It seems that all too often in the current environment we have in our convention today, no one is allowed to say these three words–Baptist. Distinctive. Cooperative.–without being called a liar or at least being viewed with a high degree of suspicion. Most certainly is this the case with that group among us known as Baptist Identity. A false dichotomy has been perpetuated throughout our convention that you are either someone who ‘loves Jesus’ or you are “Baptist Identity.” You are someone who is for the Great Commission Resurgence or you are “Baptist Identity.” You are someone willing to cooperate with folks from other denominations or you are “Baptist Identity.” As one who includes himself among the many in the Baptist Identity group, I know those accusations to be unequivocally false!
I have been asked why I have chosen to identify myself with this group, so let me share. My initial interest in blogging and the larger environment of Southern Baptist life began after the 2007 convention meeting and the buzz on the internet concerning motions passed and an entity head being vociferously maligned (seems the more things change…). I blame my church’s youth pastor where I served in Oklahoma for ‘awakening’ me to all that we had going on in our convention. :-) Nonetheless, I began my own blog and soon reconnected with a ministry friend of mine, Wes Kenney, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The reason I have taken my stand with the Baptist Identity group has not changed since day one. As I have stated numerous times and in various formats… Why must I be required to acquiesce my biblically-based convictions as a Southern Baptist for the sake of what some are saying is absolutely necessary for a true spirit of cooperation to be evident to the larger Evangelical community from Southern Baptists? Why do so many of us within our convention seem all-too-ready to dismiss our commonly held confession and distinctive convictions for a seat at the table of influence in the larger Evangelical world? Why must cultural relevance take priority over biblical fidelity?
You might ask, ‘Why mention this again?’ The fact that I keep hearing such aspersions cast at those of us within the Baptist Identity group indicates that this hurdle still exists in our convention. I ask these questions, not to stir the pot of dissention with our current leadership within our convention; nor to highlight the error of others by name. I am grateful for the conversations I had in Louisville with many brothers with whom I disagree on certain doctrinal issues. I take them at their word that they are not selling, nor will they sell, our convictional Baptist beliefs for the sake of influence or popularity. I have been encouraged thus far by the tenor and direction of the Great Commission Resurgence within our convention. The Declaration of the GCR even including that beloved phrase…Baptist identity ;-) . I have those whom I consider to be good friends in the various ‘camps’ within our convention, all of whom I believe are God-honoring pastors and leaders. May God continue to move us forward for the sake of His glory and the proclamation of His gospel to the nations!
Our purpose at SBC Today is to encourage unity within our convention by emphasizing biblical discipleship and our distinctive Baptist convictions. I believe that will help us to aid in encouraging our brothers in the larger Evangelical community as well. What we need in our day is clarity of conviction and resolute determination to glorify God by studying, proclaiming and applying the truth of His word to our lives.
Sola Gratia!
Brother Scott,
Great article. You have done well to address situations without describing negatively the issues that separate us. However, I would like for you to clarify a basic understanding. You write; “I have been asked why I have chosen to identify myself with this group, so let me share.” I thought you were operating under the providence of God and your only action was to respond. ;)
Seriously, you are spot on in your assessment and analysis. I believe you have spoke well and will just say “Ditto” to what you have written.
Blessings,
Tim
I am not BI, nor am I significantly connected to the GCR group. I know that there have been some who have cast this as an us vs. them showdown. That is always unfortunate.
However, it is clear to me, watching this unfold, that the loosely formed BI group (Patterson/Yarnell/you good folks) has a very different vision of the future of the SBC than does the GCR wing (Akin/Hunt et al).
I hope the GCR vision wins out. That does not mean that I think Patterson, Yarnell or others are bad people. It just means that I hope their vision of the SBC does not win the day.
Tim,
Well I was chosen for a choice to which you were chosen to respond! :-D
Thanks for pointing that out and thanks for the ‘ditto.’
Sola Gratia!
David,
I am curious. Could you delineate the differences you see in these ‘visions.’
Thanks.
Sola Gratia!
On the surface, I don’t see what the big substantive difference between the centrists and B.I. folks is. I do have my suspician as to what is going on underneath the surface.
On the concrete level of who gets to do practical ministry through an SBC agency, it does not matter whether “Christian essentials” or “Baptist distinctives” win out in what gets the “emphasis”–as long as centrists and B.I. folks agree that everything in the BF&M 2000 must be agreed upon [including peace and war].
I guess you guys find that spiritually nourishing [wink].
All of us will have to face Jesus one day as to whether we supported an “addition wall” to come up between brethren that He Himself did not authorize. Any air conditioned office or title we may have now will not aid us at that point.
“What we need in our day is clarity of conviction…”
What we need is clear exegesis based on a clear hermeneutic in my opinion.
God Bless,
Benji
P.S. It seems like the differences are possibly in “style” or “method” and “bureaucracy”. These things seem more peripheral than substantive to me although they do affect real life people.
Benji,
The fact is many of us can cooperate on varying levels…and should. Christian essentials play a large role in how and with whom we approach ministry opportunities. Baptist distinctives impact our biblically derived convictions, many of which our forefathers gave their lives to defend/uphold such convictions.
I, too, believe that we need a primary focus on clear exegesis based on a biblically faithful hermeneutic. I also believe that a solid hermeneutic impacts our method for fulfilling our calling and commission.
Thanks for your input!
Sola Gratia!
“Baptist distinctives impact our biblically derived convictions, many of which our forefathers gave their lives to defend/uphold such convictions.”
There is a place for general comments. However, let me take a guess as to what you are specifically referring as “Baptist Distinctives” that you feel are being threatened:
1. Closed/close communion.
2. Baptism necessarily being a church ordinance.
3. Plurality of elders trumping congregationalism.
Am I right with these and are these the only three [or are there more]?
Brother Scott,
When you said “our distinctive Baptist convictions”… I think this is closer to the argument in practice. There are some guys that have identified what they believe are distinctive and have made it their conviction to follow that discovery. There are others that may have identified other things and hold fast to those convictions.
It seems to me, from a host of previous postings, that it is the “grouping” of these convictions that is the struggle that some men like to grapple over. It is hard for some to reach contentment.
Blessings,
Chris
Benji & Chris,
Let me pose a question to you guys and to all.
As Baptists, specifically Southern Baptists, what are those expressed beliefs found within Baptist churches which draw you to align yourselves with this group of believers. Is there anything that makes a difference convictionally in light of Scripture which leads you to wear the name Baptist? If there are no significant distinctives to which Baptists hold while others do not, what then is the point?
Benji,
That is a fairly good grouping. I would also add the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, a local visible New Testament church, regenerate church membership. These additional three may not be exclusively Baptist in distinction, but our churches have been historically in the forefront of leading the larger Evangelical community in defending these convictions as well…all of which are in woeful neglect in our day.
Sola Gratia!
Scott,
The biggest Baptist Distinctive is eating fried chicken and homemade bisquits. On this, there can be no debate.
David :)
PS. very good post. You said it well. Ditto.
Scott,
1. The authority of Scripture.
2. The Fundamentals [including the Trinity].
3. The gospel of grace through faith alone in Christ alone.
4. Congregationalism.
5. Believer’s baptism.
6. Baptism as immersion in water in the name of Triune God.
7. Baptism as symbolically dying and rising with Christ.
8. The Lord’s Supper as a memorial.
9. Emphasis on the New Testament.
10. Regenerate church membership.
11. The completeness of a local church being a church in and of itself.
12. The importance of missions.
13. Jesus being the head of the church.
14. The priesthood of believers in the biblical and not the “I have the right to interpret the Bible any way I want to” sense.
15. Liberty of Conscience.
Scott, as an aside, I love what I have read of the first generation of Particular Baptists. Their theological trajectory was superior to any other historical writings that I have read in my opinion. I think the 1646 London Confession is the greatest Christian confession in church history that I have been exposed to.
So, in the light of those guys, I’m not ashamed to be called a Baptist.
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Scott,
Benji has laid out a pretty good list of stuff. I’m sure that even some Southern Baptists would want more definition to the list…but all in the critter identified by Benji’s list certainly could be considered and known as a Baptist, and a few other groups as well for that matter. But, I really don’t believe that someone claiming to be of Baptist Identity would stop there. For instance,….lets take the act of baptism. If baptism, as described in Benji’s list is by definition a part of a list of Baptist distinctives, then will “all” that have identified themselves as BI accept a baptism (believer, immersed) that was not administered in or through a Baptist church?
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Benji,
Great list. However, I believe you will find that all of these are covered in the BF&M 2K. The question should be asked; For Southern Baptist cooperating together, does the BF&M 2K contain primary, secondary, or tietary issues? I would say they contain primary and secondary but no tietary issues. For example, the article on War and Peace would be a secondary issue. The article on Baptism and Lord’s Supper would be both a primary and secondary issue. Primary because our Lord commanded us, as a local congregation, to baptize and that by immersion and secondary in that the Lord’s Supper can be debated until the cows come home whether it is closed/close/open communion. Thus, as a convention of churches we should not cooperate with anyone that could not agree with the BF&M.
Does this negate other churches and Christians as to their place in the Kingdom of God. Not, on your life. Your church is free to cooperate with them and that is a local church issue. But, do not expect my church to help fund your church planting a church that desires to accept into membership people baptized as infants but see it as their baptism.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You said “But, do not expect my church to help fund your church planting a church that desires to accept into membership people baptized as infants but see it as their baptism.”
Please quote what I said that led you to say something like this.
So, we have come to a place as Baptists where “peace and war” is not what you call a “tietary issue”, but a secondary issue.
In other words, the doctrine of peace and war should be a barrier for someone being sent through the IMB to tell others about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Do you really want to justify the importance of this from the New Testament? Do you really want to justify the importance of this from Baptist history? Where are the earlier Baptist confessions that held to this doctrine? Where are the historical Baptist theologians who together form one voice on this important “New Testament” doctrine?
I haven’t even mentioned where the BF&M contradicts the voice of B.H. Carroll.
God Bless,
Benji
P.S. Does the rejection of the “peace & war” statement in the BF&M mean that one has fallen outside the Baptist umbrella?
“Where are the earlier Baptist confessions that held to this doctrine?”
I know it is in previous BF&M’s, but baptists and their confessions existed long before BF&M’s came on the scene. Where are those earlier Baptist confessions that held to “peace & war”?
Brother Tim,
What I find interesting, is that it took the convention 80 years to produce the need to adopt a faith and message statement finally approved in 1925. It is fun to go back to the original consensus message and see the conservative (a good thing) motive intrinsic within the document. As the statement has grown, verbosely and liberally (less biblically conservative) to address the relative age and defenses of systematic theories, it has become the political lightening rod among those seeking to discover ways to cooperate in a convention. That is unfortunate some 75 years later since the first message draft, where now among the plethora of words the message is bantered about and used to fence in political concerns.
In the beginning of the convention, cooperation was based upon something quite different. Maybe a return to those motives of cooperation will yield greater unity represented by fewer words and more action.
Blessings,
Chris
Not to open old wounds, but it all goes back to the beginning – the IMB policies, especially the exclusion from service of those who did not hold to a particular ideology of Baptist life.
It is whether we will cooperate (not partner, but cooperate – I see a difference) with the greater Christian world.
It is whether we will enforce conformity on secondary and tertiary biblical issues (which BI adherents often deny the existence of), and even insinuate that people who do not conform are liberals.
I know you do not share these concerns, but they are what I have seen and read in the BI world. It is not the vision I hold.
I am more comfortable with the Danny Akin vision than the Paige Patterson/Malcolm Yarnell vision. They are good men, and I know that fundamentally they share a passion for the Great Commission. I just don’t share their vision about how to get there.
One of the great improvements in the blog world is that these issues do not dominate every discussion anymore, and I don’t even like bringing them up here. But, it is these reasons why I have been glad to see the GCR begin to dominate discussion, rather than BI.
I always believed that the BI contingent was a minority viewpoint among Southern Baptists. The next couple of years will tell whether that is true or not.
Benji,
Love the list in Comment 11. I’ll sign that one.
Would like to add – 16. Cheer for the New York Yankees,
Then the list would be perfect.
Dave, I gotcha brother:). I grew up a baseball card collector and I wish Don Mattingly would have been on a world series Yankee team as a player. I think they started winning them right after he retired. He was a good player who was loyal to his team.
Brother Benji,
So, we have come to a place as Baptists where “peace and war” is not what you call a “tietary issue”, but a secondary issue.
Go back and re-read what I said. I have not related cooperation to salvation, which you have done. I never said tietary issues were related to sharing Christ in relation to salvation. I said, For Southern Baptist cooperating together which the BF&M was first drafted in order to define a clear theological framework for cooperation, and we should not be embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.
Thus, your follow-up questions are voided because you are trying to pin me down to your understanding of what I said. I have never said anyone falls outside of the “Baptist umbrella” that is your language. Also, you seem to be trying to tie on me an elitism that is not there. I cooperate with Methodist, Presbyterian, AME Zion, and other denominations, within the context of my local congregation. I would never expect the SB to fund my church’s efforts.
As to accusing you of accepting infant baptism. Please, that was not what I was trying to say. I did not mean to imply you accept infant baptism. I should have used the pronoun “one” instead of “you”.
Brother Chris,
Maybe you should reference for me some of those associations that cooperated with each other with no confession of faith. As I recall from Baptist history, the 1925 committee chose the New Hampshire statement over other statements that churches, state conventions, and associations already had in place.
Brother Dave,
Can you tell me what area you would see baptism falling, primary, secondary or tietary?
Also, between the three men you named, Dr. Akin, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Yarnell, only Dr. Akin has articulated a vision for the SBC. Neither Dr. Patterson nor Dr. Yarnell have presented their vision for a convention of churches in any manner like Dr. Akin. They would not presume on themselves that kind of position. Dr. Akin did and he has received a following. Great for him, however you keep trying to place Dr. Patterson in this mix and I have not heard anything out of him concerning this issue. Dr. Yarnell has debated issues, but has not openly stated and presented axioms that articulate his vision for the SBC. If you have seen this some place, please present that evidence.
Oh, one other thing. If you an Benji get this Yankee thing in the statement we will have to re-write the war and peace article. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Go back and reread what I said. The fuller context is this:
“So, we have come to a place as Baptists where ‘peace and war’ is not what you call a ‘tietary issue’, but a secondary issue.
In other words, the doctrine of peace and war should be a barrier for someone being SENT THROUGH THE IMB to tell others about the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (emphasis mine)
You said “we should not be embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.”
But Tim, if one is in error concerning “Peace & War”, why not in love attempt to persuade that person of this “precious” and “essential” traditional doctrine of Baptist faith and practice from the New Testament?
Yes, majoritarianism wins or is supposed to win out in SB policies, but just because something is in the [majoritarian approved] BF&M does not necessarily mean that it can be “proven” to be biblical. Or even essential to “traditional” [i.e., that which is past] Baptist faith and practice.
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Chris,
“Maybe you should reference for me some of those associations that cooperated with each other with no confession of faith. As I recall from Baptist history, the 1925 committee chose the New Hampshire statement over other statements that churches, state conventions, and associations already had in place.”
The initial motive of the convention was a cooperation based upon the mission according to the constitution. The constant increase in words (statements of faith)is having a reverse effect on the cooperation that was intended it appears. The revamping of the message has become a bit more ambiguous in just two additional tries. In other words, we tend to argue, and separate toward a completely different goal these days.
Blessings,
Chris
Oops Tim, I left off the most important line.
You are helping make my point…. When you asked..
-cj
Tim, if you are still reading it, Baptism is, by definition, a secondary issue.
Primary issues are those which all must believe to be Christians. Unless you are going to say that our view of baptism is essential to salvation, it is not primary.
Secondary issues are those which are essential to our identity as Baptists, but not to our identity as Christians.
Tertiary issues are those which are essential to neither (view of end times, etc). I would include here some of the BI views of baptism.
Baptism is essential to our denominational identity, but not to our identity as Christians.
Dave,
But, as a secondary doctrine, would baptism not separate us from other denominations? Churches that baptise babies, sprinkle instead of immerse, baptise as a work for the forgiveness of sins, pour instead of baptise….would these not all divide us from these type Churches? I believe that you would answer yes. So, exactly what is the BI view of baptism that you consider tertiary?
David
David, I may have worded that in a confusing way. I believe that fundamental to our identity as Baptists is baptism of believers by immersion as a symbol of salvation (not baptismal regeneration). I do not think the Bible requires, for instance, that someone who believes in eternal security perform baptisms.
Dr. White’s paper lists six identifying marks of baptism. I think three of them are fundamental to our identity. I think the other three lack biblical support.
Now, if the SBC gathers together and says that these three are mandatory to identifying as a Southern Baptist, I will have to wander out and find another place to serve. I don’t think that is going to happen.
I only included that because I think that Dr. White and others have added some extra-biblical and unnecessary requirements to their view of biblical baptism.