity for the future of the people called Southern Baptists.

Summary

In the monumental task of discerning a unified identity of Southern Baptists, each author necessarily brings one’s own personality, experience, and unique perspective. Yet as one reads the various authors, three general streams of consensus begin to yield themselves to the reader. Amidst the myriad of voices, experiences, and research, readers come to recognize the common threads of regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and congregational church polity. “These three principles,” according to Al Mohler, “are an irreducible minimum of Baptist identity” (27).

The clearest, and most consistent, principle of Baptist identity is that of regenerate church membership. Hearkening back to the earliest of Baptists, whether one finds their origins in the sixteenth century Anabaptists or the seventeenth century English Separatists, one discovers the vital distinction between a state-church and a church of professing believers. “If there is any one defining mark of the Baptist, it is the understanding that membership in the church comes by personal profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (26).

The second principle is that of believer’s baptism. Baptists were forged during a time of widespread paedobaptism. While the Roman Catholic and Reformation churches were baptizing infants into the “covenant community” based upon an interpretation that looked at baptism through the lens of Old Testament circumcision, Baptists have always understood it to be the first step in obedience for new believers. “In the New Testament baptism is the first command of Christian discipleship” (85). New Testament baptism, then, is the outward expression of the eternal transaction that has taken place in the life of the believer. This eternal immigration from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of God is not predicated upon a child’s birth into a family that happens to live in a nation where infants are baptized into the state church. It is only accomplished when that child (or adult) responds to the gospel in faith and repentance. Therefore, baptism must follow conversion.

The third common principle among Baptists is that of congregational church polity. Rather than a structure that requires churches to submit to a centralized leadership agency or personnel, Baptists maintain that each local expression of the church is autonomous and, according to New Testament guidelines, not subject to the rule of one or few, but to the corporate leadership of the Holy Spirit through his people. “Congregationalism affirms that it is the covenanted community that must take responsibility for the ordering of the church, for the preaching of the gospel, and for everything else that God has assigned to the church in this age” (27).

Evaluation

Regenerate church membership and believer’s baptism have long maintained lofty status within the discussion of Baptist theological distinctives. It may be surprising, then, to read of such unity throughout the book’s various authors on the importance of congregational church polity. The contemporary argument that it is not efficient enough to work in the modern context and must be replaced with an empowering of the church staff echoes arguments in support of Presbyterian church governance, which was refuted by Baptists on the grounds that all believers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The contemporary argument that pastors know best how to run the church, and that rather than boards or committees chaired by lay leadership, churches should be governed by boards of pastors of other churches, echoes arguments in support of Episcopalian church governance. This was refuted by Baptists who maintained that churches were autonomous and not under the controlling hand of any external agency. Though this method of church governance has come under criticism seemingly from all sides, and perhaps due to that criticism, the authors contend that congregational polity is a characteristic of a Baptist church.

Chapter Seven, “The Roots of Baptist Beliefs,” by James Leo Garrett, was tremendously insightful, as the author traced the annals of church history in order to provide the much-needed historical development of Baptist beliefs. He displays the theological contributions to Baptist thought of the early ecumenical councils (Trinitarian and Christological doctrines), the medieval sectarian and reforming groups (their “anti-ascetical, anti-sacramental, and primitivist intentions”), the magisterial Reformers (the supremacy of Scripture, justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all Christians, memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper, church discipline, and the doctrine of predestination), the Anabaptists (believer’s baptism, church discipline as necessary, New Testament superiority, and religious freedom), and the English Separatists (humanity’s Adamic disability, the Bible as the rule of faith and practice, the priesthood of all Christians, and congregational polity) (195). For those researching the doctrinal development of the Baptists, this chapter is without equal.

Jim Shaddix’s chapter, “The Future of the Traditional Church,” brought incredible insight into the underlying reason for the exodus that occurs for many young Baptists between the Youth Department and the Young Adult Class – lifeless Christianity. “Our children are not running from our lifeless style and form; they’re running from something intangible… They’re running from a lifeless Christianity. And they’re so turned off by it that they’re running to nothing as an alternative” (205). And this repellant cannot be removed by updated worship and building styles, or pragmatic principles. He states prophetically, “Our irrelevance doesn’t come from forms and styles. Our irrelevance comes from a hollow, lifeless religion that is devoid of the Holy Spirit’s presence and power and absent of biblical direction” (214). The solution then is not an alteration of methods and marketing, but rather a return to sound doctrine and the faithful, expository preaching of God’s Word.

In light of current conversations within the Southern Baptist Convention, one cannot help but take notice of the thread of Calvinist discussion that weaves its way throughout the search for Southern Baptist identity. The Doctrines of Grace have long held a place in Baptist theology and history. Garrett writes, “John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination…had an impact on the theology of many Anglo-American Baptists” (144). Neither has Calvinism, however, been the sole soteriological understanding of Baptists. Timothy George asks, “Are Baptists Calvinists? Historically and empirically, the answer to this question is: some are and some are not, and it has been thus among Baptists for nearly 400 years” (95). This book – with its diversity of authors and contributors – lends a vital and seemingly absent voice to the current traditional Southern Baptist soteriological debate: Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike have always existed side-by-side for the propagation of the gospel at home and abroad. Both sides of the debate need one another. Neither perspective finds more credibility than the other from the Baptist Faith and Message. “There is room for a variety of views within the SBC on how divine sovereignty relates to human responsibility and freedom” (112).

Conclusion

Seeking to establish a credible, historical, and theological foundation upon which Southern Baptists can agree is a monumental and daunting task. However, it is vitally important. This book, and every other similar endeavor hinges on one distinctive that has yet to be discussed in this review, although it undergirds the entire discussion. Baptists are known as the people of the book. The Conservative Resurgence displayed the vast importance of a shared commitment and submission to the Holy Writ. Without a common foundational understanding of the complete truthfulness of scripture, there simply can be no common ground to stand upon. This, then, is the primary identity of Southern Baptists. All other distinctives flow from this foutainhead of authority. Regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and congregational polity all flow from this stream – that the Bible “is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation as its end, and truth without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore Scripture is totally true and trustworthy (Article I, Baptist Faith and Message).”

Southern Baptist Identity edited by David Dockery

While reading Judge Paul Pressler’s, A Hill on Which to Die, I was struck by a particular paragraph in his chapter titled, My Heroes of the Resurgence:

Pete and Peggy (my note: her name is actually Betty) McGuire faithfully attended SBC meetings throughout the years and longed for the restoration of biblical fidelity in our institutions. Pete has served both as a pastor and as an evangelist. In their son John they instilled their deep love for our Savior. John, a pastor, with his wife Susan have labored long and diligently for the cause of Christ. This family is one of the very best the SBC has to offer. They and others like them were the backbone of the conservatie resurgence. They have ministered primarily in the east Texas area.

John McGuire is my pastor.

… so you can imagine my surprise, and yet, lack of surprise to his his family named in Judge Pressler’s book. I love the McGuire’s, and count Brother John’s friendship as a great treasure.

What pastors do you admire?