The Call of Baptist Identity (Part 1)
Posted by
This post begins a series of three posts by guest contributor John Mann. John has been the pastor of LaJunta Baptist Church in Springtown, Texas since November 2000. He is currently completing his MDiv with a concentration in Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has been active in the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, which he served on the resolutions committee in 2007. He has a great passion for theological and expositional preaching. John was raised in a different denomination, but a deep study of Scripture convinced him that Baptists were more accurate in their understanding of the Bible, which has led John to join a Southern Baptist church by baptism as a young adult. His journey to the SBC has created a desire to better articulate an accurate understanding of differences within various denominations.
“The distinctive principles of the Baptists are those doctrines or practices which distinguish us from other Christian denominations. It is held by some that no doctrine or practice should be classified as distinctive which has at any time been shared, in whole or in part, by any other denominations. But this limited sense of the word distinctive is too narrow for ordinary speech or common sense. For example: The Greek church and the Baptists both practice immersion, but their doctrine of baptism is widely different from ours. Authority, subject, and design all enter as much into the validity of this ordinance as the act itself. More than mere immersion is necessary to constitute New Testament baptism.” BH Carrol, Distinctive Baptist Principles.
“Preacher, don’t tell me all of that doctrinal stuff. Just teach me to love Jesus.” On the surface, this seems to be a reasonable statement that one could build his ministry on. After all, who would not “amen” the statement that true Christianity is simply loving Christ. The Ephesians were rebuked because they had “lost their first love,” in Revelation 2. The first Epistle of John instructs its hearers that true obedience is bound up in love for God and love for the brethren.
However, for one to divorce the discipline of proper cognitive knowledge about God from the passionate pursuit of loving God demands the redefining of love in such a manner that love is no longer defined by Scripture, but rather it becomes defined by the cultural moorings of an emotional feeling that is separated from factual knowledge regarding the subject loved. Simply, the depth of one’s love for God is at least partially related to his understanding of God. To fail to recognize this truth will ultimately have tragic effects upon missional and evangelistic efforts, corporate worship, and future opportunities for Southern Baptists to engage a rapidly developing world.
There are those who want to make everything that is not a matter of salvation into a tertiary doctrine. To do this is to fail to recognize that there are doctrines that are not necessarily matters of salvation, yet still have destructive ecclesiological results. For example, if the movements of ecumenism were to come to fruition, consistency would demand joint worship services because the only reason for choosing a denomination or a local church would be personal privilege over and against theological conviction. Given that in these joint worship services there would be a plethora of distinctives recognized, decision counseling would take on a whole new context; if a new believer committed to follow through with baptism, who then would be the one to baptize them? Would we have to ask them if they desire a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist baptism? Would they expect the church to accept their infant baptism?
What about times of corporate prayer? Would we invite everyone who advocates speaking in tongues to stand in the northeast corner, and those who pray understandably to stand in the southwest corner? What about the celebration of the Lord’s Supper? Would it be a sacrament or an ordinance? “Symbolical observers on the right, sacramentalists to the left.”
Granted, there are none to my knowledge within the SBC who are advocating the erasure of distinct local congregations. But honesty demands that those who are advocating moving away from doctrinal distinctives for the SBC stand up and say that it is naïve at best and foolish at worst to propose that all doctrinal distinctives will be erased in this fallen world. The very fact that they hold a membership in a local church evidences their recognition, either consciously or unconsciously, that doctrine is important.
At its heart, ecumenism exists because the world’s expectations of the church have become priority over biblical revelation to the church. We currently live in a day and age of an eroding recognition of absolute truth. Given the volatility of the current cultural climate, the Bride of Christ must be quite aware of the impending danger of prostituting herself to the world. If we continue to drift into the waters of the ecumenical movement, we will find ourselves swept away by the forceful currents of theological pragmatism that champions worldly acceptance to the exclusion of biblical fidelity.
The danger of this is that by allowing the ever-shifting winds of cultural popularity to direct the vessel, we will find ourselves without a doctrinal rudder to direct our course and a biblical compass to point our direction. In part 2 I will share a personal testimony about the danger that the ecumenical movement poses to the spread of the Gospel. Let us press on to greater evangelistic activity while still recognizing the One who has commissioned has instructed us to “teach ALL THINGS that He has commanded.”
87 Comments
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
John,
I appreciate your desire to remain faithful to Scripture and to think practically through the implications of different paths we may take as we seek to carry this faithfulness out in our churches.
Perhaps you are already planning on being more specific about this on your other posts. But, for me, it would be helpful is you could define just what it is you mean when you use the terms “ecumenism” and “the ecumenical movement.” For many, these terms are practically equivalent to the World Council of Churches, and the organizations associated with it.
It is my contention that it is possible to work diligently and creatively toward a greater show of practical unity in the Body of Christ without having to compromise on our doctrinal beliefs at the same time. I am leery that much of the “Baptist Identity” movement is about setting up false dichotomies between extreme separatism on the one hand, and doctrinal compromise on the other hand.
I propose that there is a third alternative, an alternative that I am sincerely convinced is more faithful to the teaching of Scripture than either of the other two.
In any case, I will be interested to hear what you have to say on your upcoming posts, and possibly to interacting with you more then.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” -Jesus Christ
(John 17:20-24)
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
the Bride of Christ must be quite aware of the impending danger of prostituting herself to the world. If we continue to drift into the waters of the ecumenical movement, we will find ourselves swept away by the forceful currents of theological pragmatism
Do I rightly understand this to mean than the writer equates the SBC with the Bride of Christ?
If not (and in deference to him I have to assume that), surely there are other limbs of the Bride out there?
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
David,
I will attempt a definition at “ecumenism” in the future. However, I would caution against a flippant approach to the term “Baptist Identity” movement since, as far as I am aware, that is a label that has been placed on some Baptists by those espousing a lessening of Baptist Identity. Not only have they coined the term, but thus far, they have defined the term. I am not opposed to the label, but I do request the opportunity to participate in its definition.
As far as demonstrating a practical unity before the world, I am in agreement. However, the question we must ask ourselves is, will that be a false and misleading unity based on doctrinal compromise or will it be a true unity based on the Lord Jesus Christ. It seems to me that greatest step we can take towards a true practical unity entails an understanding of the ’sufficiency of Scripture’ in all things (more on that in a later post). But in short, in my opinion, disunity is not communicated to the world because of an articulation of doctrinal distinctives. Rather, it is because some people who confess Christ insist on inviting government and media into matters of the church.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Alex,
It would be quite inaccurate to assume that I think the Bride of Christ is limited to the SBC as that was never stated in the post. I would invite you to read the post again.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Alex, (cont.)
My point is that there are various churches of all denominations who have prostituted themselves to the world. The only resistance to that seduction is for us to clearly articulate what we believe.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
John Mann,
You are TEN RING at 1000 yards when you answer David in saying;
…”I would caution against a flippant approach to the term “Baptist Identity” movement since, as far as I am aware, that is a label that has been placed on some Baptists by those espousing a lessening of Baptist Identity. Not only have they coined the term, but thus far, they have defined the term”….
That is very true. Yet, it is not a new tactic. The liberals and moderates of the days of the CR did the same thing with the word “fundamental.”
Now today, “Baptist Identity” is the new “cuss word” of the left, yet it is a far more dangerous “left” than it was in the days of the CR. (My words not yours, I realize)
cb
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
John,
I notice for such a small Town as Springtown, you sure have a Lot of Baptist Churches. Must have had a lot of Splits because of all the Bloggers or A Baptist Identity Problem. I don’t know why Baptist keep Kidding themselves and blaming Wade Burleson and those other people. We have the same problem here in Bonham, TX, so many Baptist Churches to choose from. Repentance is a Bad word with Baptist Identity People, don’t you think?
Wayne
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
John,
Forgot to add this Bible verse.
2Ch 7:14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Wayne
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Wayne,
“Repentance is a Bad word with Baptist Identity People, don’t you think?”
That seems a very difficult thesis to prove given the evidence of the post that preceded this one.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
John,
If you are referring to the Broken Hearted of a Baptist Post, I Surly Agree.
Wayne
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
John
I appreciate the quote from BH Carrol. His words ring true, even today.
BTW, I participated in a joint prayer service last Thursday with other churches in our ministerial alliance. I know that may surprise people, but some of us are not as narrow as has been painted.
Great post and thanks for putting it here.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
It seems to me that one of the deepest needs of our convention is to define ourselves. Who are we and how do we relate to greater Christian world?
It also seems to me that it is not productive for us to choose sides too quickly. I am a lifelong Baptist, and am one now by conviction. I am not ashamed of my Baptist Identity. However, I also believe we need some reform within the denomination.
Most of us feel some loyalty to the denomination and also some sense that we need change. But we have driven ourselves into corners. The “BI” people have to constantly defend the status quo, and the “reform” folks have to criticize it.
It is counter-productive.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Brother John,
It would seem that the act of baptism without the word of God to define its context is simply playing in water. Brother Carrol is right….
Authority, subject, and design all enter as much into the validity of this ordinance as the act itself. More than mere immersion is necessary to constitute New Testament baptism.”
Authority – All authority is given Christ
Subject – Those that confess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
Design – Obedient immersion identifying with the author and finisher of their faith.
The distinct act of baptism was made distinctive from the very moment the command left the Saviors lips,… never mind denominations. Baptism is conducted and received to the Glory of God. I am interested to see how this can be improved upon in its simplicity and clear design to identify believers with the death and life of Christ.
I am looking forward to the next posts,
Blessings,
Chris
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Robin,
I might consider you many things, but “narrow” is not one of them.
I can think of many times I wish I had had someone as “not narrow” as you are not narrow in the ways you are not narrow to “broaden” my way of escape from some fellows of the most rude behavior who had such “narrow” ideas of tolerance for my existence of whom I “narrowly” escaped.
cb
May 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
CB,
Thanks for the affirmation. I do agree that the “left” presents a danger to us. However, as I am part of the second generation of the CR, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the differences between “then” and “now.”
May 4th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Robin,
Thanks for your brief testimony. I attend a weekly breakfast featuring different denominations [not the ministerial alliance, though]. When asked to speak, I am compelled to be honest about my Baptist Identity and have no reservation about saying so. Part 2 will contain a personal testimony of my experience with the Ministerial Alliance.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Chris,
I agree. I will share later about my “improper baptism” as a child.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Dave,
I don’t believe anybody would disagree that we are always in need of reforming. The question we must ask ouselves is, “if we were ever to achieve the goal, what would we be reformed into being?” Of course, the goal is impossible in this world, but we are nonetheless called to press on towards it.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Rather, it is because some people who confess Christ insist on inviting government and media into matters of the church.
I appreciate your wanting to stay faithful to scriptures and to adequately define Baptist Identity, but if the above is true, then why was Condoleeza (sp?)Rice asked to speak at our Convention two years ago, George Bush last year and so many politicians in the past Conventions. Ronald Reagan endorsed the CR in a past Convention. Wouldn’t that be going against the very thing you said above Mr. Mann?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:53 am
In the interest of clarity, Ronald Reagan did not “endorse the CR in a past Convention.” He endorsed the “religious right” at a “national affairs briefing” in Dallas. Two different things – at least in my mind.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am
CB,
I must certainly “amen” your statement: “Now today, ‘Baptist Identity’ is the new ‘cuss word’ of the left, yet it is a far more dangerous ‘left’ than it was in the days of the CR.”
Have I missed some dramatic change in the last six months :0) ? Not long ago, that was the message I was preaching in blogworld. Oh well, glad to hear that you are now proclaiming it too. Hope you are doing well and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
May 4th, 2008 at 10:27 am
John,
I will be interested to hear what you say about the “sufficiency of Scripture” in all things, and the articulation of doctrinal disctinctives, on your next posts.
In the meantime, I think it may be pertitent at this point to express my consternation and confusion at your (and CB’s) caution related to the use of the term “Baptist Identity” movement.
The very sub-heading of this blog is “Restoring Unity through Biblical Discipleship and Baptist Identity.” The title of your post is “The Call of Baptist Identity.” Many other posts and writings of the past months have used the term “Baptist Identity” from a point of view of defending its use and a series of ideas related to it.
Of the people often associated with the “other view” (I do not think there are two views, but rather, individuals with many different views that sometimes coincide, and other times not, with those of certain others), I do not know who has, of their own initiative, decided to use the term “ecumenical” or “ecumenical movement.” Yet, if we turn the tables, I think objectivity must force us to admit that the use of the term “Baptist Identity movement” has only been taken up in response to the initial use of that term with a series of individuals espousing the views normally associated with it.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Debbie,
The concern is not that the government would simply ‘address’ the church, rather it is that the government would pass rulings effecting the church or convention. I do not remember Condeleeza Rice, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or any other governmental authority making any motions or even speaking to any motions at the SBC. Though there are a few examples where some church leaders who would not identify with the Baptist Identity supporters have invited in the judicial branch to pass a ruling on behalf of the church or Convention. In sum, I do not mind at all listening to a governmental official speaking TO the church, I just don’t want them to speak FOR the church.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
David,
My caution is not against the use of the term Baptist Identity, indeed I accept the label. The only thing that I have asked is to allow those of us who have been given that label the opportunity to define it. In other words, though I accept the label “Baptist Identity,” I reject the definitions of that saying that we are,
1). A top down ecclesiology.
2). Against church autonomy.
3). Embracing of an extra-biblical theology.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Jeremy Green,
I haven’t crossed swords with you in a long time. I trust you and all of yours are in well health and prospering in the Lord.
Well, here goes, for old time sake.
All truth is God’s truth. I think I was saying this same thing long before you. I probably said something similar when I preached a revival meeting in your home church (or one close to where you grew up. I preached in several around you back in those days).
My message has not changed. My theology was handed down to me by men far more knowledgeable and sound than any teaching you today. My theology was solid before the CR, poor trusteeship in our entities, the IMB crisis, Klouda, or the present invasion of the SBC by flakes&nuts, NBCC liberals and moderates and theological dwarfs.
Truth is just truth and I am simply trying to be where truth is because all truth is God’s truth no matter the source of revelation. I seek for my epistemology to always start with God and not with man, be he friend or foe.
Biblical and theological truth is “thicker” than blood, friendships, politics: both secular and ecclesiastical, money, power or position.
The alternative to being on the side of truth is shame, loss of personal integrity, cowardice and hypocrisy,not to mention just general rude behavior and not pleasing to God of Whom I owe all.
It is, also, to embrace, lies, heresy, false and weak doctrine, sin and a less than biblical gospel.
Jeremy, is that a fair answer? If not, open up the comment thread on your posts and I will try to expound upon the subject to a far greater degree.
cb
May 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
John and Debbie,
When the government officials you both mention spoke to the SBC they were not speaking to the “church.”
They were simply speaking to a representative group of “messengers” of many local churches gathered to consider matters of cooperative concern.
That same representative group which gathers each year in June known as the SBC can, in turn, speak to the government expressing agreed upon desires.
Neither the SBC nor the government has to abide by the wishes of the other.
We have already fought and “whupped” Ole King George and his boys over that right of not having one to boss the other and if I read correctly we did a right good job of whuppin’ him.
Therefore both can now rightfully talk to one another as long as each knows neither is boss of the other.
cb
May 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I fail to see how A “Baptist Identity” will not cause Baptists to once again choose sides and further divide us.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
John,
Would yot agree, then, that we are playing on a somewhat uneven playing ground, when those who generally identify with one side of this particular series of questions habitually use a term to describe the other side – ecumenism – that the other side has not used to describe itself; and those on the other side use a term – Baptist identity – to describe the first group, which the first group habitually uses to describe itself, and are called to task for their use of that term, or at least for perhaps not defining it exactly like they would?
It is entirely fair, if the “Baptist Identity” folks think they are not being accurately represented, to point out specific inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the arguments of those they believe are doing this. That is how normal, free debate is generally carried on. However, in the name of fairness, let’s not, at the same time, call people supporters of “ecumenicalism” and “the ecumenical movement” who do not, for the most part, embrace that same terminology themselves.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
John,
Taken from another approach, who do you know in the SBC that is actually believes that “all doctrinal distinctives will be erased in this fallen world” or that “doctrine is not important”? Is that not a mischaracterization of what people like me and many others are saying?
I think this discussion has much potential for being helpful, provided we try our best to actually understand what those on the other side are saying, and not use confusing labels and false generalizations to unfairly brand them.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
David,
Though I am not sure where I have done what you have alleged, I will attempt to answer.
First, I have not even defined “ecumenism” in the sense that I am using it as of yet. It appears that you are preparing to defend that which you have not read, yet.
Second, the one whose definition of Baptist Identity I am refuting has indeed said the SBC is traditionally an ecumenical movement. I am simply using his word.
Third and moreover, my concern is a growing trend of the lessing of doctrinal distinctives within Southern Baptist life today. I have only used the labels “Baptist Identity” and “ecumenism” because those are words that have been coined by people much more prominent in this discussion than myself. As far as I am concerned, you can call me a “Baptist Identity Supporter” or a “Convictional Baptist” or any other number of labels that seek to identify my concerns. I would argue that the proper term for what I am espousing already has a label, “historical Baptist.”
However, my overall goal in these posts is simply an appeal for Southern Baptists to see that doctrine is important, and it is quite irresponsible to dismiss doctrinal distinctives for the sake of a superfluous unity.
Finally, you seem to be accepting a concrete defintion of “Baptist Identity” a bit prematurely. Unless I have missed something, this is a label that has come about very recently. The only ones that I have seen use this label with any consistency is those who are admittedly against Baptist Identity. Again, I will accept the label, but in doing so, I earn the right to articulate what it means.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Sorry to pile on. But one more thing.
If you do not agree with what Wade says when he talks about…
1). A top down ecclesiology.
2). Against church autonomy.
3). Embracing of an extra-biblical theology.
…fine, no problem. Either go to Wade’s blog and show him how you think he is wrong, or even use your own blog, or this one, to objectively and even-handedly contest the inaccuracies you perceive in Wade’s argumentation. But, do not use this as an excuse to broad-brush anyone who may be talking about greater openness to cooperation and unity with other evangelical Christians who would not choose to identify themselves as “Baptists.”
May 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
David [#30], my friend, you continue to seek to defend yourself when I have said nothing that should prompt your defense as of yet. I have simply communicated ideas that have been kicked around SBC life for a few years now. I have created no labels nor assumed any definitions of such labels. Be careful that you do not fight a battle before there is a battle to fight.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
David, [#32],
Again, I would refer to my comment #33. I was typing it when your #32 posted.
However, I find it quite interesting that my original post never referenced any particular blogger or spokesman. At best, my earlier comment used a particular definition of Baptist Identity in response to your question. I find it quite interesting that you have “pinned me down” before my complete thoughts have even been posted. I see things within the SBC that are concerning to me, as I know you do as well. I am attempting to articulate those concerns, yet I have wielded no sword.
With love, my brother,
John
May 4th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
John,
I posted my last comment before I had a chance to see your last one. For the most part, I think what you say there is fair enough.
I was not aware, or had forgotten, that Wade himself had recently used the term “ecumenical movement.” Now that you point that out, your use of the term makes more sense to me.
Some of the problems I perceive in this current discussion is the tendency, on both sides, to throw the ideas of those on the other side, and those who hold them, into one big bag.
For instance, while there are some ideas of Wade’s with which I agree, there are others with which I do not. I would hate to think that others would not give a fair shake to what I am saying because they automatically read me through the grid of agreeing with Wade.
On the other hand, there are, for example, some ideas (7 points, to be precise) enumerated recently by Malcolm Yarnell, to which those who might tend to agree with the “Baptist Identity” emphasis, may or may not totally subscribe. Since Dr. Yarnell is such a prominent voice in this discussion, it is difficult to avoid the tendency to use his ideas as a jumping-off point from which to respond to everyone else.
Yet, it seems to me, from what I read later from Peter Lumpkins, for example, that he may not totally agree with Dr. Yarnell, inasmuch as Dr. Yarnell stated quite directly that he does not believe in evangelizing together with Pentecostals, and Peter states elsewhere that he has participated in joint evangelistic efforts with Pentecostas, and has no opposition per se towards doing such.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
David,
I believe you and the ones like me, that you represent should be called the Christian Identity Group.
Christian Identity people are the ones that Jesus Christ died for and None Other. Are we followers of Jesus Christ Crucified or are we followers of Men.
By Willmington’s Guide to the Bible says:
The New Testament abounds with passages which declare Christ the Head of the Church. (See Eph. 1:22; 2:19, 20; 4:15, 16; 5:23-
30; Col. 1:18; 2:9.) The Savior, it must be remembered, gave birth to the Church, and not the other way around. (See Mt. 16:18.) Thus the
Christian must look to the Bible and not to any earthly church for final instruction. Sometimes even those local churches mentioned in the Bible
itself were grievously wrong.
Wayne
May 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
David,
I must pick up this discussion in a few hours. For now, I must go and teach Romans 2 to my small but faithful flock. Thank you for your prayers.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
John,
Very well. As I mentioned in my comment #1, I will need to wait and see your next posts to see where you are really going with this. Sometimes, though, in a discussion like this, if you let certain points slide, you lose the opportunity to respond to them later, though.
I pray God will give you grace and clarity as He helps you in the exposition of his Word this afternoon.
Blessings,
David
May 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
CB,
I am totally confused by what you are saying about “Baptist Identity” being a cuss word used by those on the left. This very blog calls itself, “SBC Today: Restoring Unity through Biblical Discipleship and Baptist Identity.” I first heard the term “Baptist Identity” not from any critics, but by the proponents of the teachings espoused here, on Bart Barber’s blog, and at SWBTS.
I’ve never thought of “Baptist Identity” as a cuss word or as a derogatory statement. It is just descriptive of a position. Do others see it as derogatory? If so, then why has the term been used by its proponents for over a year now?
I’ve also disagreed with many of the positions espoused by Tim, Wes, Robin, Bart, and others who claim to be of the Baptist Identity crowd, but I hardly think that disagreement with them on certain issues puts someone on the “left.”
I’m just looking for clarification because it seemed like you were painting with a broad brush. As is so often the case in these discussions, there is probably a great deal that I don’t know.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Alan,
You are right to a degree about the broad brush. I know you are not to the left of anything.
you are also right in saying it really is hard for one to communicate some ideas on blog threads.
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Alan,
The idea of “Baptist Identity” being a cuss word to those on the left comes from how some people are using the descriptive. A lot of us dont use it as a bad thing. You might not use it as a derogatory term. But, there are some out there who seem to be saying it with a hissful spit in their mouth. There are some out there who seem to be trying to make it become a bad word. I believe that’s what some in here are referring to.
David
May 5th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Alan,
Vol is right in his statement here.(#41)
I also want to say I do not believe David Rogers can be put into the group who might feel they need to wash out their mouths with soap after saying the “BI” word.
I do think David is pointing something out that is becoming more and more evident. That being; There are not just two sides to this matter.
In many ways, Alan, I think you and I are very alike in our thinking (Don’t jump off of a bridge brother. That does not mean we express ourselves the same way:-).
We are both conservative, yet we refuse to be lumped to either extreme of that concept as represented by, for example, Wade Burleson at one pole and Jeremy Green on the other.
Alan, does that make sense to you or does it scare you to death because I said the two of us think much alike?
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Mr. Mann, you say:
“Granted, there are none to my knowledge within the SBC who are advocating the erasure of distinct local congregations. But honesty demands that those who are advocating moving away from doctrinal distinctives for the SBC stand up and say that it is naïve at best and foolish at worst to propose that all doctrinal distinctives will be erased in this fallen world. The very fact that they hold a membership in a local church evidences their recognition, either consciously or unconsciously, that doctrine is important. ”
It seems to me (and many others) that you are railing at a “straw man”, based on the comments above. Please name ONE respectable voice in the SBC who is “advocating moving away from doctrinal distinctives for the SBC” or, who “propose that all doctrinal distinctives will be erased in this fallen world.” I read most of the SBC blogs, and have not yet read anything close to this accusation. Maybe I am missing something – can you point me to ONE who is doing what you accuse? If so, then maybe I could take the “BI” movement more seriously. For now, I see it simply as an attempt to “control” and divide. Please help me (and, judging by the comments above, many others) see the real need for such a “movement” at this time.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
CB and Alan,
Again I can see you are Both Spot On, for God’s Glory.
Wayne
May 5th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Doug, a few thought come to mind.
1). I am not railing at a “straw man” for I am only articulating an idealogy that I fear will have negative consequences for our Christian witness. It is only those who have disagreed with me who have sought to make it about personalities.
2). I do not think the Baptist Identity is either new nor is it a movement. The label may be new, but the principles are simply a continued articulation of what the New Testament teaches, which our Baptist fathers sought to live by.
3). If division is undesirable, then it is up to the ones who have abandoned the foundational principles to return. My concern is neither with labels nor control, it is with faithfulness to our Lord.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Brother Doug,
I am not Mr. Mann and do not intend to answer for him, but you have asked for others that agree with him to respond. So, here I go.
I will give just one statement that is masked by the title of this blog post which is a hollow call that we are loosing Young Leaders, but really speaks volumes about the quotes you take Brother John to task on. Read the following statement.
If young evangelical pastors and leaders ever get a taste of the freedom to do ministry as they visualize it needs to be done, but feel attacked or threatened by older mentors, they will eventually renounce their allegiance for, and membership in, the Southern Baptist Convention.
According to the author of the article, all Young Leaders need to do is feel attacked or threatened. Thus, by calling for doctrinal accountability within the SBC you can ascertain from these such a statement that Baptist Identity has eroded and the word “Baptist” is being used as a derogatory word to make people afraid to speak up about Baptist Doctrine.
Blessings,
Tim
May 5th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Doug,
Go to Baptistlife.com and you will get an answer to your question.
Nuts&Flakes gather there daily to speak of the dismantlement of historic Baptist distinctiveness by the use of a historical reconstructionistic process of dismantlement influenced by old-time, disgruntled, left-over, CR day liberals, NBCC Newbies, theological dwarfs, and the afore mentioned asortment of Postmodern Nuts&Flakes.
I hope this answers your question well enough so you can find out their identities on your own.
I don’t want to bring specific personalities into the thread. It will only muddy the water.
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Brother John,
I believe that BH Carrol has at least hit on one of thing that is distinctive about the Baptist Identity…..“The distinctive principles of the Baptists are those doctrines or practices which distinguish us from other Christian denominations”
I am thinking that he is trying to say Baptist Identity is not denominationalism,…with which I agree. I believe that for any Baptist congregation to become more biblical and to add biblical Apostolic identity to its Baptist Identity, the congregation must realize that it is not an institutionalized, denominationalizing organization.
The contemporary church (Baptist’s included) has unfortunately transformed from the Apostolic moorings to the now monolithic institution buttressed by errant ecclesial fences. I believe that the Baptist Identity, if rooted in biblical authority, allows members of the congregation to strip away institutionalized anti-Apostolic error, thus maintaining at least the opportunity to worship in spirit and in truth.
If Baptist Identity stands for non-denominational, this would be a good beginning of recovery.
Blessings,
Chris
May 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I do not understand how if someone is not for being in the “Baptist Identity” that makes them a Liberal.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
CB: Nuts and Flakes? An unfortunate use of name calling don’t you think? I do not agree with them either, nor do I believe they should be in the SBC, but nuts and flakes are not a term that I would use as a Christian.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
OK , Debbie I go back to the early 70s. What about Dingbats and Meatheads?
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Debbie,
You should have said; “I don’t know what that means.” Now everyone knows how old you are.
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Debbie,
I missed something there in my raggin’ on you.
Did you say you do not think “they” should be in the SBC?
Are you saying some people would be more comfortable related to another ecclesiastical body?
If that is what you are saying; I shall dance at yours and Merrill’s next anniversary party. (Did I spell his name right?)
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Chris,
You make an outstanding point that according to Carroll (and others) Baptist identity is based on doctrine – not a denominational structure. The reason for this is that Baptists, by and large (the SBC in particular) are not denominational. The Southern Baptist Convention only exists for three days every June. Other than that, the cooperative work of those churches who participate is carried out by our respective agencies, which are overseen by their respective trustees, directors etc.
I think our friend CB has made this point rather often (correct me if I’m wrong there brother) – the SBC is NOT a denomination. It is a cooperative work between churches of like faith and order to carry the gospel around the world. There is no hierarchy which tells the churches what to do (or even what to believe). Every church which participates with the Convention is free and autonomous. We have come together over the years to define “like faith and order” and what we believe to be minimal doctrinal standards. It is this standard, I believe, that marks us not just as Baptists, but particularly as Southern Baptists.
Yet interestingly, this insistence on a free and autonomous church serves as one of those doctrinal standards that distinguish us as Baptist. In addition, our willingness to cooperate with others for the advancement of the gospel is part of what distinguishes us as Southern Baptists. In other words, while our Baptist identity is seen in our doctrine … it is fleshed out in the way we cooperate as a Convention.
Grace,
Wes
May 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Wes,
Excellent.
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Chris,
Just to continue for a moment … you also write; “I believe that the Baptist Identity, if rooted in biblical authority, allows members of the congregation to strip away institutionalized anti-Apostolic error, thus maintaining at least the opportunity to worship in spirit and in truth.”
I also agree that to a great extent we have lost this non-denominational aspect to our Baptist Identity among many of our churches and church members. Because of this mistaken belief that we are the Southern Baptist Denomination, some tend to look to Nashville for their inspiration and direction instead of the Word of God. What a glorious work of grace it would be if we would simply see Nashville for what it is – and return to the Word of God for what it can do!
Say, don’t you live in Nashville …..?
Just joking brother!
Grace,
Wes
May 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
cb,
Thanks brother.
Grace,
Wes
May 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
why should I read about Baptist Identity here when all one needs to do is read The Trail of Blood?
May 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
WesTex,
Your comment in #57 reminds me of a song we sang back years ago in college, changing the lyrics to a country song.
It was:
SEND MY SOUL TO NASHVILLE
It goes like this:
WHEN I DIE I MAY NOT GO TO HEAVEN.
‘CAUSE I DON’T KNOW IF THEY TAKE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS THERE.
IF THEY DON’T JUST SEND MY SOUL TO NASHVILLE
‘CAUSE I KNOW THE SUNDAY SCHOOL BOARD IS THERE.
We got sent to the campus ethics committee for singing it after chapel one day. The Christain Ed. faculty did not think it was funny. The Sacred Music faculty really got up-set.
If it had not been for a very understanding President we may have gotten kicked out of school.
One of the guys who helped write the song is now a member of a seminary administration within the SBC.
Ain’t that a HOOT
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
cb,,
Thank you for the link “Baptistlife.com”. It served to confirm my suspicion in comment #43 that BI is about “control” of the Convention (no matter how pretty the words they use to suggest otherwise).
May 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Brother Wes,
I think you are right. The Baptist’s in the pew have been conditioned to look to the “mothership” for the answer instead of as Paul told our brother Timothy….
2 Timothy 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, (15) and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
For many years now…Baptist Identity has been conditioned by others outside of the Apostolic model for the church…..which has created a lack of unity from within the church….resulting in a lack of doctrine, and ultimately a distain for doctrine by those in many of the churches.
Individuals that understand Baptist Identity should demand a return to the Apostolic model and unity in the church as a family, resting as the body of Christ. A leaning toward institutionalized tradition or denominationalized programming is a quick and winding road to apostasy.
Blessings,
Chris
May 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
CB,
Now that’s funny – I don’t care who you are!
I personally would have been rolling on the floor. Though, I do have to admit, as I have never heard that little ditty, it must have been before my time –
8->
Doug,
Sorry, brother, but I don’t see this as a control issue. It is about acknowledging who we have been, who we are – and who we want to continue to be. As a SB pastor I am willing to welcome anyone who seeks to be a part of our fellowship – provided they know and accept that we are Southern Baptist and unapologetically so. I am also willing to work with others who are not Southern Baptist in many areas – but not when it would lead me to violate our doctrines or the gospel.
Grace,
Wes
May 5th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Chris,
It’s true that many in the SBC have been improperly conditioned in their understanding of both Baptist polity and Baptist doctrine. We fought the battle for the Bible – but we failed to see the move from head knowledge to heart knowledge (we’ve been here before 8->).
In traveling as an evangelist I don’t know how many pastors I encountered who looked to Nashville and considered us a denomination. That mentality then translates to the membership. Then it becomes a cry for “unity” – “just drop that ol’ denominational doctrine and come together around Jesus!” As many have been looking in the wrong place for the bases for unity they are now willing to discard that which has truly united us from the very beginning.
For me, Baptist identity is about doctrine and doctrine that comes from the Bible.
Grace,
Wes
May 5th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Brother Wes,…. you got it my friend.
-Chris
May 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
CB,
Actually, I agree with you most of the time, so it is not a cause of worry for me to be lumped in with you. The whole thesis of my blogging over the past two years is that you can disagree with the IMB over their two new policies/guidelines and disagree with entities going beyond the BFM and still be a strong conservative. I try to stay out of most other discussions. This “Baptist Identity” thing has crossed over into those issues because I’ve had a bunch of people tell me that the historic baptist position has been in line with the new IMB guidelines. I’ve asked people to show me where we have articulated that in our confessions. They cannot. So, then I’ve asked how it is the “historic” Baptist position and is thus our identity. I get silence.
Our Baptist Identity cannnot be something that a bunch of people make up or pull from some historic opinions that some people had. I can come up with a bunch of stuff and call it our Baptist Identity, but my opinion and that of a few others does not make a majority. If those opinions never became articulated by Baptists at large, then they cannot be our historic Baptist identity. You can make a much better case for racism being a part of our historic Baptist identity than you can the new IMB policies.
But, I digress. It just seems to me that our Baptist Identity has been articulated in the BFM. We all agree on the BFM so we really should not have a problem here. If someone wants the BFM to say more than what it does and they think that it does not adequately represent our Baptist Identity, then I encourage them to amend the BFM so that it reflects our Baptist Identity. That way we all have a chance to discuss the issues and agree or disagree. But, don’t try to do it through the backdoor of our entity trustee boards.
If someone does not want to try and amend the BFM, which should articulate our Baptist Identity, then stop wasting time trying to convince everyone that your particular view is “the” Baptist Identity. Shouldn’t I be able to read the BFM2000 and get that instead of having to come to SBCToday? If not, then we are in real trouble because the BFM revision committee did not know what they were doing.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Alan,
??
Doug,
If, in your reading over at Baptistlife.com you came to the position the BI is simply about control, were you able to identify a position you were comfortable was not about control? And if so, are you thinking about joining them?
cb
May 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Doug,
To go along with CB…..dont you think that someone is going to control? After all, someone will make the decisions…it’s just a matter of who. And, CB and I do not want the fruitcakes and flakes steering the rudder of the ole SBC ship.
David
May 5th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
CB,
Only the first part was directed toward you – the part about not minding having similar views.
The rest of the post is my view on the Baptist Identity movement. My point is that our baptist identity should be reflected in the BFM and we should all be able to agree on that. Anything beyond the BFM cannot be rightly called “Baptist Identity” unless people think that the BFM is insufficient as a confession of faith to articulate what identifies Baptists. How can it be called “Baptist Identity” if Baptists have not agreed on it? If they think that the BFM is insufficient, I suggest that they place energy toward changing it. Maybe that is what is going on. If so, then the Baptist Identity movement should be critiqued rigorously, which is what is happening. If not, then I don’t see the point of the Baptist Identity machinations.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Alan,
If you think that all who are now attacking the people that “they” (the attackers) have named “BI Group” would agree to the articles of the BF&M 2000 without caveats and interpretations beyond the “majority” of grassroots Baptist in their interpretations of the document in question your are greatly mistaken.
Guys like you and me would agree with the document. Yet, we know the document is just that; a document. It is intended to be used as a guide in cooperation and not a final authority as is Scripture.
I also want to remind you that there are not a few who would attack even the final authority of Scripture within the attackers of the BI Group.
Never forget that on the day we were debating the contents of the BF&M one of the fellows who would make the perfect example of the “Attack the Book and BF&M Group” said of the Bible; “It is only a book.”
Alan, these same people have drawn their wagons up close to the ranks of some among us who have been very critical of those who would hold to a Baptist distinctiveness as is evidenced where they constantly pitch their “tents” in Blogtown.
I declare to you those people who would say the Bible is just a book are not Baptist of any kind. They are “Barbarians at the Gate.”
cb
May 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
CB,
Your comment in #70 is not only true, but it’s also scary to think about. And, the scarier part is that there are more than just that fella out there who believe that way. I was just on another blogsite where a “Minister” was cussing…saying “s***” and “bs” and chastizing the few…very few…who got onto him for cussing and being a minister. His comment was that it was sad that they were concerned about his cussing when there was so many children dying of starvation, etc. Is this not incredible?
May we never “ok” people into leadership positions in the SBC who say that the Bible is just a book.
David
May 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
CB,
Well, I certainly agree with you in that and at that point I would turn and join with the BI crowd in opposing that type of action. So, we have no dispute there.
At the same time, I don’t want to sacrifice the liberty that we do have to protect us against attack from the outside. That is how totalitarianism starts and you, being a student of history, certainly know that dictatorships arise because people are more concerned for their safety than their liberty. They are willing to sacrifice their identity as free men just to be protected from those who would destroy them.
We need to have safeguards, but we also need to realize what we are fighting against and not set up false parapets that would wrongly bind us to anything but Christ.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Alan,
You have spoken well, my brother. Allow me, if you will, to expound on the idea just a little more.
Totalitarianism and license are the two extremes that a ecclesiastical body, such as is the SBC, must constantly guard itself against. Both extremes have an equal possibility of destroying the structure of which we cooperate as Baptists.
It is for that reason I believe we must protect our historic Baptist identification and distinctiveness with all due diligence, being always careful to do so within the parameters of orthodox Christianity as revealed in the Word of God which, of course is the only perfect document in existence.
It is for that reason, we are not a creedal people and the BF&M of any rendering is to never be more that a guide for cooperation among a people such as we, Southern Baptists, have historically been, within our agreement upon the doctrines of ecclesiology and missiology.
Of course, as a great Southern Baptist once stated and I paraphrase; Our ultimate bases of cooperation is one of theology preciously “dug out” from the depths of gold mines of biblical truth, handed down from godly men of old and preserved by the sacrificial blood of our ancestors, because they had been graciously redeemed by the atoning Blood of the Son of God and the truth of God’s inerrant Word had been burned into their renewed hearts, minds and souls.
Therefore, I must be committed to do no less.
cb
May 6th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Vol,
You are right. It is fearful as to what could happen if some people with so little actual biblical and theological foundation were to come to have prominence within a structure of cooperation such as the SBC.
cb
May 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
007:
Who said the Bible was just another book that was seeking a leadership position. Please name names otherwise I do not get your comment.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:55 am
007:
In your comment 71 how is “repeating” the cusswords not like just saying them. When I read your comment I knew what words you meant. Putting quotation marks around them does not make it ok. I’m afraid you are quilty of a double standard.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Tom,
You need to ask CB about that. He’s the one who mentioned it.
David
May 6th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
CB,
I agree. We must guard against both extremes. I also agree that the Bible is the only ground to stand upon. But, I am also not afraid of articulating what Baptists believe and calling those who call themselves Baptists to agree with those things. I just don’t want small groups to be able to take over trustee boards and set their own agenda without the support of the SBC at large. I don’t want that from the Left OR from the Right.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
007:
You did repeat the curse words in comment 71. You just put quotation marks and other symbols to stand for the words. Please reread your comment #71.
You said in comment #71–I was just on another blogsite where a “Minister” was cussing…saying “s***” and “bs” and chastizing the few…very few…who got onto him for cussing and being a minister.
Do you not feel your comment above was improper?
May 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
CB: In comment #54 that is exactly what I am saying. They should not be in the SBC. What song will you be dancing to?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Debbie,
Normally, if someone else sponsors the ball, I do reserve the right to call my own dance.
But, due to that fact that it will be yours and Merrill’s anniversary ball you ma pick the song for my dance.
Now, how is that for a little willingness to cooperate?
cb
May 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Tom Parker,
If I am not mistaken there is video of the SBC meeting in question. I was not twenty feet away from the man who said made the statement referenced in comment #70.
The whole convention was witness to it.
BTW, Tom, are you going to say you have never repeated the words someone used? For you to go after Vol in that manner is very possibly a little hypocritical, don’t you think?
cb
May 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Tom,
I was just telling what the guy said. I was not saying the words. puleease, bro.!
David
May 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
CB:
My comments were to 007, never to you.
You said to me–”BTW, Tom, are you going to say you have never repeated the words someone used? For you to go after Vol in that manner is very possibly a little hypocritical, don’t you think?
I am lots of things, CB. As as hard as I try not to be a hypocrit, I’m sure at times I am. I plead quilty to that. But no, It has been decades since I passed along cusswords in whatever form.
My point is Vol should not have repeated what he did. I stand by my comment to him.
I am done.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:40 am
[...] is a growing movement to identify what it means to be baptist. While it is important for us to know the distinctives [...]
August 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
[...] Baptist but does not play by the prevailing language game then someone will truly question your Baptist Identity. It would be one thing if this were acute to Southern Baptists. But it is [...]
June 17th, 2009 at 1:09 am
[...] The Call of Baptist Identity by John Mann (May 3, 2008) [...]