Southern Baptist for the Mission of God, not for Southern Baptists

Two recent articles from Trevin Wax and Brad Whitt highlight a growing divide in Southern Baptist Life.  Trevin writes on the importance of Being Southern Baptist Among and For Evangelicals. Whitt, on the other hand writes representing the branch of Southern Baptists who seem very intent of late on establishing a stronger and more isolated Southern Baptist identity in an article titled, What Makes Us “Southern Baptist?”

I’ve been accused many times over the past few years of trying to oversimplify issues, and I suspect that this article will result in much of the same kinds of oversimplification.  However, it seems to me that the two articles listed above do a great job of defining the line between camps that currently exist within the SBC.

Both camps are concerned with spreading the gospel and with seeing the kingdom of God built up.  One camp believes that the best way to enlarge the Kingdom is to cooperate with believers of other denominations for the sake of the gospel.  The other camp seems to believe that the SBC is the answer to the spread of the gospel.  Trevin argues that the SBC is the last great hope for evangelicals in the 21st Century, Brad and his camp seem to suggest that the SBC is the last great hope for the gospel in the 21st.

Whitt and those in his camp are very concerned with maintaining the Southern Baptist Convention and see change as a bad word:

Some denominational leaders, conferences and even our literature are now pushing us to overlook drastic differences in theology and ecclesiology for the sake of “new church starts” (but only of a CERTAIN kind). And on top of that there are rumblings from these same agents of CHANGE to alter the very title of the SBC. Make no mistake, if the trend continues, we will see the end of the Southern Baptist Convention in both name and nature.

On the other hand, Trevin writes the following,

So let’s be convictional, confessional Southern Baptists with a heart to get the gospel to our neighbors and to the nations. Now is not the time to close our fists and cast aspersion on Baptists willing to stand with those outside our denominational borders. The situation is too dire for infighting and turf wars. Let’s be Southern Baptist – not against other evangelicals, but for the good of evangelicals.

Interestingly, Trevin also argues that our Baptist identity should be strengthened and not dropped, but that a strong SBC need not isolate itself from other denominations.  The isolationist camp clings hard to the “way things have always been” in the SBC and suggest that any cooperation outside of the SBC (ie. ACTS29) is a direct threat to the Southern Baptist Way of Life.

One camp seems intent on pulling Southern Baptists together for the sake of the denomination (which, I believe they would argue is good for the Kingdom) by distancing ourselves from other evangelical groups.  Others seem intent on pulling Christians together for the sake of the gospel without sacrificing our baptist distinctives.  We can disagree on the alcohol issue or others issues–In previous generations, issues such as playing cards or women wearing pants or men wearing ties were hot button issues–and still agree that the gospel is more important than anything else.

Of course many in the isolationist camp neglect to realize that networks like ACTS29 are cooperating with Southern Baptist Churches to help fund Southern Baptist church plants and not the other way around.  Acts29 supports church planters, some of whom are SBC.  Of course, NAMB funded church planters are required by NAMB to maintain baptist identity.  However, for NAMB to dictate who these churches can or cannot cooperate with infringes on the Baptist understanding of church autonomy.

A similar case study can be made about the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.  A large number of Southern Baptists are not sympathetic to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, yet we are not pushing churches out who are dually aligned because our polity leads us to believe that those decisions are best left up to the church.  Certainly it is a small percentage of churches who are dually aligned, but the number dually aligned with CBF–if some estimates of up to 1600 such churches are correct (see discussion here)–dwarf the number of ACTS29 aligned churches.  Though no census exists to tell us the exact number of SBC churches who are currently networking with ACTS29, remember, the entire ACTS29 network only numbers around 300 churches source.

Southern Baptists have a long history of partnerships with ethnic denominations and denominations overseas for church planting efforts.  We need to embrace opportunities to partner together for the sake of the gospel on this side of the Atlantic with ethnic and non-ethnic churches as well.

About a year ago, in a post titled Missional: From Isolation to Multiplication I wrote the following,

To be missional, first and foremost, means to understand one’s place in the big scheme of God’s mission. Churches exist to fulfill the missio Dei (mission of God), not to fulfill the mission of the SBC or the mission of the local church. The local church and denomination are true to the call of God only in as much as they are committed to the mission of God over and above their own mission or comfort level. Unfortunately, many of our churches have transitioned from a gospel center to a community center. Rather than rallying around the Great Commission, we are rallying around fellowship and community. There is opposition, not to global missions so much, but to local missions such as church planting because “a new missional community might hurt my church.”

The purpose of the SBC is not to preserve itself or even it’s identity. The SBC is merely a means to an end, God’s end which is the spread of the gospel.  God works through means, and thus the SBC can and has been an effective tool for the spread of the gospel, but God doesn’t need the SBC.  We, as Southern Baptists, would do well to remind ourselves often that we exist to bring glory to God and to bring others to God, not to preserve ourselves.

As a Southern Baptist, I affirm the BF&M 2000 readily, and with Spurgeon I can say, “I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, ‘It is Jesus Christ.'”  However, as I conceive of the mission of God to evangelize the whole world, I recognize that we cannot do it alone as Southern Baptists.  For that reason, I feel confident that we will be a stronger denomination (Convention) by partnering with others even as we affirm our own Baptist distinctives.  The SBC has been willing to do this on the abortion issue and in politics for many years.  The gospel is infinitely more important than anything else, and for this reason we must find ways to partner with gospel centered churches, networks, and denominations to plant Baptist Churches and reach the world for Christ.

4 thoughts on “Southern Baptist for the Mission of God, not for Southern Baptists”

  1. Brother Craig,

    I believe you are reading Brad Whitt wrong. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, you state that Whitt doesn’t want change and you even quote him as such. But, your quote is taken out of context. I believe you will find Brother Brad is speaking about the change in the name of the SBC not changes needed within the convention. Also, you will find that Brother Brad, in his first article, stated he was in favor of change and saw it was needed.

    Also, allow me to interact some with your CBF challenge. I do not know of any position in any state convention or within the national convention that would call on moving churches out that are dually aligned with the CBF or Acts 29. However, I will tell you right now, based on an answer on the convention floor in San Antonio that NAMB will not allow a church planter to plant a church if he is receiving funding from another CBF church. Thus, your argument concerning the CBF isn’t very solid.

    For that reason, I feel confident that we will be a stronger denomination (Convention) by partnering with others even as we affirm our own Baptist distinctives.

    You must remember we will not be a stronger denomination (Convention) by partnering because we will lose our Baptist distinctives.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  2. Craig,

    You write:

    “Of course many in the isolationist camp neglect to realize that networks like ACTS29 are cooperating with Southern Baptist Churches to help fund Southern Baptist church plants and not the other way around.”

    So are you saying that ACTS29 will partner with my church in starting a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist Church? Yes ( ) No ( )

    Why is it that ACTS29 and Founders Ministries new Church Planting Network … only … fund Reformed church planters?

    So who are the isolationists?

    Respectfully submitted.

  3. Tim,

    I agree with you that Brad Whitt is not opposed to any change; however, I think it is very clear that he is against any of the current changes that are taking place in the SBC. In his first article, “Young, Southern Baptist,…and Irrelevant?”, Brad said the following:

    “It’s not that we can’t and shouldn’t make changes. But everything being proposed now is presented in such a way as to sweep in this new breed that has, at best, “soft” Southern Baptist convictions and commitments.”

    Notice the language is not limited to some of the changes but “everything being proposed.” The closest thing I see in his articles that encourages change is:

    “Definitely, some things need to be fixed and some just need to be tweaked, but changes should come from within by committed Southern Baptists who have invested themselves in the cooperative missions and ministries of Southern Baptists … and the Cooperative Program.”

    However, notice that he doesn’t spell out what he thinks needs to be “fixed” or “tweaked.” Just another vague reference without spelling out details. What I read from his article is that Brad Whitt is not against change but he is against all the changes currently taking place.

    Lastly, I take issue with your final comment of:

    “You must remember we will not be a stronger denomination (Convention) by partnering because we will lose our Baptist distinctives.”

    Can we not partner with others without losing our distinctives? Unfortunately, your comment merely reinforces Craig’s discussion of Baptist isolationists. How will these partnerships make use lose our Baptist distinctives? Which distinctives are you afraid of us losing? How will we become “weaker” (theologically, numerically, financially, etc.)?

  4. Ron,

    The difference between ACTS29, Founders, and SBC is that those two networks have organized themselves around doctrine uniformity which is possible in smaller networks than in the convention at large. For A29, they have set reformed theology as part of their doctrinal statement. The SBC is unified around the BF&M. As far as I know, the BF&M does not speak to Calvinism or Reformed theology.

    TO answer your first question, why would you want to partner with an unashamedly Calvinist organization if you yourself are not Reformed in your theology. There are many church planting networks that partner with SBC churches who are not Reformed in their theology (Liberty Baptist Fellowship, for instance) that would probably be a better fit for your church.

    Thanks,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: