Steve Lemke, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
The Fault Lines in Southern Baptist Life
In the first three parts of this article, I have been reflecting on Brad Whitt’s article “Young, Southern Baptist, . . . and Irrelevant?,” which was published and discussed widely in state Baptist papers, various blogs, and Facebook discussions. Whitt’s response to these many comments has now been posted on his blog, which he entitled, “The Challenge for Contributing, Committed Southern Baptists.”
Whitt’s article obviously touched a nerve in Southern Baptist life. I described it as one of the deepest fault lines in the SBC – between what Whitt suggested were those who have a “high Baptist identity” and those who have a “low to moderate Baptist identity.” I tried to flesh out this distinction in the first section of my post (Part A). I then described several other interconnected fault lines, particularly the small church/megachurch fault line, in the second section of this post (Part B). I made the case that these partially overlapping fault lines are disintegrating the “center” of Southern Baptist life, and that splinters or a split within the SBC fellowship seem almost inevitable.
In the third post (Part C), I attempted to describe two possible futures I see for the SBC, which I believe to be the only viable options. In Way One, because of our fallenness “in Adam,” the only way to unity and peace is through division. I also likened it to a Baptist Babel, in that we are being divided into camps speaking different languages. Obviously, I do not regard this as God’s ideal. Today I will propose the second alternative, what I am labeling the “in Christ” option: Unity through Cooperation.
Way Two: Unity through Cooperation
(the “in Christ” option)
The other possible future for the SBC is one of greater tolerance and cooperation. In this possible future, all these fissures and fault lines would still exist and be recognized, but they would be downplayed in the interest of the greater good. We cannot pretend that these differences do not exist. They are real, and they matter. But it might be possible that each of us could “do church” in the way we felt led by the Spirit, while at the same time allowing others to “do church” differently in their own fellowship.
In this future, the contemporary churches would celebrate their freedom and their relevance to their particular audience without calling (directly or by implication) traditional churches “irrelevant” (as Whitt’s article addressed) or “stuck in the 19th century” (as I saw on a Facebook post this week). This is an important point that Brad Whitt made in his article that many have missed or refused to see – that the smaller and traditionalist churches are fed up with being marginalized and trivialized. These churches are contextualized in their own setting, just as the contemporary churches are in theirs. They are demanding respect by fellow believers, not being berated daily in popular blogs and Pastor’s Conference sermons. At the same time, traditionalist churches need to allow contemporary churches the freedom to “do church” as they feel led by God. We need “niche” churches who minister to people who may not feel comfortable in traditionalist churches.
How can such a coming together happen? The only way I know that this can happen is by a mighty work of God, and indeed, the Lord touching down among Southern Baptists is our most desperate need. We need revival. We need the touch of God’s Spirit. God wants us to be unified in Spirit. Without shallow devotionalizing, if we are all truly one in Christ we will be one with each other (John 17:11, 21-23; Eph. 4:1-6; Phil. 1:27, 2:2, 4:2-3).
But as absolutely crucial and necessary as revival is to this future, we need still something more as well. We need a Jerusalem Council. Acts 15 details how the two opposing parties (the Judaizers and those on mission to the Gentiles) had two different visions of “doing church.” The church came together and everyone expressed their views. The Judaizers expressed frustration at the ungodly actions of the Gentiles. Those reaching out to the Gentiles reminded those present of the Great Commission to reach all persons, and told of the hurt experienced by these Gentile Christians because the Jerusalem church was not accepting them as fellow believers. At the end of the Council, James stood up and offered a compromise that resonated with everyone. It required the Jewish Christians to accept some distasteful things from the Gentiles that they would otherwise not have accepted in their own fellowship. James said, let’s stop “troubling” the Gentile churches (v. 19) with our own Jewish requirements of circumcision and obedience to all the Old Testament Law (v. 24). However, there were some theological and ethical non-negotiables: they asked the Gentiles to stop some of the practices that they viewed as most egregious – idol worship, fornication, partaking of blood, and partaking of meat from an animal that had been strangled (vv. 20, 29). It really didn’t seem like they were asking for much, but it was the price for peace. And so the church was unified.
I don’t know who “James” is for Southern Baptists – perhaps Frank Page or some other much-needed Baptist statesman like John Sullivan. I don’t know where or how a Council like Jerusalem could be held, especially among Baptists with our strong sense of local church autonomy. I’m not sure (though I have some opinions) about how to express what the theological and ethical non-negotiables need to be. But for us to move forward together in a unified way, the Baptist identity/traditionalist churches are going to have to “cut some slack” for the moderate Baptist identity/contemporary churches regarding methodology, and the contemporary churches are going to have to respect and honor the concerns about faith and practice of the more traditional churches. They are going to have to stop the more egregious practices that high Baptist identity believers find repugnant. And we’re all going to have to speak with and about each other more respectfully.
If this cooperation were to take place, we will have to move toward each other rather than away from each other. We are going to have to tone down our rhetoric and respect each other more as fellow believers. We must learn to celebrate God’s work in ways that we would not have done ourselves. And we are going to have to acknowledge that our own preferred way of “doing church” may not be the only legitimate way of “doing church.” We would have to put the mission of the Great Commission above our preferences. But we would also have to abide by some non-negotiables with which we might not resonate personally.
I call this the “in Christ” option because only God can do it. No human or group of humans can accomplish it without divine intervention. But God won’t do it without our cooperation. It’s a long shot, but God specializes in long shots.
What future do you see for the SBC? To which future are you willing to pray and work? Which future do you think God wants? May God give us wisdom as we move forward into His future!
Well said. Will there be a Part E on those non-negotiables?
Steve, so far your assesment and articles about the current state and future possibilities for Souther Baptist have been OUTSTANDING! Truly! Why didn’t you work this hard when I was carrying you through graduate school 35 years ago? :-)
Dr. Lemke,
Thank you so very much for these posts. I think that you have pointed out some of the great challenges that face us as a denomination as well as a possible path toward our continued cooperation in the gospel.
One thing that I might add that is a great concern for me, and I would suspect many others in the grassroots of the denomination would agree, is a system that seems to increasingly promote to leadership positions those who are at the fringes of SB beliefs and practice as well as those who are among the weakest identifiers with and supporters of our cooperative ministry. This is troublesome because you really can’t lead with any moral authority with the, “Do as I’m saying now, not as I did then.” If this trend continues with our leaders so out of touch with the majority of SB’s and the ensuing – even blatant – lack of cooperative support in our leadership (And I’m not advocating a tithe or anything like that to the convention as some have or do.) in just a matter of years there will just be a shell where there was once a great, if not the greatest, missionary force in the history of the world.
Thanks again for your posts. Let’s pray for a revival in our churches, denomination, nation and world! That’s really our only hope.
“And we’re all going to have to speak with and about each other more respectfully.”
“. . . the vision of Jesus for our world
announced by St Paul:
one body –
with the poorest and weakest among us at the heart,
those that we judge the most despicable, honoured;
where each person is important
because all are necessary… ”
Jean Vanier, “The Body Broken”
What egregious practices?
Steve,
While I am concerned that the ole’ “the devil is in the details” problem will crop up, I think what you have said here overall is outstanding.
Here are two things that I think would aid in the process that you have outlined above:
1. Everyone rejecting a smug attitude.
2. Everyone not flaunting their perceived freedom.
Thank you sir for this blog post,
Benji
I still don’t see how what one church does (contemporary/traditional) or practices (Calvinism/non Calvinism) affects another church. If the concern is who controls the IMB, NAMB, etc., then I could see why some (my way is the only way) would be concerned, but hopefully there would never be a litmus test for those who are sent into the mission field, whether as pure missionaries or church planters, other than agreeing with the BFM. We will never agree on all aspects of Theology, but I’ve always assumed that the BFM covered the bottom line essential beliefs for SBC churches and members. If not, why do we even have it? And under the BFM, there is plenty of room for all SBC churches that exist today. We don’t have to agree on everything to cooperate.
“I also likened it to a Baptist Babel, in that we are being divided into camps speaking different languages.”
Isn’t this the way of the world?
So you are right. It’s not ‘God’s ideal’.
A lot of being a Christian IS ‘listening’, with patience, to the concerns and points of view of others. This element of taking the time to listen seems to be missing among those who anger quickly and lack respect for those who aren’t ‘like them’
There is more need in this world for ‘listening’ Christians now than there has ever been before.
“……a system that seems to increasingly promote to leadership positions those who are at the fringes of SB beliefs and practice as well as those who are among the weakest identifiers with and supporters of our cooperative ministry. This is troublesome because you really can’t lead with any moral authority with the, “Do as I’m saying now, not as I did then….”
I don’t know if this is germane to the topic but the thing that also disturbs me is that we now have a leader of NAMB who didn’t support the CP and now claims he didn’t truly understand the CP – not only is this person somehow elevated to leadership who refused to support past leaders but the man lead the church where one of our seminary professors is a member – if Al Mohler can’t influence his church to give to Annie Armstrong what on earth is going on at that seminary? What example does Al Mohler send to seminarians when he attends a church that didn’t support the CP? so for some reason it’s ok that Ezell can say I didn’t support such and such because of the policies and he has the support of his church which included Al Mohler in this attitude of non support, but now everyone is supposed to sit down and shut up and support Ezell or be called names and made fun of? Personally, I don’t have any hope that the SBC is not headed to a major split.
If you’ll allow me, I’ll respond to many of your comments in the ame note –
Rick, Bill, and Benji,
No, I’ll not be proposing a list of egregious problems or nonnegotiable matters of faith and practice (beyond BF&M), although I obviously have opinions about them. That’s why we would need some sort of “Council” to sort those things out and come up with a compromise. I imagine that my initial list might be condensed some by the Council.
Thus Benji is right when he says the devil is in the details. That’s why I said that as great as a revival would be and the attitude change it would bring, there would still have to be some agreement hammered out on the hard issues. The good spirit wrought by the revival could be quickly lost (as it could have in Jerusalem) had there not been a brotherly agreement.
John, I think you’re absolutely right about the autonomy of the local church. Actually, I meant to say more about that point — that one reason we should allow each other maximum flexibility is our ecclesiology of local church autonomy. However, here is where this is breaking down, and why just the BF&M is not enough. First of all, the BF&M never was intended to cover everything. For example, as Dr. Mohler has pointed out, nothing in the BF&M prohibits the worship of Mary like the Roman Catholic church does, and yet all Baptists would say this was inappropriate. So there are many things that most or all Baptists agree about which are not in the BF&M.
But the larger issue we’re facing is that churches just aren’t leaving each other alone. In blogs and other media, pastors and leadership of various churches and convention entities are being criticized. The worship style of other churches is being criticized. The theology of other churches is being criticized. So, for example, it is one thing to have two churches a block away from each other who prefer the opposite approaches on each of these issues. They should be able to do that because of local church autonomy. But what is not acceptable is to have some of the viscious attacks and negative critiques of OTHER churches. At that point, one church (or its members) is imposing on the autonomy of another local church, and this is what the problem is.
It’s fine for me to debate theology with my neighboring pastor over a game of golf. It’s another thing to try to destroy him on the internet or facebook. That’s why we must come to some further agreement, and a way of gently upbraiding ministers or churches who step over that line (while still respecting their autonomy).
Good thoughts, all!
“For example, as Dr. Mohler has pointed out, nothing in the BF&M prohibits the worship of Mary like the Roman Catholic church does, and yet all Baptists would say this was inappropriate.”
This is the first time I have been privy to the information that Southern Baptist SEMINARIES actually teach that Catholics ‘worship’ Mary.
I had not known that they did teach that formally before.
I don’t think it is public knowledge that SBC seminaries teach something like that to their students.
Dr. Lemke,
You stated:
“This is an important point that Brad Whitt made in his article that many have missed or refused to see – that the smaller and traditionalist churches are fed up with being marginalized and trivialized.”
I am the pastor of the smaller & traditionalist church. My church supports the CP, offers Mission Friends, RA’s, GA’s, Acteens, and loves: Baseball, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet! I don’t feel marginalized and trivialized.
Sir, the issue at hand is this:
Is the ‘high Baptist identity group’ (your definition) willing to sit at the table with those in whom you identify as the ‘lower to moderate Baptist identity group’ (your definition) to fulfill our Lord’s great commission?
At the end of the day both groups are even where it counts the most:
1) Adherence to the 2000 BF&M.
2) SBC Constitution: Article III. Membership.
What will the ‘High Baptist Identity Group’ propose next? the Dred Scott issue of the SBC: Demand changing the SBC Constitution to where the ‘Low to Moderate Baptist Identity Member’ is only worth 1/2 a vote? If that happens, your group may have a chance to win the day. Until then, your arguments are futile, stigmatizing, marginalizing, stereotyping, and divisive to the SBC brethren who are nor as ‘High’ as you.
Respectfully, from a pastor of a small, traditional Baptist church, willing to sit at the table, with those Southern Baptists who differ from me, to fulfill the GC!
–chadwick
Chadwick,
I’m glad you don’t feel marginalized, and I’m very grateful for your faithful support of the SBC. I will say that I have heard from dozens of small and traditionalist churches who do feel that way, and that is the basis of my concern (and Whitt’s).
To frame my answer to your larger question, let me use the analogy of the local church. What are the criteria for membership in the church? Coming by baptism or by church letter, and being voted into the church’s membership.
So, applied to the SBC, yes, I don’t see the bare standards for membership that you mentioned as changing significantly (adherence to BF&M and the SBC Constitution’s Article III provisions on Membership). (Just a minor quibble — a church doesn’t actually have to affirm the BF&M 2000 to be in the SBC, and in fact, quite a few don’t). So, to be in the SBC, you just have to do the following:
Article III. Membership: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows:
1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention’s work during the fiscal year preceding.
2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members; or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting.
3. The messengers shall be appointed and certified by the churches to the Convention, but no church may appoint more than ten (10).
4. Each messenger shall be a member of the church by which he is appointed.
But, back to the church setting, what if a church member does something that is embarrassing to the church? Some publicly known act of immorality? In some cases, the church may “disfellowship” such a person. And yet, churches don’t have a “list” of all the things that can get you disfellowshipped. It’s just that there might be some egregious behaviors that are deemed unacceptable. Perhaps that person is just always stirring up trouble in the church, and they’re asked to leave. And yet, there is nothing in the church Constitution that specifically details all these criteria for removal — it’s more of the order of, “If it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, . . .” In other words, we know it when we see it.
Applied to the SBC, there are some churches that might be doing things seen as egregious behaviors by most churches, or disruptive to the SBC fellowship. Though all of these behaviors are not detailed in the SBC Constitution, the group as a whole may remove them from membership (just as they did a couple of years ago to the Texas church supportive of gays, even before the new clause on homosexuality was added).
So people (or churches) can meet the base qualifications for membership, but not continued fellowship. Hence, I believe, the need for a “Nashville Council” to give more definition to what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable.
Will the groups sit down together for such a Council? I don’t know. Let me also say that your note seems to suggest that this is a decision up to the “high Baptist identity” crowd, as though they were “in charge.” Whatever the realities might be, I don’t think most “high Baptist identity” people feel that way. I think they believe, as Brad Whitt’s post and Mary’s post above suggest, that they feel that they no longer have that “control.” So the question is, will both parties come to the table? I don’t know. Frankly, I doubt it. It would take a work of God, and for that I am praying.
I’m wondering how “traditionalist” churches feel marginalized when they are the ones who had the bulk of the power, were holding a majority of the offices(most who still are) and were the only voices listened to in the last 20 plus years.
I am also wondering how our African American brothers and sisters fit into all of this. I see nothing mentioned in any of the pieces. They do feel marginalized, in fact they are marginalized.
Debbie,
I am understanding that Fred Luter, Pastor of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans (a largely African American church with about 4,000 in attendance each week) is going to be nominated as President of the SBC Pastor’s Conference in Phoenix. Some (including myself) favor him for nomination as President of the SBC at the next year’s convention in New Orleans. Electing an African-American President of the SBC would be a powerful symbol of racial reconciliation and diversity in the SBC.
Dr. Lemke: I agree and am so glad to hear our affirmation. That alone is a huge beginning.
I meant to write I am so glad to hear your affirmation.
Dr. Lemke, I wrote a reply to you, Dr. Allen, Dr. Land, and Dr. Patterson concerning your articles against Calvinism in the Baptist Banner of SBCV. Whether it will be published or not depends on the editor, Brother T.C. Pinckney. I really do appreciate your expression of the need for the “in Christ” option, that only God can do this thing of working out a solution that will enable the disparate groups to continue to work together with a sense of concern for the advancement of the cause of Christ. I would call attention to the uniting of Separate and Regular Baptists in Va. in 1787 as a model and an example of the theological dynamics of biblical orthodoxy employed to work out differences. We have in our history a catalyst, often expressed in fussin’ ways which really say we are alive and not dead or really divided, which grows out of the so-called calvinism that is the source of the great awakenings and the launching of the great missionary movement. That Sovereign Grace theology is really the source of a more liberal (I know that is a hated word due to the experiences of the recent past) practice, a generous, free, receptive spirit that enabled Baptists to work through their differences to the point where they could cooperate in missions. I spent 6 years doing intensive research in Baptist History, and I found that the doctrines of the Bible are generally two-sided, apparently contradictory, and cannot be reconciled (indeed are not meant to be). Such truths set up a desirable tension in the mind of the believer which enables him to be balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Some of the best performance came in the period from 1740-1820, the period of the First and Second Great Awakenings, the obtaining of religious liberty, the launching of the Great Century of Missions, the uniting of the Separate and Regular Baptists, the persuasion of some General Baptists who were not very evangelistic or missionary to become Regular Baptists who were both, and more , much more. Mediation would suggest, I think, that we need to give careful consideration to a Johari Window type of approach in a church council situation which would enable participants to get an insight into the theological constructs of themselves as well as others and of how we perceive one another. This approach was used in a Race Relations Conference in Orangeburg, SC in 1972 to facilitate the integration of the schools on a massive scale with the least conflict possible. While it was not a perfect solution, there is little doubt about the fact that it helped. Could it be that such an effort could bring about a calming effect between the various groups in the SBC and facilitate an atmosphere of better cooperation?
One of the problems is peception, that is, the perception we have of those on the opposite side of theological issues. But suppose the perception is prejudiced by erroneous data? After all, consider how Dr. Akin who is not a calvinist has noted how William Carey and Andrew Fuller were both five point calvinists. Consider also Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield and their passion for souls along with the many Sovereign Grace founders of Baptist work in America and, especially, in the South. The more Arminian type views are not all given to extremes of securing commitments at the expense of truth. There are those who bring in wrong methods on both sides of the issue. Our task, it would seem to me, is to work out a way that is considerate of the conscience of both sides, and it can be done based upon the truths that are two-sided. For 38 years I have been praying for a Third Great Awakening – ever since 1973, when I spoke to the Pastors’ Prayer Meeting of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association on the subject of a Great Awakening. Later, I spoke to the Prayer Meeting on the subject of A Third Great Awakening at both the 5th and 10th anniversaries of that worthy effort. Your expression of the need for God’s help in the process could be the opening of the door to a greater prayer effort followed by a real effort to work out an arrangement whereby our continued cooperation would be empowered and enhanced. Whitefield made the request for Wesley to preach his funeral even though he did not believe he would see Wesley in Heaven due to the fact that Wesley would be so close to the throne and he, Whitefield, so far, that he would not be able to see him. Wesley preached the funeral though as he is reported to have said that he did not expect to see Whitefield in Heaven for precisely the same reason in reverse, namely, that Whitefield would be so close to the throne and he so far from it that he would not be able to see him. These men were grasped by the vibrant, vital, and vigorous dynamics of biblical truths, those electric, thrilling, moving, motivating, awesome, wonderful, engaging precepts that brings believers to a full maturity that draws sinners to Christ like honey draws flies. We could well be on the verge of such awakening again. Do you not feel the quickening power of even the thought of the possibility?