By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Reflections on the Daviess-McLean Decision

In Part 1, I shared my perceptions (from admittedly incomplete knowledge) about the decision of Daviess-McLean Baptist Association (DMBA) to deny the membership request from Pleasant Valley Community Church (PVCC). The main point was that although theological issues were involved in the decision because of the strongly Calvinistic doctrine of PVCC, the decision appears to have been based more on attitudinal issues by PVCC that the member churches of DMBC felt could be divisive. Here are some brief reflections on my understanding of the significance of the association’s decision to deny membership to PVCC, and the implications of this action for other churches and associations as we move forward.

(1)   The local church is the center of (earthly) authority in Baptist polity. Local church autonomy is a distinctive Baptist belief (as I have discussed). The local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association were perfectly within their rights to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church. This determination was made not by associational officials, but by duly authorized messengers from the member churches of DMBA. They were voting as representatives of their own local church, not as representatives of the association as a whole. At the same time, DMBA has no authority to force PVCC to change their doctrine or practice. PVCC can worship as they choose, believe as they choose, and do church as they choose. The biblical foundation of church autonomy, of course, is the priority given to local churches in the New Testament. However, theologically it reflects that through the priesthood of believers (another Baptist distinctive), each member seeks the will of God, the headship of Jesus Christ, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and represents that divine leadership in voting on decisions in the church. This collective reflection of the will of God is much more reliable than putting this decision solely in the hands of a few fallible authoritarian leaders. This is a wonderful and marvelous thing that inflexible top-down hierarchical denominations like Catholics and Presbyterians “desire to look into” (1 Pet. 1:12, KJV).

(2)  Doctrine matters. The Daviess-McLean Baptist Association decision has underscored the fact that doctrine really does matter. Birds of a feather flock together. Churches that are in agreement in faith and practice tend to be more unified and harmonious. In this case, while acknowledging that the theology of PVCC was not heretical, and not going into specific detail about their theological concerns, the association did “recognize that it [PVCC’s theology] is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA,” and thus would be potentially divisive. This decision is a powerful antidote to the strong pluralistic, ecumenical forces in our day that threaten to dull the doctrinal distinctives of evangelical Christians and denominations to be merged into an amorphous lowest common denominator which does not truly represent anyone’s real beliefs.

(3)  Those who want to be accepted should make themselves acceptable. It is befitting for those seeking acceptance from others to try to minimize any possible hindrances to acceptance. It was PVCC seeking membership in DMBA, not vice versa. The onus of responsibility was thus on PVCC to demonstrate their cooperativeness and fit with DMBA and demonstrate their worthiness to join DMBA, not vice versa. Without knowing most of the details of this situation, it is evident from the overwhelming 104-9 vote of DMBA that PVCC did not take common sense steps to connect in positive ways with the association. PVCC did demonstrate that they valued and sought interaction with other faraway groups in such as the Acts 29 Network based in Seattle, Washington than they did fellowship with Southern Baptist churches in their own area. And when interaction did take place between PVCC and the local churches in DMBA, it evidently was not predominantly a positive experience. The Credential Committee’s findings noted that PVCC had not given evidence that it “would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and noted that PVCC had practiced “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.” It clearly appeared to be these perceived uncooperative and somewhat arrogant attitudinal problems that “ultimately” led to the denial of PVCC from DMBA. This was a preventable tragedy, but PVCC (perhaps in part because of the inexperienced leadership and/or a doctrinaire inflexibility) must bear much of the responsibility for their own rejection.

(4)  This DMBA decision has a very limited impact on PVCC.  The main impact of this decision is that messengers from PVCC cannot vote in the annual session of DMBA.  I don’t think that being denied this minor privilege is going to cripple the ministry of PVCC. The DMBA’s decision does not bar PVCC from attending DMBA meetings. It does not delimit PVCC from attending DMBA training events, such as Sunday School training or Vacation Bible School training, if PVCC had any interest in these. It does not prohibit PVCC from membership in the Kentucky Baptist Convention or the SBC. It does not bar PVCC from participating in the evangelistic or missions efforts of DMBA (if PVCC’s theology did not prevent the church from desiring to do so). It does not prohibit PVCC from sending their youth or children to camps sponsored by the DMBA. It does not prevent PVCC from inviting other DMBA pastors to speak in their church for revivals (if PVCC’s doctrine does not prohibit themselves from having revivals) or in other worship services. It does not prevent PVCC from partnering on projects with individual DMBA churches. It does not prohibit PVCC from contributing money to DMBA or its related ministries. If PVCC were genuinely interested in demonstrating their cooperative spirit to DMBA, doing any or all of these things (and doing so in a sweet spirit) would go a long way in changing the perception of the churches in the association that PVCC has an uncooperative spirit. Again, the point is that one should not make more of this decision than the minor impact it has on PVCC.

(5)  Sometimes unity requires division. As I noted in an earlier series of articles about the fault lines that divide Southern Baptists, there is a point at which it does not appear fruitful for two groups to continue walking together.  More unity is found by dividing into two groups rather than continuing irritating each other by constantly arguing and bickering with each other in the same group. I described this as the “in Adam” option – unity through division (that is, taking human fallenness into consideration, divisions like this are inevitable). This was true of Southern Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and it may yet (and the odds are, it will) cause further such divisions over the issue of Calvinism (as SBC Executive Committee CEO Frank Page noted in a recent SBC Today interview) and/or along other fault lines in Southern Baptist life (as I have noted). For example, if churches like PVCC continue finding more commonality with groups such as Acts 29 or the Founders group prior to and over against local associations – networking with them, going to their meetings, seeking their counsel, etc., as Pastor Edwards’ interview on the Acts 29 website indicates – it is inevitable that these alternative groups like Acts 29 and Founders will functionally become an association to themselves, start breaking down into statewide and regional fellowships, and eventually split into another denomination. If narrow doctrinal agreement is required for fellowship, these sorts of splits are inevitable in the SBC in the interest of unity and harmony.

(6)  True unity requires toleration of a greater range of differences. I believe that the Lord’s ideal for his churches is not that they splinter and divide, but that they “dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1). This is what I have called the “in Christ” option – unity through diversity. For such a broader unity to be a reality, it is necessary that believers (and churches) be more tolerant and forgiving of each other. It requires that we must be content to agree on major points and agree to disagree on other points. It means in this case, for example, that PVCC not describe widely accepted Baptist patterns of church governance as “unbiblical.” Had Edwards just said in the interview that PVCC sought to discover the church polity that they felt the Bible affirmed, that would have been fine. But to condemn the polity of others as “unbiblical” does not build unity. Again, the DMBA finding that PVCC demonstrated “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness” indicates that DMBA did not consider PVCC willing to demonstrate the tolerant attitudes demanded of true unity.

Unfortunately, the association’s written findings were rather vague both in regard to the specific doctrinal issues which were problematic and in listing specific examples of the attitudinal issues which they found problematic. However, DMBA’s overwhelming 104-9 vote suggests that PVCC wasn’t even close to being acceptable. This was evidently not a hard decision for the association.

However, to achieve unity in a broader spectrum of churches, we must tolerate a wider range of differences. We must respect the autonomy of each local church, and respect the right of that church to be different in some ways. We must not insist that our perspective is the only biblical perspective on operational issues that are not clearly required in Scripture. We must have some flexibility in doctrinal issues, as long as they are not clearly unbiblical. We must strive to improve our communication and the attitudes we express in working with fellow believers to avoid repeated experiences such as this one in other associations.

By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

News stories from the Western Recorder, from Associated Baptist Press, and Baptist Press reported last week that the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association in Kentucky chose to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church, purportedly in part because of the strong Calvinism affirmed by Pleasant Valley Community Church. In this article, I want to suggest my best guess of the factors which led to this decision. In Part 2 I want to suggest what could be some implications of this decision for other churches and associations in the SBC.

Some Important Caveats

These are some wise dictums which we should normally heed as guidelines for wise living:

Dictum 1: Don’t get enmeshed in other people’s fights.

Dictum 2:  Don’t speak about things about which you have little knowledge, because when you open your mouth you’ll reveal your ignorance.

I’m going to risk cautiously disobeying these wise dictums in order to comment on the denial of the application of Pleasant Valley Community Church to join Daviess-McLean Baptist Association in Kentucky. (I could note that many blog commentators frequently violate both of these dictums). So let me do so with these important caveats:

(a) I do not know anyone on either side associated with this event, nor have I spoken with them personally or communicated with them. The only thing I know comes through published reports and commentaries, and a couple of conversations with persons closer to the situation who have communicated with some of the persons involved. I have not read all of the documents associated with the event. So I am writing based on the limited published information I have seen, along with some hearsay evidence. That’s not very strong evidence in a court of law or in the scholarly world, and as a former journalist I would not publish such unconfirmed opinions as a factual news story. So what I am sharing is just my opinion or speculation based on my best understanding of the limited information I have.

(b) I am not a member of a church in the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association, so I have no real standing in this discussion. This is their decision, not mine. I am simply commenting on the event as an outside observer.

With those important caveats in mind, I will share my perception in this Part 1 of the root causes of this event. As I best understand it, there are two primary contributing causes that led to this event – one more theological in character, and the other more attitudinal in nature. At this point, I am more interested in describing the perceptions involved than the realities involved – that is, I’m attempting to understand what perceptions may have led to this decision.  I have no way of judging the accuracy of those perceptions. Perceptions aren’t always the same as reality, but they do impact reality. Again, I want to be very clear that some of this at least to some degree speculation on my part, based on the available evidence. Then, in Part 2, I’ll suggest some implications of this decision in other associations, and propose a way that might help avoid repeated occurrences of similar events in other associations.

The Theological Aspect

The presenting problem, as it has been described in all the published reports, is the theological problem that the other churches in the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association (DMBA) found the strong Calvinism of Pleasant Valley Community Church to be unpalatable. The brief DMBA statement unfortunately offers an overly abbreviated their discussion of this issue, rather than providing a more detailed discussion. As reported in the Associated Baptist Press story, the Credentials Committee noted that the doctrine of Pleasant Valley Community Church was “Calvinistic in nature,” and “affirms the doctrine of election and grace.” Clearly, this alone would not make the doctrine of Pleasant Valley Community Church unbaptistic. Article V of the Baptist Faith and Message is entitled “God’s Purpose of Grace,” and begins with the words, “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which God regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end.” So belief in election and grace would make a church’s doctrine baptistic, not unbaptistic. The association would have to go into much greater detail than their statement does (at least, the part of it quoted in published reports) to clarify what they found problematic in PVCC’s doctrine. It would have been especially helpful to us outside observers had the association been more specific about the doctrinal issue involved.

However, from what we can discern about Pleasant Valley Community Church, its doctrine was apparently so obviously and distinctively Calvinistic that a more detailed statement seemed unnecessary to the association for this purpose.  It was sufficient for the Credentials Committee to note that “we do recognize that it [the theology of PVCC] is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.”  The association voted 104-9 to deny admittance to Pleasant Valley Community Church to DMBA. This wasn’t a close vote. This indicates that the doctrine of PVCC was well known among the ministers in the association, and it was significantly different in some important ways.

It is not surprising that that the overwhelming majority of pastors in this or another association would differ in doctrine from a church that is strongly and exceptionally Calvinist in its doctrine. LifeWay statistics indicate that 90 percent of Southern Baptist pastors are not five point Calvinists. If most associations were minded to deny or remove from membership all Reformed churches, the majority of most associations could do so merely by voting their own doctrinal beliefs. In fact, however, few associations have denied membership to churches over the doctrines of Calvinism, and the pastor who nominated PVCC for membership in DMBA was not a five-point Calvinist. By and large, associations that are made up predominantly of non-Calvinist churches have been accepting of Calvinist churches into their fellowship. So what made PVCC stand out so much from DMBA?

The “Pastor of Preaching and Vision” of Pleasant Valley Community Church, recent Southern Baptist Theological Seminary graduate Jamus Edwards (whose picture reflects a handsome young man), downplayed his church’s distinctive Calvinism to the Western Recorder, telling them that the church does not self-identify as Calvinist because it is not “helpful in most contexts” but rather “distracting and largely misunderstood, precisely like it was in this situation with the DMBA.” However, Edwards’ statement seems a little disingenuous in light of a number of factors. First of all, not only did PVCC refrain from using “Baptist” in their name, but also rather than making the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 their confession, the church has its own 60 page doctrinal confession instead, which is unambiguously Calvinistic. For example, the PVCC confession affirms hard determinism:

“From before the foundation of the world, in order to display His glory, God freely and unchangeably ordained all things that would come to pass. From the casting of the lot, to the bird falling from the sky, to the activities of the nations, to the plans of politicians, to the secret acts of individuals, to what will happen to us tomorrow, to scheduling the very day that we will die, God has written our stories and the stories of the entire universe.”

Also in the PVCC confession, God’s absolute predestination of everything that happens includes “the results of His plan of salvation as set forth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ” in double predestination:

“We believe that God’s election is unconditional — from Old Testament Israel to individual sinners. That is, from before the foundation of the world, God chose in His grace to save for Himself an elect people through Jesus Christ. God’s choice of His elect was in no way affected, or conditioned by, some merit or deed that He foresaw these individuals would possess. Neither (as many argue) did God make His choice based upon those whom He foresaw ‘would’ have chosen Him of their own will and accord.”

Another piece of evidence – PVCC’s strong identification with the Acts 29 Network – undermines Edwards’ claim that PVCC does not self-identify itself with Calvinists. Edwards has an interview in the Acts 29 Network website in which he clearly identifies PVCC with that group (giving special appreciation to the influence of Mark Driscoll on his life). Since the Acts 29 confession requires agreement with Calvinistic theology (note Acts 29 doctrine four, being “Reformed” in its view of salvation) as a prerequisite for participation, it appears that Edwards should have at least qualified his statement somewhat. Indeed, it is evident from the article that PVCC sought the approval of the Acts 29 Network before it sought membership in the DMBC.

Furthermore, Edwards states in the interview that in becoming pastor he “inherited an unbiblical leadership model (church government structure).” [Edwards does not describe specifically what this “unbiblical leadership model” was, but one could imagine that it was a polity common in Baptist churches, and perhaps closer to the polity outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message than PVCC’s elder-led polity]. Edwards continues: “In an effort to transition out of this unbiblical model, we took over a year to teach through 1 Timothy and the biblical model for church government. The Scriptures began to do the work and eventually the church body eagerly accepted the elder-led model.”  However Pastor Edwards reads 1 Timothy 3, the chapter that discusses the qualifications and responsibilities of the two scriptural offices in a New Testament church, it cannot possibly advocate the Presbyterian elder-led model as opposed to Baptist polity – in fact, the word “elder” doesn’t even appear in that chapter! Edwards obviously appears to be reading his Calvinistic theology into Scripture, rather than allowing Scripture to determine his theology.

So, taking all this evidence into account, it appears that Edwards’ claim that the church did not self-identify as a Calvinist fellowship is somewhat inaccurate. In fact, the church took a number of steps to distinguish themselves from other Baptist churches in name and doctrine, and sought to align themselves with Calvinistic groups before seeking membership in the DMBC. This unambiguous Calvinism was evident to the other churches in DMBA.

This is not the first time or the only issue that the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association has chosen not to be in fellowship with a church whose doctrinal views significantly differed from the other churches in the association. As the Associated Baptist Press story mentioned, DMBA voted 242-24 to withdraw fellowship from the Journey Fellowship (formerly named Seven Hills Baptist Church in Owensboro) because they hosted a group which they viewed as accepting or endorsing homosexuality. So the DMBA does not appear to be on a one-issue “witch hunt” about Calvinism, but is interested that the churches in the association be of like faith and practice in the interest of unity. This concern for doctrinal agreement is commendable. In fact, associations in general tend to be rather generous (perhaps overly so at times) in allowing for doctrinal diversity and respecting local congregational autonomy. For example, Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas has been removed from membership from both the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist General Convention of Texas because of their open advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle, but last I heard, they are still members in good standing with the Tarrant Baptist Association.

However, returning to the DMBA issue, as we often discover in counseling, it is often the case that the “presenting issue” cited as the problem at the beginning of the conversation turns out to be not the major issue when the problem is explored in greater depth. It becomes evident that there is some other deeper issue which is the most basic problem. While I’m confident that discussions about Calvinist doctrine were an important aspect of these discussions, it seems to me that the doctrinal issue was more of a “presenting issue” than a “real issue.” That leads me to the next section, the Attitudinal Aspect.

The Attitudinal Aspect

As the Baptist Press story on this issue underscored (and this has been confirmed to me by persons familiar with the situation and have talked with some of the persons involved), although it appears that there were doctrinal issues involved in denying membership to PVCC, the issues involving Calvinism did not appear to be the primary problem.  (The Baptist Press story brought out this attitudinal aspect more, while the Associated Baptist Press story underscored the theological aspect of the decision). Indeed, according to published reports, the association’s Credentials Committee said, “Ultimately, we were not satisfied that Pleasant Valley Community Church would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and expressed concern about “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness” from PVCC.

The Daviess-McLean Baptist Association committee openly acknowledged in their documents that the Pleasant Valley Community Church’s doctrine was not heretical or aberrant. According to published reports, the Credentials Committee findings stated that “We believe the teaching of Pleasant Valley Community Church to be sound in their doctrine,” and that “We know the doctrine is not heresy.” Clearly, then, the association had no question about the fact that PVCC was not aberrant or heretical in doctrine, but they did “recognize that it is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.” So, although the “presenting issue” in this case was doctrinal, it would appear that this was not just the doctrinal issue, and in fact, the issue clearly appears to be primarily one of fellowship, not doctrine.  It may be (and this is just my speculation) that the mention of Calvinism in the decision was directed more toward the nexus of negative attitudes and actions sometimes associated with some neo-Calvinists than purely the theological issues per se.

One public relations or image problem being experienced by contemporary neo-Calvinism is that the negative attitudes and actions of a few have come to stereotype the whole. This is not an observation made only by persons on the opposite side of this issue. Calvinists and other non-agenda driven friends such as Ed Stetzer, Joe Thorn (and here), Dave Miller, William Thornton (and here), Howell Scott, and others have expressed concern and even embarrassment about some neo-Calvinists who express these attitudes. As they correctly note, these attitudes give “angry Calvinists” (and their Lord) a bad name. It was a high Calvinist who taught me the term “Calvinazis,” referring to a fringe group of neo-Calvinists who sometimes exemplify strongly negative attitudes and actions at times. They characterize persons of this ilk as sometimes being angry, argumentative, arrogant, belligerent, combative, contemptuous, divisive, and schismatic. By no means are these attitudes represented by all or most neo-Calvinists, and nor am I suggesting that these attitudes were necessarily represented by anyone associated with PVCC. However, it is the nature of such stereotypes that the negative attitudes and actions of a few can color the reputation of the many. In this cyberspace age, a pastor of a small Reformed church plant can have as much or more impact through the evangelical blogosphere as larger church pastors and respected leaders. The extreme actions of a few color the perceptions of the many. Hence there is need for more circumspect neo-Calvinists to attempt to control those within their own fellowship who are more extreme in expressing these negative attitudes and actions (as many of the articles cited above sought to do).

The 104-9 vote by the messengers of local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association to deny admittance to Pleasant Valley Community Church suggests that DMBA had experienced some problems with the attitudinal perspectives expressed by PVCC in a way that made the churches in DMBA reluctant to enter into fellowship with them. This was evidently why, despite acknowledging that PVCC had no doctrinal error, the member churches of the association agreed with the Credentials Committee that “ultimately” there was reason to doubt that “Pleasant Valley Community Church would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and that PVCC demonstrated “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.” It was evidently the offensive attitudes that were exhibited by PVCC (as perceived by the member churches of DMBA), perhaps some of the attitudes stereotypically associated with some neo-Calvinists, which led the DMBA to choose to deny membership to PVCC in DMBA. The churches of DMBA (by overwhelming numbers) evidently valued harmony and unity in the association over the inclusion of a church whose leadership had already given the churches in DMBA a perception that they were lacking in cooperativeness and gentleness of spirit.

Conclusion

Let me say again that my knowledge of this situation is limited and from outside the situation, so it is possible that I may have read the situation incorrectly. But this is the sense I got from reading the published reports and talking with people familiar with the situation. In Part 2 of this article, I will suggest some possible implications of the DMBA decision for future similar situations in other churches and associations in the SBC.

By Dan Nelson, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Camarillo, CA

Great confusion exists over what the church is. If we understand what the church is and what God wants to do through us in the church, then we can function as the body of Christ. This will help us to grow as Christians.

There are several reasons for the confusion that exists over what the church is. Luther did not get it right in the Protestant reformation. He affirmed the way a person is saved is by grace through faith in Christ’s sacrifice for us, but he retained the invisible church, retained infant baptism, and the Lord’s Supper remained more than a memorial ordinance. Just because non-denominational groups are everywhere does not mean God can not use them. These groups go to visible churches to take up offerings. A recent Christian televangelist said, “Take your money and send it to a spirit-filled church.” The assumption is every believer makes up the church. They comprise the kingdom of God but not the church.

I want to help you understand what the church really is if you will hear with the word of God. I do so that we can be the church as the body of Christ in this community.

These progressions tell us what the church is:

I. The Church is a PEOPLE.

“For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:18).

The church is not a building but a people. It is a living organism. He is the head, we are the body. John was beheaded and he ceased to exist in this life. Christ’s body is people and the head and body should not be severed. The chicken with its head cut off could function but not for long.

I started to entitle this message, “How not to be a Spiritually Homeless person. Some homeless people chose to be where they are but others are forced out and we are to have compassion on them and try to help them. But no born-again believer should be without a spiritual home. If I were to ask you where you lived and you said everywhere, that would be a crazy answer unless you lived out of a motor-home.

But that’s the way many believers are who say they are not members of a local church but members of the invisible one. You are just as much spiritually homeless as one is physically homeless.

The building is not the church. We say we are going down to church. What you really ought to mean is you as a church are going to assemble at the meeting place of the church. We sometimes call the building “the sanctuary.” That actually means a place where endangered species live. The church is not an endangered species. It is marching against the gates of Hell. There are those in society who would like to put the church in a closet or put us out of existence, while bringing out things that should not even been in the closet in the first place.

The early church did not have buildings. So they rightly understood that church was people. Paul reminds them of who they were and what they had become. It is a sign of inclusion instead of exclusion. To be fellow citizens with the saints means that we share common rights and privileges.

The Baptist church is the closest form of government to our own government because of free election on church matters. James Madison went to a Baptist business meeting conducted by John Leyland to see a working model of how our government should operate.

II. The Church is a PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

“In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22).

To be a church people have to be born-again by God’s Spirit and indwelt by the Spirit of God.

We look at the church page in the newspapers and there are so many churches. God’s Word doesn’t necessarily say that every group that calls itself a church is a church. The true church of Christ brings God’s Spirit into the building where it meets.

We are building together on the foundation of Christ, 1 Cor. 3:9. We are building together. We are not like bricks tossed to one side, charcoal fire burns better together.

I find it interesting we come together for God to inhabit us. God does inhabit the praises of His people. People can come together without the Holy Spirit and God will not be there in their lives. People can meet together in houses called churches and the Holy Spirit in our lives.

God is omnipresent through the Holy Spirit. He can be in more than one place at a time. We are building on the foundation of Christ, Matt. 16:18. The Holy Spirit is the connecting link. The same Spirit that raised Jesus is the one who was in the early church, and who is in us. Acts 2:42; Matt. 28:20.

Each of the medieval cathedrals took more than a lifetime to construct. They were in a building program all the time. God is constructing his churches through us, and he is still building on them.

III. The Church is a PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOLY SPIRIT IN A PLACE.

“In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:21).

The church meets at a place at a particular time on a regular basis. It is not invisible but a house made of real people who have been called out of the world. It is not an invisible body but a real one.

There is no such thing as the Baptist church. There is a Baptist church at a certain place. We are not a part of the Baptist church. We are one of many Baptist churches affiliated together for missions, and fellowship. When you say “Baptist Church,” I ask, which one are you talking about?

You can only be at one place at one time. Do you live in a specific address? By the term “universal” we are saying it is everywhere.

Emphasizing denominationalism over a local is the wrong move. I would rather have a church built on the Word than just a big church without any convictions (John 17:17).

It’s like the argument people use against baptism. Someone says baptism doesn’t save anyone so why make it an issue. It’s because I’d rather stand before God baptized the right way than the wrong way.

If everyone is the church as I heard this week, who then is the pastor? What type of government will we have? Where do you meet? When do you meet? Do we emphasize Calvinism or Arminianism?

I believe in doctrinal purity over just shutting our eyes and saying whatever you believe is alright. Many give the impression “Don’t confuse me with the Bible. I’ve already made up my mind.” I’m amazed so many are so adamant on salvation, security of the believer, the Bible, but are loose on the church.

There are three big reasons why I believe the church is local:

A historical reason: Baptists have resisted the notion of a universal church encompassing nations, regions groups, etc. The refused to be forced into a state church they did not want to be a part of. Many lost their lives because being a part of the state church meant that they had to have their babies baptized. They would rather die for their faith at the hands of a state church than violate their consciences and go against God’s Word. You say it’s not that important. It is important because people have died for it.

A biblical reason: The term used in the Bible almost always refers to a local church. Some places it refers to the church as an institution but never as a universal invisible body.

These scriptures help us see the church as local: Acts 2:41, 1 Cor. 12:13. Eph. 2:21. Can you inhabit a spiritual invisible place.

Eph. 3:21: “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”

Eph. 5:30: “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (Does Christ have an invisible body?).

1 Pet. 2:5: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

I Cor. 5:3-4: “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,”

2 Cor. 2:6: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.”

A commonsensical reason: Do we have a house at a specific address? God has churches at specific places. Some say I don’t want to get that deep into it. It is a matter of doing the right thing, being a participating member of the local church. Would you rather have partial or full obedience to yourself as a parent?

J. M. Pendelton said,

“The churches in those early times were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by it’s own rulers and laws, for through the churches founded by the apostles had this particular difference shown to them, that they consulted in difficult cases yet they had no judicial authority over them no supremacy.”

IV. The Church is a PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH A PURPOSE.

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20).

The two great purposes of the church are:

(1) The Great Commandment:

“And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (Luke 10:27).

We must endeavor to keep or maintain unity as the bond of peace. God says if you can’t love others you can’t love Me (1 John 4:20-21).

“And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb 3:5-6).

We have building inspectors that look at houses or buildings. We have fire marshals. God is always checking us out to see how we are doing.

Just because we take a stand for morality does not mean we don’t want certain people in our church. We want them all to come but our textbook is the Bible, not people’s personal opinions. The church does not operate by focus groups but by God’s Word. That is the focus of this group.

(2) The Great Commission:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt 28:19-20).

You need to be in a local church because you need a place to practice the Great Commission. The Cooperative Program does just that. You don’t live everywhere; you live in a specific place. He doesn’t say that para-church groups can’t do some of the Great Commission. God’s design is that the churches do that.

The problem is that for the church to be effective it needs to be a verb instead of a noun. We are a verb when we take the gospel to people, baptizing, and teaching. This commission applies until the end of the world, because Christ is always with us. The last group of disciples died before the first century. However, He is with us if we evangelize, baptize and disciple people.

Baptism is an ordinance the church practices as an act of obedience, and it symbolizes the incorporation of the new believer into the body of Christ—the church. How can the church be the church if we fail to do the second thing Christ commanded us to do in the Great Commission?

There is strength in delegation. If you had 12 disciples go bad and even one stays true, you have not wasted your time. There are many things I don’t want to be affiliated with if I am in a universal, invisible church, but the Great Commission is accomplished through the local church.

Why is it important to believe in a local church free from government and ecclesiastical interference?  Felix Manz was drowned in Lake Geneva in 1525. Why, because he baptized believers only and refused to have the babies of his congregation baptized. The law said everyone was in the state reformed church instead of freely letting them chose.

Will we function as the body of Christ in the world today? When we understand who we are and what we need to be doing, we should be Christ’s body whatever we do.

By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Introduction/Summary

All denominations that broadly share the Reformation heritage share more beliefs in common (orthodox Nicean Christianity plus key Reformation beliefs) than beliefs on which we differ. Despite these many points of agreement, it is the points of agreement on which theological discussions tend to focus. In an earlier post entitled “The Middle Way,” I asserted that centrist Baptists are “the middle way” between Arminians and Calvinists/Presbyterians. As evidence for this claim, I listed twelve points of doctrinal disagreement between centrist Baptists and many Arminians. Now, in this series, I am pointing out nine points of difference between centrist Baptist beliefs and the Presbyterian/ Reformed tradition. These nine Baptist doctrinal distinctives I will discuss do not include the five point summary of Reformed soteriology (best known in the TULIP acronym–for a critique of five-point Calvinism from a centrist Baptist perspective see our book Whosoever Will). In fact, most of the nine points that I will be addressing were explicitly held by the Particular Baptists in contradistinction from the Presbyterian or Reformed theology from which they separated themselves. These, then, are distinctively Baptist beliefs. The first Baptist distinctive I addressed was a cluster of interrelated beliefs — soul competency, priesthood of all believers, and religious liberty. The second Baptist distinctive addressed was the age (or state) of accountability; the third Baptist distinctive I addressed was believer’s baptism (or “the gathered church;” and the fourth Baptist distinctive was baptism by mode of immersion, the fifth Baptist distinctive (in contrast with Presbyterian Calvinism) was baptism and the Lord’s Supper as symbolic ordinances, not sacraments; the sixth Baptist distinctive addressed congregational church polity (in contrast to Presbyterian elder rule); and the seventh Baptist distinctive, examined the autonomy of the local church and how it is not a hierarchical denomination. For the eighth Baptist distinctive, I will describe the two scriptural officers (Pastor/Bishop/Elder and Deacon) and how they are not three (Pastor/Bishop, Elder and Deacon).[1]

Let it be said that this series is in no way intended to diminish the practice and beliefs of fellow believers in other denominations. It is intended to clear up some of the nondenominational/ecumenical babble that all Christians believe the same things. There are real differences in doctrine between Presbyterians and Baptists. Each of us has the right and responsibility before God to interpret the Bible to the best of our ability and practice what it says.

This series is designed (as was the earlier article regarding the differences between Arminian denominations and Baptist) to define what those doctrinal differences are.

Distinctive Baptist Belief #8:

Two Scriptural Officers, not Three

While the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC has brought a reawakening of consideration of the role of elders in Baptist life, it is striking to see that the Calvinistic Particular Baptist confessions did not share this ecclesiology. Both the Second London Confession and the Philadelphia Confession identify two offices in a New Testament church. The first office is known variously as pastor, bishop, or elder, and the second office is of deacon. Clearly, pastors, bishops, and elders are seen as the same office in these Calvinistic Baptist confessions. In one of the rare places that the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message appears to reflect the language of the Philadelphia Confession, it identifies the two scriptural offices as “bishops, or elders, and deacons.” The subsequent 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statements omit reference to elders altogether, referring to just two scriptural offices, “pastors and deacons.”[2]

The meaning of the word “elder” as a position in church leadership has varied widely in Baptist life. My first pastorate was in a Texas church that is now over 135 years old, and was blessed to have its church minutes going back to its earliest days when it was literally in Indian territory. The pastor/preachers then were circuit riding preachers who usually went by the title of “elders.” In the historical Baptist tradition, “elders” are primarily pastor/preachers (often bivocational), not ruling elders in the Presbyterian sense.

In the SBC now, the “elders” terminology is currently used only in a small minority of churches. In a 2007 study conducted by LifeWay research (referenced in earlier articles in this series), 405 senior pastors were asked the question, “Which of the following best describes the primary decision-making process at your church?” Among the pastors polled, 42 percent said their church was congregation-led, while 30 percent said their church was pastor-led. The other options and responses, in descending order of frequency include: Committee- or team-led (6 percent); deacon-led (4 percent); elder-led (4 percent); led by a board or council other than elders (3 percent); staff-led (2 percent); and trustee-led (0 percent). Seven percent responded “other.”[3] Even among those which were described as “pastor-led” or “elders-led,” of course, for the overwhelming majority (if not all) of these churches, the ultimate authority for major decisions is a vote of the congregation. Most or all of even those few churches with elders function according to congregational governance, not elder rule.[4] Therefore, when Baptists use the word “elder,” they are usually not using it in the same way that Presbyterians use it.

One unfortunate phenomenon in the SBC is preachers at conferences or seminary chapels who ridicule and stereotype deacons as being obstinate, stubborn, unspiritual, and stupid. It’s a cheap and easy shot to make fun of deacons, but it is tragic, because the office of deacon was not a human invention. The office of deacon was created by God to meet a genuine need within the church (Acts 6:1-8). The office of deacon is consistent with Scripture, with Baptist ecclesiology and doctrinal confessions, and with the historic practice of Baptist churches. In Scripture, we see that the office of deacon is one of two valid offices created in the New Testament church (1 Tim. 3:1-13).[5] I would caution persons against diminishing an office that God has created.

Some younger ministers, responding to “horror stories” about “demon deacons” have replaced the role of deacons with elders. Some young ministers who have banned deacons to create elder boards have discovered they empowered the elder board enough to oppose and destroy their ministry at the church – the same thing they were worried about from deacons![6] Actually, whether we call them lay staff members, elders, deacons, or committee chairmen, they all come from the same group of church leaders. Elders are deacons with more power.

Personally, I’ve never experienced a demonic deacon. Deacons aren’t perfect, of course. I have experienced very human deacons who had strengths and weaknesses, just as do we all. I have experienced deacons whose convictions or judgment differed on some issues from that of their pastor. I have seen some deacon fellowships become more like of a board of directors, losing the focus on servanthood that the office was originally created to be. In rare cases, I have seen deacons who so disagreed strongly with the pastor’s leadership (or they were called upon to voice the disagreement with the pastor or staff by a significant segment of the congregation), that they forced a confrontation that led to the forced termination of the pastor’s employment or a split in the church fellowship. Of course, I have also seen pastors make serious mistakes in judgment and express a nonChristian spirit as well. But overwhelmingly, I have found deacons to be devout and dedicated Christian men who want the very best for the church and for God’s kingdom.

One recently popular perspective in Baptist life is described as a “plurality of elders,” in which ordained or lay leaders perform functions identified in other churches as “church staff.” Mark Dever has been a leading exponent of this plurality of elders perspective.[7] However, this is often not the creation of a third office or the practice of elder rule, but identifying lay or ordained ministers as elders. Nor is it normally inconsistent with congregational governance. I see nothing in the plurality of elders position (utilizing multiple persons in pastoral staff roles) that is at variance with historic Baptist confessions or practice. Furthermore, because the autonomy of the local congregation is foundational for Baptist ecclesiology, individual congregations can organize their leadership churches as they feel led to do so.

The SBC is a fellowship of smaller churches. According to figures from church annual reports gathered by the Leavell Center for Evangelism and Church Health at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, about 60 percent of our churches (roughly 26,000 of them) have 100 or less in worship attendance each week. Another 18 percent of the churches (roughly 7,700 churches) have 200 or fewer in worship attendance. So, a total of about 33,000 churches, or 78 percent of all our SBC churches are smaller churches. Many of these smaller churches typically have monthly business meetings to vote on virtually every initiative and financial matter. So, in the 98.5 percent of the 40,000 Southern Baptist churches which average fewer than 1,000 in their weekly worship services, practicing democratic processes and congregational polity is very functional.

However, the larger the church, the less practical it is for congregations to vote on every little issue. As churches grow larger, many have moved to a quarterly, semi-annual, or annual business meeting (with called meetings for other major matters). It’s just too much for the entire congregation to vote about every detail. This is particularly true in megachurches, midmegachurches, and (somewhat overlapping) multisite churches. There are 347 “midmegachurches” in the SBC (those averaging between 1,000 and 2,000 in weekly worship attendance) and 177 megachurches (churches averaging over 2,000 in weekly worship attendance).[8] The reality in midmegachurches and megachurches (and even more so with multisite churches)[9] is that congregational rule becomes tenuous.  The predominant number of these churches entrust some smaller group the responsibility to deal with daily operational decisions and ministry initiatives. That small group may be the church staff, the deacons, elders, or some key committees. But again, the ultimate authority resides in the congregation as a whole, and the congregation still has the power (if they are unhappy with how things are going) to fire the pastor, fire staff members, dismiss the deacons, sell the property, redo the budget, or whatever they feel led to do.

Having surveyed the variety of legitimate expressions of the meaning of “elder” in Southern Baptist life, from a perspective of Baptist doctrinal confessions and ecclesiology, churches that have a third office apart from pastors and deacons or institute elder rule have departed from Baptist historical doctrinal confessions and ecclesiology in this practice. This is one of the key ecclesiological differences between Baptists and Presbyterians.

In discussing the restoration of integrity in church membership, there has been a great resurgence in the biblical practice of church discipline.  Not that many Southern Baptist churches are initiating this biblical practice in their churches (personally I don’t know of any in our association), but there has been a grand discussion and even a resolution on church discipline (http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1189) offered at the 2008 SBC convention concerning this vital ministry to help a wayward brother or sister find their way back to Christ and full fellowship with the body.  I for one applaud this and hope it will take root and continue to grow.  But, as a pastor, I believe there is a bigger concern with how we accept members in the first place.  In other words, can we take care of any issues before someone becomes a member of the church?  It is my contention that many problems in our churches today are the result of poor admission traditions that have been practiced by our churches for at least the last 100 years.

The typical custom for accepting members among Southern Baptist churches is for a candidate to walk forward during the invitation.  Of course the normal questions are asked: “Have you received Jesus as your Lord and Savior and trust Him for the forgiveness of your sins?” and “Where and how were you baptized?” all the while checking the person for a pulse on their wrist.  While this parody is a bit of tongue in cheek, unfortunately, this short method of Q & A is often used as the congregation sings several verses of “Just as I Am.”  If the candidate correctly responds to both questions, the pastor then turns to those attending that morning (unfortunately, in most cases, some voting are non-members) for a vote on accepting this person as a member in good standing of the church.  In a sizable number of cases, the person has no idea of the church doctrines, covenant, order, or responsibilities of church membership.  What is most tragic is that the person says yes to these questions as a matter of rote and may not truly understand the gospel or salvation.  After all they were baptized as a kid, right?  Surely they are saved.  Unfortunately, I am finding more and more that people are looking to their baptism as their point of salvation, rather than to their conviction of sin before a Holy and Just God, seeking His mercy and grace through the atoning death of His Son, Jesus.

What’s the answer to this dilemma?  Baptist churches have not always been this way.  At one time, Baptist churches used to examine a candidate.  In 1774, a section of the Charleston Association’s “A Summary of Church Discipline” addresses how persons should be received into church membership.  Below is an excerpt:

“They should be persons of some competent knowledge of divine and spiritual things; who have not only knowledge of themselves, and of their lost state by nature, and of the way of salvation by Christ; but have some degree of knowledge of God in his nature, perfections, and words; and of Christ in his person as the son of God, of his proper deity, of his incarnation, of his offices as prophet, priest, and king; of justification by his righteousness, pardon by his blood, satisfaction by his sacrifice, and of his prevalent intercession.  And also of the Spirit of God; his person, offices and operations; and of the important truths of the gospel, and the doctrines of grace; or how otherwise should the church be the pillar and ground of truth?

Their lives and conversations ought to be such as becometh the gospel of Christ, Phil. 1:27 that is holy just and upright, Psalm 15:1, 2; if their practice contradicts their profession they are not to be admitted to church membership.  Holiness becomes the Lord’s house forever, Psalm 93:5.

They ought to be truly baptized in water, i.e., by immersion, upon profession of their faith, agreeable to the ancient practice of John the Baptist and the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, Matt. 3:6, John 3:23, Rom. 6:4, Acts 8:36-38.  It is allowed by all that baptism is essential to church communion and ought to precede it; there is not one instance in the Word of God of any being admitted without it . . .”

While I’ll agree that some of these items may be a bit extreme, this example shows that Baptist churches have been on a downward path since 1774 concerning the acceptance of church members.  Not only did a candidate need to know essential doctrinal matters, but it was also observed how a person’s life measured to their confession. From this example, there are some practical points we can derive.

First, after someone indicates his or her desire to become a member and before a vote is taken, the candidate ought to be required to complete an orientation class.

I believe a good time frame for this would be 6-8 one-hour sessions.  This orientation can include explaining such items as the gospel and salvation, the church’s statement of faith, her covenant, purpose and vision statements, the responsibilities of a church member, introduction of the staff and their responsibilities, various ministries of the church, church structure, a brief summary of church and Baptist history, the church budget, and how things work in the church concerning decisions and business meetings.  It would only be after this time of orientation and the candidate’s agreement with church doctrine, covenant, and order that the person would be admitted by a congregational vote.

Second, new member candidates can also be “yoked” with a mature church member or family during this time to help the new members become better acquainted with all aspects of church life and encourage them during these crucial first steps.

While some may ask if this is truly biblical (after all, didn’t the new believers at Pentecost all become members of the church that very same day?)  I believe that this process of church membership is not only biblical, but is essential for healthy growing churches that glorify Christ.  Pentecost was a special event that initiated the church.  If we want to hold ourselves to all that happened then, we would then sell all we have and share with others, and we would stay primarily in house churches and attend the Jewish temple or local synagogue.  While Pentecost was truly a God-inspired, God-powered event and that there are biblical truths to be gained from it, we also must look to the whole of Scripture.  As we read from the biblical account of problems and issues the early church faced as it grew, we find many warning passages against drifting away doctrinally, warning us against false prophets by commanding us to “test the spirits” to see “whether they are from God” (Matt. 7:15-20; Rom. 16:17–18; Gal. 1:6–9; Acts 20:28–31; 1 Tim. 1:3–7, 6:3–5; 2 Tim. 4:3–4, 1 John 4:1).

What is found in Scripture is that after the church was first birthed and then scattered, the Apostles’ ability to keep the church doctrinally pure was greatly diminished.  The New Testament wasn’t complete in the first century. This fed aberrant practices and beliefs that were promoted by those who were either uniformed (as was Apollos in Acts 18:24-26) or conceited and depraved (1 Tim. 6:3-5).  Although the New Testament has been completed for 1900 years, we still face these same battles.  A casual perusal of TBN should be sufficient to find many of these charlatans competing for viewers’ money and attention through false promises.  Some of these television preachers have a great influence on many pastors and churches and as such hold to beliefs that are more in line with 21^st century “name it and claim it” than 1^st century toil, struggle, and suffering.  We are also faced with the fact that many members are just mentally lazy.  They expect the pastor to constantly feed them with milk rather than the meat of digging deeper into God’s Word.  Because of busy lives, their own time of study and meditation on the Word of God is sorely lacking.  Also, pragmatism has become our first love in how we practice our faith.  I am finding more and more that many of my generation and even the generation ahead of me are biblically illiterate, not understanding the basics of our Baptist faith and practice.  Therefore, because of this, many problems in our churches can be traced to an unbiblical understanding of church, church membership, and salvation.  The pat answer of, “We are Baptists and this is how we’ve always done it” has never sufficed and it can’t now.

One final note, trying to do this will most likely be hard.  The traditional way of accepting members has been carved into stone for many.  Numerous members won’t see the need for this change because they consider it judgmentalism.  Consequently, understanding why this needs to be done may not happen for another generation, when those who are left look around and see more empty seats because of strife, division, and apathy towards the lost.  I hope and pray this is not the case.  But if we can start a nationwide discussion on how we accept church members and open our Bibles to this issue, maybe we can begin to build up healthy church members who are plugged into the teaching ministry of the church and are themselves fulfilling their own calling through their spiritual gifts as part of the body of Christ.  This is my hope and prayer for our future.

Robin Foster

There is a movement that seems to be sweeping our denomination and it is called Spontaneous Baptisms.  I for one believe, if done properly, we should not be concerned with this movement.  However, with every movement there comes some who refuse to adhere to the clear teaching of scripture and thus dumbs down the scriptural understanding.  Therefore, I call this “Baptism-lite”.  This phrase is taken from an article I saw referencing the Church of England and their uprising concerning the prayers being offered over the waters.  In the Church of England their Baptism has a salvific meaning to it and as such I would vehemently disagree with their practices and their thought that the Priests prayers does something special to the water.

Steven Furtick, Pastor of Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC, in a sermon he has prepared on his website concerning how to prepare for a spontaneous baptism service expresses some things that are completely tied to scripture and some things where he abandons the scripture to fuel his own particular beliefs. Concerning the meaning of baptism Furtick says; “Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change. The reason we dunk people all the way under the water is that Jesus went all the way into the grave and came back up again.” Amen and Amen!! PREACH IT, PREACHER!!!!! “Great opportunities necessitate immediate obedience.”  “Today my mom is choosing it to be her spiritual birthday.” “This has nothing to do with you joining a church.” This is where Furtick leaves the scripture.  Baptism has more scriptural evidence with becoming a part of a local body than it does with identifying a spiritual birthday.  Thus, the baptisms that are performed at Elevation have nothing to do with church membership because Elevation does not have a membership role.  When Elevation baptizes people they view this as baptizing them into the “universal” church and nothing to do with accountability within the local community of baptized believers we refer to as the local church.

An article in the Christian Index listed three churches that perform spontaneous baptisms.  In this article there is a very clear presentation concerning the doctrine of baptism.  According to Dr. Bryant Wright, Pastor of Johnson Ferry Baptist and our current SBC President, his church is in prayer weeks before the spontaneous baptism service and they counsel people when they come forward concerning their relationship with Christ and the meaning of baptism.  Dr. Wright says:

“Prior to our first spontaneous baptismal service we told the deacons, elders and staff so they could be in prayer…we asked everyone to consider being baptized by immersion if: (1) they had never trusted Christ for their salvation, but were ready to do so that morning; (2) if they had become a believer after being baptized (maybe baptized as a child, but later came to faith in Christ as an adult); (3) if they had already been baptized but by means other than immersion; or (4) if they were a believer who had never been baptized at all….we asked everyone to get their relationship right with Christ first, then follow through in obedience with baptism.”

Certainly this type of baptism service where the doctrine of baptism is clearly spelled out to the participants would be something everyone can celebrate. However, if these participants are not seen as coming into that local church body, then we certainly have a very serious doctrinal error. Dr. Alan Hix, Associate professor of Christian Studies at Shorter College said it this way:

“The implications for Baptist polity seem clear. Believer’s baptism is a step of obedience following conversion, which initiates the new believer into the Christian fellowship. Any broader application of baptism risks the depreciating of its significance as a testimony of a new covenant relationship of the believer with God and that believer’s membership in the people of God.”

“The physical expression of God’s people is the local church, and it is the church that is charged with the mission of carrying out Christ’s command to baptize those who have expressed faith in him.”

“This also has implications for those Baptists who have recently engaged in ‘spontaneous’ baptismal services in which people are generally baptized without intention of church membership, or who come from denominations which practice infant baptism and request immersion and then return to their denomination. This practice not only ignores the biblical model of the role of baptism as an entrance to church membership, but it also overlooks its observance as an act of obedience following conversion.”

“If a believer from a denomination that practices infant baptism wishes believer’s immersion but wants to remain in his or her tradition, the better response for us as Baptists is to offer our baptisteries for the petitioner’s own pastor to immerse them. I have done that on several occasions for persons in local Methodist congregations.”

If we truly believe our work involves the “Kingdom of God” and not the “kingdom of our personal platforms” then why not allow another congregation to baptize their own members?  Many times we become so enamored with making certain we have the numbers for Nashville that we forget the needs of the natives.  Our biggest concern should not be whether we baptize more than the next church but whether we are presenting the Gospel.  Therefore, due to the problem in presenting the Gospel, the appearance of baptismal regeneration, and the voracious appetite of American consumerism, I feel we should proceed with great caution when it concerns spontaneous baptism.

Presenting the Gospel

Part of the reason that “spontaneous baptisms” has become so popular is the excitement that surrounds a baptismal service.  We have promoted these services for the adults the same way one church, in the past, promoted baptizing children–with a fire truck baptistery.   While some spoke against a church using such a gimmick to get children to be baptized those same ones seem silent on this gimmick.  To have a service where we are calling people to make a decision for baptism on the spot reveals that the Gospel was never clearly presented to the person in the first place.  Do not get me wrong; I am not promoting baptismal regeneration.  However, I am saying that when the Gospel is clearly presented there is also presented truths about an obedient walk.  The Gospel is not about removing the past only; it is about the renewed life for the future.  That renewed life is one of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ.  If we do not teach such obedience and how the first step to that obedience is Baptism by immersion–as the Bible teaches–we have not clearly presented the good news of Jesus Christ.  We have presented a convoluted Gospel much like a Golden Corral buffet–where one enters and has a right to choose or refuse what one places on their plate.  Salvation is not a buffet line.  Salvation is all about Jesus and as a result it is the repenting of one’s sins, asking Jesus to come live in their life, surrendering to Jesus as Lord and following in obedience to Him.  Anything short of that, presented to one that is lost, is a convoluted presentation.  Any convoluted presentation that is accepted into the life of the church results in making people two-fold the children of Satan.

Baptismal Regeneration

The way “spontaneous baptism” services appear to the average attendee is you are asking him/her to accept salvation and baptism is needed for salvation to take place.  It isn’t said in so many words but it is certainly implied.  For example Brian Bloye, pastor of West Ridge Church in Dallas says:

“It (the spontaneous baptismal service) is for people to step out in faith and identify with Christ. We have a lot of attenders from other denominations who are more comfortable participating in this way.”

Brother Bloye goes on to say they have teams on hand to make certain the ones coming forward are making a decision for Christ.  To be completely fair, West Ridge has a statement on their website concerning Baptism and how it is not salvation.  However, just the implication that coming forward, spontaneously, for baptism indicates a mindset that says; “I am going to be baptized and thus this is my spiritual birthday.”  Years from now, when a candidate that participated in a spontaneous baptism is asked about their salvation one may in all likelihood hear, “I got baptized in a spontaneous baptism service.”  May I remind us of one of the clear teaching in Evangelism Explosion to the qualifying question was that someone referencing their baptism was proof they probably were not saved? Also, one huge difference exists here as evangelism seems to be losing its zeal among Southern Baptist. Salvation is focused on a relationship with Jesus; it is not focused on identifying with Jesus through the excitement of being baptized.

As a FAITH pastor one of the criticisms I took on the chin was all the people whose homes we left that never followed up with baptism.  Another criticism I took on the chin was the people that did follow-up with baptism but after about six months we could not find them. I will take that on the chin because we evidently missed something or we did not do follow-up discipleship as we should.  But, spontaneous baptism is a monster that needs to be nailed down.  Why?  When the gospel is presented in the home, on the street, in a coffee shop, etc. etc. you then invite them to the next step of their Christian walk.  When spontaneous baptism is presented the very first step is missed completely–the blood atoning work of Jesus Christ that is needed for the salvation.  We seem to have, unknowingly, presented the water in the baptistery, pool, pond, lake, or ocean, as the necessary element to wash away our sins.  As the old hymn of the faith says: What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the water from the Baptistery?  No, nothing can wash away my sins but the blood of Jesus!

A Constant Consumerism Mentality

Spontaneous baptisms seem to rest on giving the people what they want.  Many participating in these spontaneous baptism services do not join the local church body.  If we are honest with ourselves, we have to confess that these events do not match our theology.  Why do I say that?  Many of these pastors will tell you that they are not into counting numbers, but they list these baptisms on their ACP’s, but announce they are not asking the participants to join the local church.  These pastors will tell you that they do not believe baptism saves anyone, but they do these events to remove the barriers that many use to keep from being baptized.  Why do these churches post the over 500-1000 baptisms but only post 300-400 increase in membership roles?  If I have to coax a person to get baptized by telling them it isn’t about joining a church, then I have denied a clear teaching of Scripture.  If these are truly saved people why are they not members of the church?  Which brings us to another barrier that seems to be an issue—baptism by immersion.  This excuse reveals evidences that we are not depending on the Holy Spirit to direct the new believer.  We are merely giving the people what they want. Dr. Steven Kimmel, pastor of First Baptist Smyrna said it better than anyone else I have read in his article on this subject.

“Having a candidate stand in the baptistry and declare (in word or effect), ‘I surrender my life to the Lordship of Christ,’ while in the very same instance declare (in word or effect), ‘But, I’m not prepared to be accountable or committed to the body of Christ,’ is a contradictory and confusing message for us to send.”

Conclusion

When the Gospel is clearly presented, baptism is no longer a question.  It may be that a discipleship class for New Christians is something a church needs to consistently offer.  We have heard it argued that spontaneous baptisms remove the barriers.  Could it be that the only barrier for baptism is merely what we refer to as old-fashioned discipleship?  We have heard it said that spontaneous baptism enables a person to walk in obedience to Jesus Christ.  Could it be that we are making spontaneous baptisms appear to a lost person as salvation?  Also, if a survey were commissioned in some of these churches, I believe, it will reveal that many reference their baptism as their salvation.  We have heard it said that many people will not get baptized by themselves or as a planned event.  Could it be that we find ourselves, as pastors, shaping a gospel filter that is more closely defined to the rampant consumerism that has infected the church?  This consumerism has even taken us to the very role assigned for the pulpit?  Every church, looking for a new pastor, wants a 25 year old pastor with a beautiful wife that sings or plays a musical instrument, has his doctorate, has three perfectly well mannered 4-year-old children, and twenty years of pastoral experience.  It certainly appears that many pastors today become more concerned with the significant numbers publicly presented than they are with the Spiritual Needs of the People.

Tim Rogers

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 19^th 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!

The Fault Lines in Southern Baptist Life

In the first two 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.” Attempting to describe this real but somewhat difficult-to-define fault line, which involves a cluster of theological/ecclesiological/methodological issues but may be primarily more a matter of ethos, was the subject of the first section of my post.

I also suggested that the “Baptist identify” fault line is just one fault line in Southern Baptist life.  In fact, there is a series of other interconnected, partially overlapping, and partially converging fault lines in the SBC – smaller churches vs. megachurches, anti-GCR vs. pro-GCR, majority Baptist theology vs. Reformed theology, advocates of associations and state convention vs. detractors of associations and state convention, Cooperative Program as a high value vs. Cooperative Program as a tertiary value, etc.  An eruption in one of the fault lines sets off shockwaves in each of these other interconnected fault lines.  In the second section of this post, I attempted to unpack another of these fault lines in SBC life, and one that is sometimes overlooked – between the smaller churches and the megachurches.

So, as a result of all these interconnected fault lines, I suggested that we have more fragmentation than integration, and the “center” of Southern Baptist life is getting smaller and smaller.  Each of the interest groups talks with people in their own group (and we all agree that the other side is wrong).  We may talk to or at other groups, but we do not talk with other groups. I remarked that something must change if we are to have a future.  In fact, it appears to me that there are just two possible futures or “solutions” for the divisions and fault lines within the SBC.  To that part of my long-promised task I now turn.

The “Two Ways” — Toward a Solution and a Future

Let me say first that continuing in our current path indefinitely is not an option.  If our fault lines were just dormant old volcanoes that had not erupted in thousands of years, we would be fine.  But these are fault lines with almost weekly activity.  They are always erupting, always stirring things up.  The rhetoric between the various sides is truly believed by its speakers, on the one hand, and truly hurtful to its recipients, on the other.  Our current path can only lead to decline and division.

Although most of the churches in which I have served as pastor, interim pastor, or church member were unified and positive, I have served as interim or supply preacher in one or two churches who had a history of arguing within the fellowship.  It became immediately obvious to me that people would not join that church because they did not want to be involved in an argument.  Denominations aren’t that different.  Church and denominational fights are fascinating to watch (like that car accident you can’t take your eyes off of), but no fun to be a participant in.  So, if the current path we are on has no future, what are our options?  The Old Testament wisdom literature often speaks of the “two ways” of life that are open to a person. Basically, as best I can see, there are only two possible divergent futures for the SBC.

Way One:  The Way of Unity through Division
(the “in Adam” option)

One direction is that we continue bickering over issues until we either have a series of splinters or one big split.  The truth is, we cannot continue in the path we are going without this as a logical result. Some might have the illusion of “winning” the other side over, but I regard that option as simply impossible.  I myself have strong opinions on many of these issues, as most of us do regarding these fault lines.  I believe that the Bible teaches what I believe, just as people do who see these issues differently. I cannot imagine me being won over to the other side, and I cannot imagine me winning over many people from the opposite side. In fact, the truth is that if one side “wins” (even “my” side), we all lose. A pastor who “wins” a narrow vote but embitters many key members of the congregation has not won.  Sometimes we must take a courageous and unpopular stand on a matter of conscience or principle, but normally only a “win/win” victory is a true victory in a Christian fellowship. One side “winning” in the SBC will almost inevitably produce splinters or a split.

In many ways, splintering or splitting the SBC would be a tragedy, but in some sense it might be a good thing.   If two people can’t walk together unless they agree (Amos 3:3), it seems to me that people on either side of these divides cannot easily walk together and serve together, either.  The chasms in Baptist life are deep, with persons holding deeply held beliefs on either side. If we cannot agree, or agree to disagree, it would be better to break into two or more groups than to continue battling over these points.

The SBC/Cooperative Baptist Fellowship situation is a case in point.  In the mid-1980s, a significant battle was going on in the SBC between “conservatives” and “moderates.” Many harsh things were said back and forth.  Finally, the CBF churches began to have their own meetings, print their own literature, collect their own offerings, support their own educational institutions, and send their own missionaries.  While many CBF churches may still be technically present in the SBC, they now function essentially as a separate group.  How has that worked out?  The CBF is happier working with like-minded persons, and the SBC is happier working with like-minded persons.  So, what was once a major point of contention in the SBC in the 1980s has now yielded two groups who are happier being separate than together.

Applied to our current setting, it might mean that either several splinters need to happen in order for people to “get happy,” or perhaps a single significant split.  Any of the fault lines that I have mentioned are candidates for splinters or a split.  I’m not smart enough to know which splinters or splits would happen in actuality, but the high/low Baptist identity fault line, the traditional/contemporary fault line, and the majority Baptist/Reformed theology fault line appear to me to be the most likely candidates.

That is one possible future – not the best future, I believe, but a possible and an acceptable one. If you’ll allow me an analogy from Romans 5, I’ll describe this option as an “in Adam” option – that is, I think such splinters or splits would be a reflection of our only partially sanctified natural human nature and fallenness, and would be essentially a confession of our inability to work together in one spirit.  In fact, one might trace this Adamic lineage back to the Tower of Babel in Genesis 10 – people speaking different languages and becoming confounded with each other.  (It might be objected that the analogy breaks down, as indeed it does, in that it was God who introduced the languages as punishment for human arrogance and pride for building a great edifice into the heaven…. Well, perhaps the analogy is not that far off after all…).  In fact, there may be no better analogy to contemporary Baptist life.  In our Baptist Babel, we are speaking different languages in our various groups, not the same language.  We use terms in different ways, confounding and frustrating each other.  However, as negative as Babel was, each tongue and people group continued to exist and thrive.  So it can be with us.

Might God permit such a division?  I think He would.  Like the bill of divorcement (Mark 10:2-9), which falls short of His ideal of marriage being “one,” this division would separate what God has joined together in the church. But God might permit it because of the hardness of our hearts as a concession to human weakness, just as He did the bill of divorcement.  It might also be that this option becomes necessary because the two sides of a chasm simply have “irreconcilable differences” – i.e., they believe such different things about crucial issues that they simply cannot in good conscience continue to walk together.  So it might be that a split or series of splinters might produce more unity in the long run than struggling to hold hands across a chasm over which there appears to be no bridge.  Through division, each group can achieve unity with like-minded believers.

I have described “Way One” as an expression of our natural human inclinations “in Adam,” and as a functionally necessary tragedy.  In Way One, 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.  Although I believe God might allow this option, I obviously do not regard this as God’s ideal.  Tomorrow, I will propose the second alternative, what I am labeling the “in Christ” option:  Unity through Cooperation.

Steve Lemke

“Young, Southern Baptist, and . . . Irrelevant?”

In the first part of this article, I reflected on Brad Whitt’s article “Young, Southern Baptist, . . . and Irrelevant?,” which was published in the South Carolina state Baptist Courier, on his own blog, and in six additional Baptist state papers. Responses to Whitt’s article, pro and con, have weighed in all over the country in 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.”

I observed, for those who might have missed it, that the title of Whitt’s article appeared to be an allusion to an oft-referenced article in the 2006 issue of Christianity Today, entitled “Young, Restless, and Reformed:  Calvinism is Making a Comeback and Shaking Up the Church,” by Collin Hansen, which he later expanded into a book by a similar title, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. I also noted that many of the “new Calvinists” or “neoCalvinists” about whom Hansen wrote seem to fit the description of what Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer call “Reformed Relevants.” Whitt retained “young,” since he is a younger pastor, and substituted “Southern Baptist . . . Irrelevant?” instead of “Restless and Reformed” or “Reformed Relevants.”  Obviously, Whitt thinks that his purported irrelevance has been greatly exaggerated.

The “Baptist Identity” Fault Line and Other Converging Fault Lines

What do we make of the furor (pro and con) created by Whitt’s article? Obviously, Brad has touched a nerve in Southern Baptist life.  My observation was that Whitt’s article and the response to it reveals one of the deepest fault lines in the SBC – between what I thought Whitt  might describe as those who have a “high Baptist identity” and those who have a “low to moderate Baptist identity.”  I expressed that though this fault line is real, it is difficult to define clearly.  It does involve a cluster of theological/ecclesiological/ methodological issues, especially about how to “do church,” but I noted that the primary difference between them may be more of an ethos than clearly defined theological issues.  I then tried to suggest a few examples about how these two perspectives might differ on a few issues, though these examples were merely suggestive or illustrative examples.  I might point out that all any neutral observer would need to do in order to recognize such a fault line is to read the many responses to my post and to Whitt’s article.  The two sides of the chasm reflect a strong and sometimes emotional reaction against each other, and an obvious difference of perspective.

I then suggested that the “Baptist identify” fault line is just one fault line in Southern Baptist life.  In fact, there is a series of other interconnected, partially overlapping, and partially converging fault lines in the SBC – smaller churches vs. megachurches, anti-GCR vs. pro-GCR, majority Baptist theology vs. Reformed theology, advocates of associations and state convention vs. detractors of associations and state convention, Cooperative Program as a high value vs. Cooperative Program as a tertiary value, etc.  These fault lines are not identical, though they may parallel and converge at times.  But an eruption in one of the fault lines sets off shockwaves in each of these other fault lines, and hence a great deal of disagreement within the larger Southern Baptist fellowship.

I’ll not “unpack” all of these fault lines – perhaps they are largely self-explanatory.  Among these tensions, I’ve probably participated personally more in the “majority Baptist theology” vs. “Reformed Baptist theology” discussions (from the perspective of majority Baptist theology) in both the book co-edited by David Allen and me, Whosoever Will:  A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, and in other presentations and publications such as “What Is a Baptist:  Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians,” so I’ll not comment further on that issue, other than to reference two recent blog posts at SBC Tomorrow (by Peter Lumpkins) and From Law to Grace (by Howell Scott) who reference this precise fault line in their comments.

However, I believe that one of the most overlooked fissures in Southern Baptist life is the opening chasm between smaller traditional churches and the larger megachurches.  By far, the majority of churches in the SBC are smaller churches.  According to figures from church annual reports gathered by the Leavell Center for Evangelism and Church Health at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, about 60 percent of our churches (roughly 26,000 of them) have 100 or less in worship attendance each week.  Another 18 percent of the churches (roughly 7,700 churches) have 200 or fewer in worship attendance.  So, a total of about 33,000 churches, or 78 percent of all our SBC churches are smaller churches. In contrast, just 580 churches in the SBC have 1,000 or more in worship attendance each week (just over 1 percent of SBC churches). Not all the smaller churches are traditionalist; indeed, many of the smaller churches are church plants with a contemporary style.  But the overwhelming majority of these 26,000 smaller churches are traditionalist in style, whether located in rural, suburban, or urban settings.  At the same time, not all larger churches have a contemporary style; some have blended services or multiple services with several various worship styles. But most do tend to be more contemporary in style and more open to innovation in methodology.

The majority of churches in the SBC being smaller is also reflected in the employment status of their pastors.  About 10,000 pastors of Southern Baptist churches are bivocational or part-time, which is about 23 percent of all SBC pastors.  Given the size of their numbers, this group appears to be consistently overlooked and underrepresented in Convention life.  Overlooking the needs of smaller churches has produced a “disconnect” from the SBC with many smaller churches, and the underrepresentation in Convention forums has produced resentment on the part of some smaller church pastors.  In the early days of the Conservative Resurgence, there seemed to be a much closer connection between megachurch pastors and small church pastors, but for whatever reason, that relationship seems to have cooled.  Although most pastors admire and respect the preaching and leadership of megachurch pastors as individuals in light of their obvious success, I have heard more difficult-to-define negative perceptions than I have in the previous years.

I first became aware of this fault line while pastoring my first church in Texas.  Frank Page and I were doctoral students at Southwestern Seminary, and we served as pastors of smaller churches in the same (Palo Pinto) association – he at First Baptist Church of Possum Kingdom Lake, and me at First Baptist Church in Santo. When I took my people to training events such as Sunday School training conferences, they were angered that they were presented a “one size fits all” presentation from a large Dallas church which had virtually nothing in common with how our churches functioned or the people to whom we ministered. At the same time, though the church in which I served was a small town church, it was not unusual for us to have a third of the population of the entire community attending our church on any given Sunday.  Although a large church like First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest church in the SBC at that time) would always get the denominational awards for having the most baptisms and members, some of us small town pastors mused that these statistics might not be the best evaluation of effectiveness.  If FBC Dallas reached the same proportion of their community that we did each Sunday, they would have about 800,000 people in church each week!

However, although this big church/smaller church tension has been present in convention life a long time, it seems to be coming to a head now in a more pointed way.  I was struck in 2004 when Bobby Welch, a popular pastor of a large church in Florida and designer of the FAITH evangelism program, was the consensus nominee for President of the SBC.  However, a pastor from a small rural church in North Carolina was unexpectedly nominated against him, and he amazingly garnered about a third of the vote.  I can’t imagine anyone not liking someone as winsome, evangelistic, and positive as Bobby Welch, so I don’t think these votes were against Welch.  Some people told me that they were voting against a process in which they perceived that a small group of key pastors to be presenting one agreed upon nominee each year—and that nominee always seemed to be a megachurch pastor.  Perceiving the choice to be made by “power brokers” in a “smoke-filled room” (not literally, of course!), some of those voting for the rural church pastor were apparently making a protest vote against this process. Of course, almost all the Presidents of the SBC in its history have been large church pastors or entity heads, and they have been nominated by key denominational leaders.  However, there seems to be more distrust of the process now than in previous years.

This dynamic also seemed evident in some of the question and answer times in public meetings sponsored by the GCR Committee, with some small church pastors pointedly challenging large church pastors on various issues. This tension found organizational expression more recently with the creation of the SBC Majority Initiative, which sought to increase the number of pastors and members of smaller churches in SBC agency board appointments, and to increase their profile in other SBC settings.

There is much misunderstanding and mistrust here – and hurt and frustration on each side as well. Megachurch pastors were angered when their perception was that SBC officials were establishing a given percentage of giving through the Cooperative Program as litmus test for serving in SBC office, when some of them had been approached personally by IMB and NAMB leaders beseeching them to functionally redirect funds from CP to give directly to support special mission projects.  (There is only so much money in the pot, so to give significantly to one usually requires cutting the other). They gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to direct missions efforts, and thus less through the Cooperative Program. But then they were criticized or discounted for candidacy to SBC offices because their CP contribution was smaller. Also, megachurches must usually build new facilities to accommodate their worshippers, and thus face the challenge of paying off significant building and interest costs, as well as personnel and program costs to support their great ministries.

On the other hand, smaller church pastors were suspicious that larger church pastors were downplaying the Cooperative Program percentage giving just so they could be candidates for elective office in the SBC, and understood some aspects of the GCR to allow for such non-CP giving to “count” for their “credit” when evaluating their church’s commitments and contributions to missions. And the smaller church pastors feel proportionally underrepresented on SBC platforms and entity board appointments. There are probably some differences between the two groups in areas such as worship styles and openness to innovation as well.  Let me be very clear—my point is not to side with smaller churches or larger churches here; my point is just to be descriptive in illustrating that this has become a considerable fault line in SBC life.

So, what impact does all this have on the SBC? Given all these microdivisions within the SBC, when we get together for our annual meeting, we are (in a way) like the Democratic party – not so much a single unified party, but a combination of special interest groups.  You could say that we have become such a “big tent” filled with so many diverse perspectives that we are particularly vulnerable to significant disagreements within the fellowship.  Diversity is good, but division is not. We have more fragmentation than integration, and the center of Southern Baptist life is getting smaller and smaller. We seem to be moving away from the center, not toward the center.  Each of the interest groups talks with people in their own group (and we all agree that the other side is wrong).  We may talk to or at other groups, but we do not talk with other groups.

Something must change if we are to have a future.  In fact, it appears to me that there are just two possible futures or “solutions” for the fault lines that fracture the SBC.  That will be the subject of my last post in this article, as I suggest two possible paths as we move toward the future.

Next:  “The Shot Heard ‘Round the SBC, Part C:  The Two Paths”

Steve Lemke

Brad Whitt and “Southern Baptist Irrelevants”

Brad Whitt fired the shot heard ‘round the SBC about a month ago when he published his article “Young, Southern Baptist, . . . and Irrelevant?” in the South Carolina state Baptist Courier and on his own blog.  In essence, Whitt expressed the concern that traditional Southern Baptist churches like his own were feeling marginalized and trivialized as “irrelevant” in many forums in Southern Baptist life. It created quite a furor, with some thanking Whitt for voicing “how I’ve felt for years,” while others criticizing him or saying that the concerns he voiced were unfounded.  Six additional state Baptist papers published the article, and discussions in blogs and Facebook from all over the country weighed in on the validity of Whitt’s concerns.  Whitt, a graduate of Union University, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, serves as Pastor of Temple Baptist Church in Simpsonville, South Carolina, and has been the President of the South Carolina Baptist Pastor’s Conference. He has now posted his response to these many comments on his blog in an article entitled, “The Challenge for Contributing, Committed Southern Baptists.”

Whitt’s article appears to be a bit of a parody of a much ballyhooed article in the September 22, 2006 issue of Christianity Today, entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed:  Calvinism is Making a Comeback and Shaking Up the Church,” by Collin Hansen, which he later expanded into a book by a similar title, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. (I am quoted in both by Hansen, although he evidently wanted me to play the role in his article of naysayer against Calvinism, so the quotes he utilized did not reflect the more nuanced answers that I gave in both the paper he quoted and our brief telephone interview).  Many of the “new Calvinists” or “neoCalvinists” of whom Hansen wrote befit the label provided by both Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer of “Reformed Relevants.” Driscoll defines “Reformed Relevants” as “theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures” (Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review, n. s., 3, no. 2, Spring 2006, 89-90). If Whitt intended to reference Hansen’s article, you’ll note that he retained “young,” and substituted “Southern Baptist . . . Irrelevant?” instead of “Restless and Reformed” or “Reformed Relevants.”  So, if this reading is correct, Whitt is a young pastor who is content (not restless) with a clear Southern Baptist identity, and he is resistant to the notion that only the “Reformed Relevants” corner the market on relevance.  Rather, he is saying, he is a young pastor who is a “Southern Baptist . . . Irrelevant?” rather than a “Reformed Relevant.”  Obviously, by the question mark, he does not consider himself to be as irrelevant as others might suggest.

Revealing the Fault Line

What do we make of the “Brad Whitt phenomenon”?  Obviously, Brad has touched a nerve in Southern Baptist life.  In fact, his article and its response may reveal one of the deepest fault lines in the SBC.  If I understand Whitt correctly, that fault line would be between what might be called those who have a “high Baptist identity” and those who have a “low to moderate Baptist identity.”  There may be better nomenclature than this, since those who fit the description of the “low to moderate Baptist identity” may not feel comfortable with that label, but it does seem to finger the distinction that Whitt has in mind.  Though it varies from situation to situation, this fault line is manifested in many ways – commitment to Cooperative Program giving, prominent use of “Baptist” in the church name and identity, commitment to distinctively Baptist doctrinal beliefs, and a cluster of ecclesiological/methodological issues about how to “do church.”  These two groups are difficult to define, in that they overlap each other at many points.  Both sides are Bible-believing evangelicals with a Southern Baptist slant. The difference between them may be more of an ethos than clearly defined lines or labels, but it definitely does have theological implications, particularly with reference to Theology, Christology, Pneumatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Much of the “pushback” reaction expressed against Whitt’s original article zoned in on some of the specific illustrations he used about stylistic issues such as the pastor’s attire.  The larger issue he was raising (be it theological, ethological, or traditional) seemed at times to get lost in the details.  The problem is that it is hard to generalize or illustrate these differences of ethos without overstating the case or stereotyping.  Hence, none of the illustrations which follow in the depiction of the contrast between the two perspectives are universally true, but are merely suggestive of the ethos of the two perspectives.

The contrast that Whitt appeared to be expressing was that the “high Baptist identity” churches tend to have a more traditional or blended worship style, and are very conservative on a cluster of ethical issues (with a focus on homosexuality, gender roles, and right to life issues).  The “high Baptist identity” folk tend to be more appreciative of and involved in the associational and state convention work of Baptists, and to utilize the Baptist “name brand” materials (LifeWay, etc.) by default unless there is a reason not to do so.  They tend to place a high premium on discipling their new members in “the Baptist way,” and normally structure their discipleship structures in programmatic ways recommended by the denomination. The “high Baptist identity” churches are scandalized by “low/moderate Baptist identity” pastors who curse, advocate moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages, who endorse different ethical agendas such as environmental and social justice issues, and who actively engage marginalized groups (such as homosexuals).

The “low Baptist identity” churches tend to be more contemporary in worship style, and more open to innovative methodologies and perspectives. They tend to have less brand loyalty, and to utilize what they perceive to the most effective or most affordable products or programs, regardless of the name brand, rather than necessarily being committed to Baptist published materials or institutions.  They tend to have a somewhat more ecumenical approach, with a greater sense of identity with the broader Christian community, including other denominations.    The “low/moderate Baptist identity” churches find “high Baptist identity” churches to be old-fashioned, out of touch, and irrelevant to the contemporary setting (and hence the title of Whitt’s original article).

Converging Fault Lines and a Solution

The “Baptist identity” fault line is by no means the only fault line in Southern Baptist life.  It is connected with a series of other interconnected, overlapping, and converging fault lines – smaller churches vs. megachurches, anti-GCR vs. pro-GCR, majority Baptist theology vs. Reformed theology, advocates of associations and state convention vs. detractors of associations and state convention, Cooperative Program as a high value vs. Cooperative Program as a tertiary value, etc.  These fault lines are not identical, though they may parallel and converge at times.  But an earthquake in one of the fault lines sets off shockwaves in each of these other fault lines.

In Part B, of this article, I intend to “chase out” some of these additional fault lines in Southern Baptist life, and propose two possible futures or solutions for these fractures in SBC life.

Steve Lemke