By Gary Ledbetter, Director of Communications of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, and Editor of the Southern Baptist Texan

The first report of the committee appointed by SBC President Bryant Wright to consider a new name for the SBC indicates that they know their job is a hot potato. Chairman Jimmy Draper assured us that they are approaching the task prayerfully and deliberately. He also made clear that the committee does not favor changing the word “Baptist” in our convention’s name. As expected, “Southern,” seen as some to be an inappropriately regional identification, and “Convention,” with its institutional flavor, are up for grabs.

I’m not surprised by anything Dr. Draper has said up to this point and it is good that he has nailed down that we will continue to be called something Baptist for the foreseeable future. But with that communication from the ad hoc committee, I’m comfortable to sit back and wait for their final report.

I can’t help but wonder if those most dissatisfied with the convention’s current name will be eased by any response that retains the word “Baptist,” though. Some have actually found the term “Baptist” problematic for their ministries. Maybe it’s for embarrassments like Westboro Baptist “Church” (not Southern Baptist but many don’t know) or things we have done like the Disney boycott. Some churches may find a broader base of attenders by not leading with “Baptist.”

Thus, there’s a wave of “we’re still a Southern Baptist church, but we’d rather meet you before you know that” thinking. Many churches formerly “First Baptist [your city]” or “[your community] Baptist Church” now do business as simply “[your community name] Church” or “The Church at [your community name].” Some are more creative still, like Connection Church, launched in South Dakota by my friend Doug Hixson. I don’t really want to argue that your church answers to me or anyone else for the name you choose. I’m arguing instead that if you’re committed to Southern Baptists but are changing the sign out front to something more generic than Calvary Baptist Church, you’ve started down a more difficult road than you might think.

My family attended a Willow Creek-style church in a Midwestern city for about a year. It wasn’t called a Baptist church but we knew it was affiliated with other SBC churches on three different levels. As we considered membership, we began to ask those in our Sunday School class about the denominational identity of the church. They didn’t know we were Southern Baptist. Neither did our teacher know. We were interested to know how the church participated in cooperative missions so we asked a staff member (an SBC seminary grad) we’d met. He couldn’t answer our question but said he would find out. He brought us a budget summary that did not address our question to any discernable degree. We had to talk to the pastor to find out how the church we were planning to join was involved with other Southern Baptist churches for the purpose of missions. As best I could tell, few others knew the pastor’s vision for the church’s denominational involvement. I’ve heard similar stories from members of other churches for over a decade. The dissipation of Baptist identity within those churches was not the intent of church leaders as they chose a name or rename for their church. And yet, there seems to be an inevitable pull toward a more vague identity.

It sounds simplistic but having Baptist in the name means that the pastor doesn’t have to often say from the pulpit, “We are a Baptist church.” In churches with or without the formal Baptist designation, I’m saying he should do just that, and then he should explain why being Baptist matters.

It matters because Baptist churches have been key advocates for religious liberty in America. Our government’s occasional efforts to encourage freedom of conscience for people around the world are the legacy of Baptists in the United States. Baptists advocate for liberty because we were discouraged, even persecuted by other denominations of the time for preaching the gospel without their permission.

It also matters because Baptists in the U.S. have been among the most, if not the most ardent and effective advocates for missions in every place. That’s our heritage but it’s not just the past. We are still working hard to target the remaining unreached peoples of the world. We have a system that serves this purpose and we have a plan to address this goal. Yes, others are doing missions and smaller groups may be more flexible than our large enterprise; but when we call ourselves “Baptist,” we’re saying that we’re committed and poised to work together for the spread of the gospel.

Being Baptist matters because churches, made up of redeemed people who talk to God, operate under the direct headship of our Lord and Savior. No hierarchy and no outside conclave should interfere in that relationship. Self-governing churches made up of people who discern the will of God in community with other like-minded believers are a very Baptist interpretation of biblical (and Reformation) doctrine. Non-denominational churches may operate this way; newer and smaller denominations may be cooperating groups of autonomous congregations. Where this is so, these congregations are behaving in a right Baptist way.

I think being Baptist matters because there is a body of doctrine that describes us. Baptists believe that the two ordinances are symbolic and significant but not salvific. We have a polity we share with others who bear the name. Baptists believe that Jesus is the only means of salvation and that the Bible is his story—faithful in all that is purported there to be true. Of course, some Baptists accept infant baptism; others are not convinced regarding the authority of Scripture or even the uniqueness of Christ. These Baptists are notable exceptions and frankly have a dubious future among us. “Baptist” is still a useful shorthand way of saying something of what a church believes.

And yes, I do very much love and respect the various community churches and “churches at” one place or another. The pastors I know who’ve led their churches to adopt such monikers are Baptists and overwhelmingly not ashamed of it. For this valuing of these churches’ denominational lineage to trickle down over future generations, these pastors must go out of their way to make the story plain.

They must highlight, alongside various projects originated in their local congregations, the work done in concert with national, state, and associational partners. No church can do all that it’s commissioned to do without working with strategic partners.

Pastors of creatively named (and traditionally named) churches should highlight to church members the portion of their church budgets allocated for Cooperative Program ministries. Most vocational church leaders were educated through the generosity of Baptists they never met. Nearly every church was born with the assistance of Baptists in other locations, even other states and most often through CP funds. Freely we have received; freely give.

How about using new member orientation classes to highlight the reason and content of your church’s denominational identity? Years ago, my church used material produced by a sister church that completely bypassed the subject. It was a strange and inappropriate choice for a traditional and quite Southern Baptist church. Now, our material discusses the Cooperative Program and why we support it. Is there any good reason why any Southern Baptist church by any name should not do this as part of its orientation of new members?

Whether it is through Disaster Relief training and deployment, various kinds of ministry training (Sunday School, VBS, etc.), or some other kind of denominational partnership, church leaders should encourage their members to see and do firsthand the work of their fellow Baptists. In my experience, church members so oriented to their Baptist identity become more committed and useful in ministries of their home churches.

It seems clear that the Southern Baptist Convention is not going to change its name in any way that could obscure our Baptist heritage. The trend for new and established churches to choose names less denominational is also observable. It is a very Baptist thing these churches are doing—deciding for themselves how they’ll be known in their own communities. With a bit of intentional and continued work, our churches by nearly any names can also remain very Baptist things.

This article was first published in the Southern Baptist Texan on November 4, 2011 and was reposted with permission of the author.

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 Dr. Randy Stone, Associate Professor of Christian Education and Director of the Doctor of Educational Ministry Program at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

For Dr. Stone’s discussion of the first five trends (Church Size and Time; Institutional Internalization; Crisis in the Clergy; Dropout, Disillusioned, and Disengaged Christians; and Search for the Supernatural), see Part 1.

# 6 — Evangelism Explosion (…Not !!) Christians like to get together…with one another. We like to “Rally to Worship” but distain “Reaching the World.” The passion and urgency, once primary characteristics of the evangelical church, are all but gone. Fear is the new emotion of the church. Church growth is now collecting the disgruntled members of a neighboring congregation. We rely on transfer and biological growth rather than regenerative growth to sustain our churches. The New Testament church was known for their unwavering witness of Christ.

# 7 — Celebrity Pastors Replacing Congregations. Decades ago, churches were known for their geographic or sociological identity. Neighborhood churches were meeting significant social, spiritual, and educational needs within the community. Pastors had positive relationships inside the community but depended on the laity for program and ministry leadership. Now it seems pastors, rather than the people, are the face of the church.  Church attendees seek out celebrity pulpiteers. High profile pastors as well as television and radio preachers have become the primary spiritual leaders for many disconnected and disenfranchised members. With the rise of the celebrity pastor we often see a congregational dependence.  Congregations expect the pastor to “draw” new people to the worship services with sermons. A personal responsibility to share their life and faith is abandoned.

# 8 — Technology Turmoil. A new generation of church goers has come of age. The millennial age bracket is digitally dependent. High tech teaching, social media access, and smart phone interfaces are changing the way people connect, relate, worship, and communicate.  As a whole churches have not learned how to incorporate the new technologies into their communication strategies, worship planning, and educational models. Older generations are fearful and uncertain of new technologies and fail to recognize their value. Recent generations are seemingly dissatisfied with the purchase and integration of new technologies. Finding the right balance between spiritual authenticity and technology savvy is a real challenge for the modern church.

# 9 — Seismic Social Shifts. Four key areas should be considered.

• Social Structures. Families are undergoing radical changes. The traditional nuclear family is a distant memory for many. Communities are seeing a dramatic change in the ethnic makeup. The world is coming to America bringing with them different moral attitudes, economic expectations, and political beliefs and values, not to mention languages.
• Schedules. We live in a twenty four hour a day, seven days a week world. You can shop, eat, go to school, and be entertained all day every day.  The constant world doesn’t exclusively fit our Sunday morning (and Sunday evening schedules.)
• Education. We are seeing a revolution in the educational systems in America. From a new wave of home schooling (and non schooling) to online college and graduate education the delivery methods, teaching/ learning styles, and schedules of education are changing at every level.
• Entertainment. Entertainment is paramount. Despite the fact that we are in severe economic times, movies are attaining record receipts. Music downloads, video games, etc. seem to be higher priorities than clothing or even food.

# 10 – Denominational Downfall. Churches and their leaders have allowed the two extremes of creedalism and liberalism to drive wedges of division. The unifying virtue of selfless abandon to fulfill a shared mission would be a worthy alternative. Where did the quest to reach the lost, proclaim the truth, and disciple Christ’s followers go? Denominations have become known more for their fights and feuds than a radical love for one another as part of a spiritual family. We are more determined to “get my way” or push others “out of the way”, than to lead those far from God “to the Way.” Conventions and assemblies have become places that personal projects are promoted and pet peeves remedied. Committees are formed and function to serve the desires of a few rather than the laity mobilized to accomplish the unimaginable. We have spent too much time and money majoring on the minors.

This article was originally posted in the Pursuing Ministry Excellence blog, and is reposted here by permission of the author.

By Dr. Randy Stone, Associate Professor of Christian Education and Director of the Doctor of Educational Ministry Program at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

The following list was assembled not as a detailed research project, nor was it the product of a survey of the largest churches in America. This list is merely the simple observations of a single staff person. Through conversations with colleagues, countless conventions, and tireless training events, I have surmised that the following are true. You be the real judge. I welcome your opinion.

1. Church Size and Type. Churches are making decisions concerning what type of church they want to be . . . Supersize or Boutique.[1] Churches are mimicking business models. Just as businesses are choosing to specialize only in selected merchandise, a number of churches are directing their focus so that they may be good or the best at a few things.[2] Once refined, they often “franchise” to additional locations. Other churches are choosing “to be all things to all people.” This model requires massive staff, organization, facilities, and of course, money. Both approaches seem to work. Big and small churches are healthy and growing, while at the same time, midsize and neighborhood congregations are disappearing. Incidentally, reports are that . . . 80 percent of Southern Baptists attend churches with more than 1000 in worship each Sunday, about 7 percent of the 45,727 congregations in our denomination.[3]

2. Institutional Internalization. The mission of the church has been lost. For a vast majority of churches, the overwhelming goal of the local congregations seems to be “preservation of the institution,” rather than the “pursuit of the mission.” The energy and resources of the churches have been increasingly directed to staying alive or preserving status quo. In the last 50 years the number of churches has increased by 50 percent while the number of baptisms has plateaued or declined.[4] Church splits and starts seemed to have weakened congregations as the evangelistic zeal has faded.

3. Crisis in the Clergy. There are three sub-trends in most clergy issues.

A. Moral and Ethical Failures. The integrity of pastors, staff, and denominational leaders has eroded with each new scandal in the local or national news. People desire to trust and believe their pastors, but it becomes a challenge with the growing number of moral and ethical failures.

B. Theologians vs. Leaders. I see a growing desire for pastors to be strong theologians rather than strong leaders. I have discovered that you can educate a leader, but you cannot always develop a leader from an educated person. Our Seminaries are producing a great number of excellent theologians who unfortunately do not understand how to direct a local congregation toward spiritual health and vitality.

C. Competence vs. Expectations. Local congregations want pastors like Adrian Rogers, who can evangelize like Billy Graham, who are on call 24 hours a day, and are able to lead the church into dynamic health without changing anything. Pastors can not realistically achieve what most churches believe they want.

4. Dropout, Disillusioned, and Disengaged Christians. I personally know hundreds of people who have withdrawn from the church. Their reasons vary from change, fatigue, irrelevance of sermons, worship wars, group life issues, and spiritual complacency to name a few. Whatever the reason, I see a growing number of people who profess to be committed Christians, but find their church life increasingly unfulfilled. They want to follow Christ personally, but have chosen other options like staying home, starting house churches, and church hopping.

5. Search for the Supernatural. Libraries, book stores, and the internet are experiencing phenomenal growth in topics about the spiritual and supernatural. People are searching to discover meaning and purpose. They desire to find a life that transcends the ordinary ones they live, but rather than engaging a culture and society that is hungry for truth and spiritual realities, the Church is absent and silent. Now is the time to speak to the metaphysical and epistemological vacuum that is evident.

The next five trends will be listed in a forthcoming article .…

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

This series has attempted to delineate historical doctrinal differences between Baptists and Presbyterians. Most of the nine points I have addressed 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); the seventh Baptist distinctive, examined the autonomy of the local church and how it is not a hierarchical denomination; and the eighth Baptist distinctive, I described the two scriptural officers (Pastor/Bishop/Elder and Deacon) and how they are not three (Pastor/Bishop, Elder and Deacon). The ninth and final Baptist distinctive that I will discuss is the importance of human freedom at conversion and how that undergirds the rationale for decisional conversion offered through gospel invitations.[1]

Distinctive Baptist Belief #9:
Decisional Conversion/Gospel Invitations

One basic fault line between most Baptists and Presbyterians regards the ability of sinful humans to respond to God.[2] The BF&M repeatedly affirms human freedom to respond and to make decisions. The “future decisions of His free creatures” are foreknown by God;[3] and God’s election to salvation “is consistent with the free agency of man.”[4] Persons are created by God “in His own image,” originally “innocent of sin” and endowed by God with “freedom of choice.” Even after the Fall, “every person of every race possesses full dignity.”[5] Salvation “is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.” In regeneration the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus,” and repentance “is a genuine turning from sin toward God” and faith is “acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior.”[6] The picture that emerges from the BF&M is that while sinful humans certainly cannot save themselves by any combination of good works, God requires persons to utilize the freedom of choice He created within them to respond to His gracious offer of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.[7]

Central to this Baptist perspective is that salvation fundamentally involves a response or choice on the part of the convert. Note the role for human response in the words of W. T. Conner, longtime theology professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in expressing the balance between God’s sovereign grace and human agency:

Jesus regarded men as sinful–all men–but He did not believe that men were fixed in their sinful state. He knew the love of God toward men, and He believed in the possibility of winning men to a favorable response to God’s grace. . . . Jesus did not believe, then, that man could lift himself out of his sinful state in his own strength, but He did believe that men could respond to God’s grace and let God lift them out of their sins. It is true that this response was one that was won from the man by the grace of God offering to save man. Yet it was man’s response. And Jesus counted on such a response on the part of sinful men. . . . He welcomed such a response. He eagerly watched for it. He said there was rejoicing over it in the presence of the angels in heaven.[8]

The primary vehicle for facilitating and experiencing this sort of human response in decisional conversion has been the public invitation. The Second Great Awakening engendered the explosion of the number of Baptists in North America, and although models for offering public invitations go all the way back to Pentecost, the use of the public invitation or altar call became a fixture in Baptist worship services after the Great Awakenings. The Separate Baptists of the Sandy Creek tradition brought this revivalistic focus into the Southern Baptist mainstream. There have been many famous Southern Baptist pastors and evangelists for whom the public invitation has been designed to be the high time in the worship service – none more prominent than the famous evangelist Billy Graham, whose image is canonized in a statue in front of the SBC building in Nashville.

There are scriptural and historical reasons for offering such a public invitation,[9] but doctrinally a decisional public invitation is logically entailed in other Baptist beliefs such as soul competency, believer’s baptism, and the gathered church. Only adults (those beyond the age of accountability) can have soul competence, can make a life commitment through repentance and faith that is the prerequisite to believer’s baptism, and become a member of a gathering of intentional believers. Many such decisions come at the end of a fairly long process as the Holy Spirit works through many events to lead the person to make such a decision (by convicting them of their sin and convincing them of the life-saving truth that is in Christ), but at some point it all comes down to a moment of decision. This moment of decision often comes in the midst of a worship service in response to the preached Word of God. The preaching of the Word in a worship setting and public invitations provide a particularly effective vehicle for the Holy Spirit to enable persons to get away from the distractions of life and focus on eternally significant spiritual issues. The public invitation presupposes what might be called a “decisional” view of salvation, as opposed to a more gradual or developmental view of salvation. In the “decisional” view of salvation, a sinner presented with the gospel can respond to God’s calling in a decisional moment through repentance and faith. Public invitations provide the opportunity for persons to be confronted with life-changing decisions and to make public the decisions that have been made.

There are many forms of public invitations. Some call for the person to come to the front of the church at the end of a worship service, counsel with the pastor or other spiritual counselors, and if the person comes to a decision for Christ (or has already made a decision), that decision is announced to the congregation. This approach is called by some an “alter call” (though I do not prefer that designation). Sometimes a more gradual approach might be taken, asking persons who are struggling with a decision to raise their hands or stand, pray for them, and then make an appeal to come to the altar if they feel led to make a decision. In other cases those who are struggling with a decision may be invited to come to the altar to pray, or to sit on an “anxious bench” (this was utilized particularly in the Second Great Awakening), or to go into another room to receive prayer and spiritual counseling. However, what all these various methodologies have in common is that they present an opportunity for persons struggling with a spiritual decision (whether for salvation, rededication, church membership, or a call to ministry) to come to a prayerful decision. It also affords a way to meet the scriptural requirement to publicly identify themselves with Jesus Christ, who Himself said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33). Thus, any form of invitation which provides an opportunity for personal decision and public confession would seem to be consistent with the requirements of the BF&M doctrine of salvation.

Presbyterians, on the other hand, tend to downplay public invitations and decisional presentations of the gospel. Although there are notable exceptions, most Presbyterians tend to focus on a more gradualist developmental approach to salvation. After infants are sprinkled, they later undergo catechetical training and are confirmed. In practice, the catechetical training is often more cognitive than volitional, and confirmation is more age-driven and developmental than decision-driven. The anti-conversionist “Old Light Calvinists” opposed the Great Awakenings because of their soteriological convictions. Although the pro-conversionist New Light Calvinists became the majority, the presence of infant baptism nonetheless diminishes the significance of decisional conversion in the Presbyterian doctrine of salvation. Modern day Old Light Calvinists such as David Engelsma reject the notion that adult or decisional conversion is required at all: “Speaking for myself, to the brash, presumptuous question sometimes put to me by those of a revivalist, rather than covenantal, mentality, ‘When were you converted?’ I have answered in all seriousness, ‘When was I not converted?’”[10] Further, Engelsma declares, “As a Reformed minister and parent, I have no interest whatever in conversion as the basis for viewing baptized children as God’s dear children, loved of him from eternity, redeemed by Jesus, and promised the Holy Spirit, the author of faith. None!”[11] This gradualist, covenantal view of salvation is far from the Baptist decisional view of salvation.

Some strongly Calvinistic Baptists have become enchanted with the Presbyterian model and would like to inject it into Southern Baptist life, particularly in regard to public invitations. In a discussion that would be astonishing to most Southern Baptists in the pew, a Southern Baptist seminary publication printed a debate between three of its faculty members about whether or not it is unbiblical for churches to have an invitation for the lost to be saved at the end of the worship service.[12] Jim Elliff argued that “it is my contention that our use of the altar call and the accouterment of a ‘sinner’s prayer’ is a sign of our lack of trust in God.”[13] Elliff claimed that “there is no biblical precedent or command regarding a public altar call,” but it was an invention of Charles Finney, and that “the sad truth is that it [the sinner’s prayer] is not found anywhere but in the back of evangelistic booklets.”[14] Elliff further questions the practice of pastors who would share Scripture verses about assurance of salvation with new believers, or to present them to the church publicly for baptism, because Elliff believes that the majority of these would-be converts are probably not genuinely saved.[15] As Ken Keathley has demonstrated,[16] Elliff’s suggestions do not stand up to the tests of Scripture and logic. While we should always guard against excesses of revivalism or emotional manipulation which might lead to a mere emotional response that lacks any real commitment, we should be eager to accept even a thief on a cross into the Kingdom. C. H. Spurgeon complained that some of his fellow Calvinists seemed “half afraid that perhaps some may overstep the bounds of election and get saved who should not be,” and claimed that “there will be more in heaven than we expect to see there by a long way.”[17]

It may be that the move away from having public invitations in Baptist churches is a contributing cause to why Southern Baptists baptized 50,000 fewer people per year in 2010 than we did in 1955, when public invitations were standard in virtually every Southern Baptist worship service. SBC churches baptized only 349,737 persons last year, which is 84,546 baptisms fewer than the 416, 867 baptisms we witnessed in 1955.  This stunning decline in baptisms is made all the worse by the fact that in the last 55 years our churches have increased significantly in every key statistical area except baptisms. We have over 15,000 more new churches in 2010 than in 1955, an increase of 50 percent (45,000 now vs. 30,000 then), but we had about 85,000 fewer baptisms. Church planting alone has obviously NOT been the answer. We have almost doubled our church membership from 8.4 million members in 1955 to 16.1 million members in 2010, but with 85,000 fewer baptisms. Our giving has increased exponentially from $334 million in 1955 to almost $12 billion in 2010, but there were 85,000 fewer baptisms. The population of the United States nearly doubled since 1955 (from about 165 million to over 308 million), but baptisms in Southern Baptist churches has been reduced significantly. In 1955 a person was baptized for every 20 church members; in 2010 that had more than doubled to 49 church members needed to reach and baptize one person. What’s worse, over half of the adult baptisms in SBC churches are actually rebaptisms, including believers coming from other denominations, so to count them is really double counting the same people. And nearly 80 percent of our churches are plateaued or declining.[18] At some level, if one might transpose the truth of James 4:2 (we have not because we ask not) to a different application, it may very well be that we have fewer decisions for Christ because we ask fewer to make decisions. It would seem that a re-emphasis on intentional evangelism and well-crafted public invitations could help reverse these embarrassing numerical trends, which reflect that we have been disobedient to the Great Commission and that we are not being the pliable vessels that God is using to transform lives through our churches that we were fifty years ago.

A Call for Doctrinal Integrity and Diversity within Christian Unity

In an earlier post entitled “The Middle Way,” I asserted that centrist Baptists are “the middle way” between Arminians and Calvinists/Presbyterians, and listed a dozen ways in which centrist Baptists differed from various Arminian groups. Now, this series has focused on nine key doctrinal differences between Baptists and Presbyterians (which did not include the five point summary of Reformed soteriology best known by the TULIP acronym–for a critique of five-point Calvinism from a centrist Baptist perspective see our book Whosoever Will).

Why all the focus on differences of belief?  Because we live in an era in which doctrinal distinctives tend to be minimalized in a non-denominational and ecumenical babble that suggests all Christians essentially believe the same things, or relegates important doctrinal issues to a tertiary status through a subjective theological triage. The high value given to multiculturalism and toleration in our culture tends to encourage breaking down barriers and to discourage the erection of fences between various traditions. The purpose of this series has been to point out that real doctrinal differences do still exist between various Christian traditions. To paraphrase Robert Frost, “Good fences make good (denominational) neighbors.”

In no way is this series of articles intended to diminish the practice and beliefs of fellow believers in other denominations. 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.  I have spent little effort in arguing that the Presbyterian perspectives are incorrect (which is not to say that I do not have reasons for believing so). My focus has been pointing out that real differences exist in doctrine between Presbyterians and Baptists, and to define what some of those differences are. 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.

Let Baptists be Baptists by conviction, and let Presbyterians be Presbyterians by conviction. May we be unified as witnesses to Christ for the glory of God, and one in the Spirit in our affirmation of Jesus as Lord, but also people of integrity who do not compromise our doctrinal convictions!

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.

As was announced in a recent “breaking news” story in SBC Today, Bryant Wright, President of the SBC, announced to the SBC Executive Committee last Monday evening that he has appointed a task force to consider the merits of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, and make recommendations to him about a possible name change. Response to this announcement was rather passionate. Just in response to this article in SBC Today and on my personal Facebook page, there were over 100 responses about this issue. People do care about the name of the SBC.

What are the reasons given that we should or should not consider a name change for the SBC? I’m going to try to give a balanced presentation of the rationale both sides of the argument (pro and con) give for their position, and then make some suggestions in case the decision is made to change the SBC’s name. The reasons given for a name change are more centered on a single issue, and the reasons given against a name change are more varied — and hence there are more of them, but one should not necessarily assume that because more reasons are given that they are all of equal weight. However, these reasons against a name change should be dealt with adequately for a name change proposal to go forward. Each of us must weigh the strengths and weaknesses of this possible proposal, either for or against a name change. Because any name change proposal would require the majority vote of two consecutive SBC conventions, this decision (up or down) heightens the importance of churches sending messengers to the 2012 SBC Convention in New Orleans and the 2013 SBC Convention in Houston, at which this issue will be decided.

Reasons to Consider a Name Change

• Overcoming a Regional Identity – Fundamentally, all the reasons for changing the name of the SBC go back to that first word – Southern. We began primarily in the South, and most of our churches and members are still in the South. But we have become a national denomination, the largest Protestant denomination in America. Strictly speaking, the nomenclature “Southern Baptist Convention” is inaccurate. We are at least a national entity, with a global outreach. So “Southern” is simply no longer accurate in describing who we really are.

 

• Hindering Our National and International Ministry – I have served in summer ministries in Montana and Alaska, so I am aware of the “pushback” or confusion that our name causes in those sorts of “pioneer” settings (i.e., where Southern Baptists are a small minority).  As someone suggested in a comment to our SBC Today article, what if the “Yankee Baptist Convention” came to a Southern town? We would have reason by virtue of their name to assume that they were just looking for displaced Northerners as members. Likewise, a “Southern” Baptist Church in the Northeast, North, Northwest, or West does not resonate with each of those local identities. A name other than a regional name that excludes them would seem to be more helpful. In the international setting, “Southern” almost loses its meaning altogether. To a person in Bucharest, it is unclear what “Southern” has to do with it. So, particularly in reference to our work in areas of the United States outside the South, it would appear that the regional name “Southern” is a limiting term that excludes others.

 

• Negative associations with the word “Southern” – For most of us Southerners, the word “Southern” has profoundly positive connotations. The South is home. “American by birth, Southern by the grace of God,” the bumper stickers say. We are passionate about our football teams, we love our flags, and we have stronger “heart” identities with our states than people in some other states. We also think of “Southern Baptist” as standing for good things – a strong stand on the truthfulness of God’s Word, salvation through Christ alone, a heart for missions and evangelism, and strong family values stands on issues. It is hard for us to hear that there are also sometimes negative connotations that others hear in the word “Southern.” The Southern Baptist Convention gained its identity by splitting from other Baptists largely over the issue of slavery just before the Civil War. And though it has taken great strides in recent years toward racial equality and inclusiveness, some SBC churches and/or individuals have been and are associated with racist views. Those are not associations that we want to have. Also, the stereotype that people from other regions sometimes impose on Southerners (and Southerners self-deprecatingly apply to themselves) is the Redneck stereotype. Southerners are thus depicted as being ignorant, anti-education, prejudiced, and out of touch. Anyone who visits the modern South recognizes that those stereotypes are hardly true of the South as a whole, and yet they persist. So, while the word “Southern” has many good associations, it also has some negative connotations. We can remove those negative connotations with a name change.

Reasons to Reject a Name Change

• Name Brand Identity – The name “Southern Baptist” means something. It stands for people who take the Bible seriously. It stands for conservative theology. It stands for people committed to reaching the world for Christ in fulfillment of the Great Commission. It stands for people with biblically-based family values. As the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, there is an automatic identity that comes with the name. Many independent churches have joined the SBC in part because of what our brand name represents.

 

• Been There, Done That – The SBC has considered a possible name change for a long time. In 1958, the messengers to the SBC Convention in Houston were given a survey about a possible name change. About a third of the messengers favored a name change at that time. Motions have been made from the floor of the SBC to consider a name change in 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990, and 1998, and the motion to conduct a “straw poll” about a possible name change was defeated in 1999. The Executive Committee has initiated such studies in 1961, 1965-1967, and 1997-1998. Two other SBC Presidents have proposed studying a possible name change. W. A. Criswell proposed the study of a name change in 1974-1975, which led to the appointment of a “Committee of Seven” to conduct the study, which provided criteria for a name change but did not favor recommending a name change. More recently, Jack Graham proposed studying a possible name change in 2004, but the proposal to create a task force to do so was defeated. At that time, Graham said of the name change, “We need to either put it to bed forever or get on with it.” So let it be. Since in all these instances the name change proposals were rejected by the SBC, why revisit this issue and study it yet again? The Convention has already spoken repeatedly.

 

• We Hate Change – Most people don’t like change. We hate it when our banks change names three times in four years. Coca Cola thought it was a great idea a decade or so ago to “change” Coke to the New Coke. What a disaster! They went back to the old Coke. Many people still grumble about the name changes from the Sunday School Board to LifeWay, the Home Mission Board to the NAMB, the Foreign Mission Board to the IMB, and the Annuity Board to GuideStone. It may not be our most attractive quality that we’re resistant to change, but it’s a very human feeling. There is no groundswell from the people in the pew, from Bob and Mary Baptist, to change the name of the convention. This is not a burning issue with them. Most of them don’t desire it, and when it happens most won’t like it. If we voted on a name change by popular vote of church members, I believe it would lose by a landslide. Only by a convention action could this change be accomplished.

 

• · Legal Ramifications – One of the least understood reasons to reject a name change is that the SBC would lose important legal protections that we have by virtue of a Georgia charter affirmed by the Georgia legislature in 1845. Since the laws have changed, to refile a charter with a new name would mean that we would lose the legal standing that was “grandfathered in,” and we would be subject to the new laws (the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code) which appear to not be as conducive to Baptist polity as were the laws in 1845. In a legal opinion from Guenther, Jordon, and Price, dated January 13, 1999, our SBC attorneys wrote: “Opinion: If the Southern Baptist Convention changes its name the Convention would come under the present Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code which would require the Convention to substantially alter its instruments and practices, its governance structure, and perhaps its polity.”

What difference does the new charter under new laws have? Under the original charter, we are free from the government intrusion entailed in the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code. If we changed the charter, we would come under the Code, and thus, for example, would have to (a) form a Board of Directors, (b) determine who the “members” of the corporation are, (c) 10 percent of the corporation’s “members” could petition the Georgia court to remove the Board of Directors, and (d) Georgia’s Attorney General could petition the removal of the Board of Directors. So, in other words, the Attorney General and courts of Georgia could determine decisions, leadership, or even actions of the SBC, not messengers from our churches. This is not a good thing. (For a more detailed statement of this concern, see http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2010/01/conclusion-whats-in-a-name-changing-the-name-of-the-southern-baptist-convention.html).

• The Immense Financial Cost of a Name Change – It is difficult to estimate just how much a name change would cost the SBC, state conventions, associations, and churches. First of all, many legal documents would need to be changed at all these levels. Some Baptist camps, colleges, and churches (such as one I pastored) have deed restrictions tied to being a Southern Baptist church or entity. All state conventions (and their entities) and thousands of churches would have to pay legal fees to refile their charter or articles of incorporation. Thousands of signs, from the SBC building to state conventions to thousands of churches, would need to take down the “SBC” and put in the “???BC” lettering. Hundreds of thousands of brochures, letterheads, business cards, and websites would need to be changed. Most new member training materials and missions promotion materials would have to be rewritten. The hidden costs just go on and on. Are the benefits of the change really worth this financial cost?

 

• Timing and Process Questions – President Wright is trying a new approach to dealing with this issue – he named a task force without seeking or receiving prior approval from the SBC or from the SBC Executive Committee. Therefore, the task force has no official standing with the SBC. It is simply an advisory committee to President Wright. Of course, the Executive Committee and SBC will have to approve the recommendation – the SBC will have to approve it in two consecutive conventions. But the time frame for the proposal seems rather rushed. This newly formed committee is charged to report to the SBC in mid-February, which is not so far away, given Fall state convention meetings and the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s holidays. The proposal would then be presented at the SBC in New Orleans in June 2012. Questions have also been raised about if it is a bit premature to be soliciting names from Southern Baptists on a website beginning October 1 before some of the legal and financial issues have been satisfactorily resolved. This does give the appearance of rushing to a June 2012 vote without due diligence, though the committee does have experienced leaders who have information ready at hand.

 

• Timing/Yet Another Controversy – For a variety of reasons, many of the SBC conventions over the last thirty years have dealt with controversial issues. Along with the Conservative Resurgence vs. the Moderates battle, we have debated controversial issues like the Disney boycott, sole membership, and, most recently, GCR (to name just a few). The implications of GCR (which remains controversial to many Baptists) are just now working themselves out. It would be nice to have a few harmonious SBC conventions in a row to help rebuild our unity. We need time for healing in our fellowship before we deal with another controversial issue.

The name change issue is a mega-controversy – by that, I mean it is an issue larger than the issue itself. Over the summer I ran a four-part series on the fault lines in Southern Baptist life. I identified a number of foundational fault lines that divide us, such the stronger vs. weaker Baptist identity, small church vs. megachurch, centrist or majoritarian Baptist vs. Reformed Baptist, pro-GCR and anti-GCR, etc. I also noted that the shockwaves from some issues set off shockwaves in all the other fault lines. A name change in the SBC is just such an earthquake issue. I’ve already seen these fault lines dividing on the name change issue. The name change has been defended from a strong Baptist identity perspective and dismissed from a weaker Baptist identity perspective. Some small church pastors have suggested that Wright and other megachurch pastors are forcing this on them. Bryant Wright has been described as both an Arminian and a Presbyterian (hard to be at the same time!). Those opposed to GCR see this as just one more step by the GCR crowd, and the pro-GCR people seem to be mostly supportive of it. So, the point is that this is a controversial issue that will set off shockwaves throughout all the fissures of Southern Baptist life. The simple question is, “Is it worth it?”

Where We Go from Here

We’ll see in February what task force report or proposal is. The reasons for the name change are substantial and compelling. However, the reasons against it are significant and must not be lightly dismissed. However, I hope these challenges can be resolved satisfactorily. I’m not a lawyer, of course, but I think there might be a way around the legal issues. It is sometimes possible to continue with the original name and be “operating as” another name. For example, some of us older people remember the Woolworth Company – we associate it with modest sized “five and dime” department stores. Most of the Woolworth stores we remember went out years ago. Many people don’t realize, though, that the Woolworth company continued, operating under another name. In fact, at one point they were one of the largest owners of property in New York City. So, perhaps there is a way around that dilemma. The emotional, financial, and name brand identity cost issues are tougher nuts to crack. I don’t have an answer for those challenges. It will come down to a fundamental question for the task force: Are the obvious advantages of a name change worth the obvious emotional, financial, and name brand costs?

Let’s suppose that the committee and the convention decide that a name change is worth pursuing. What should the new name be?  Let’s start with the middle word – “Baptist.” That, as Bart Barber has pointed out, is non-negotiable. Leave out the word “Baptist” and you’re going to have open war from us Baptist identity people. Of course, I really haven’t heard anyone even suggesting that we would do such a silly thing.

Then, there’s that last word “Convention.” Technically, that is exactly what we are. The SBC does not technically exist 363 days a year. We just exist when the messengers from local churches are in session in the annual convention. However, this is a word that many Baptists and almost no non-Baptists understand. Perhaps another word would be better. I suggest “Fellowship.” Fellowship is a positive, warm word. It actually is quite accurate descriptively as well – we are a loosely-knit fellowship of local churches. Each church chooses voluntarily to enter in to fellowship and cooperative labors for the Lord together. What do we do when we want to kick a church out of an association, state convention, or the SBC? We dis-fellowship them! So Fellowship seems to be a better word to communicate the relationship of our churches to each other and the convention.

I saved the tough word for last – “Southern.” It is the regional associations of that word which provide the primary motivation for the name change in the first place. So, what word could we choose instead of “Southern”? Well, since I’m a strong advocate of the Cooperative Program, we could call it the “Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.” OOPS! That name has already been taken . . . .  Since the concern is about using a geographical term, we could move to a theological term – “Providence Baptist Fellowship,” “Grace Baptist Fellowship,” etc. But then, those names would likely be identified as being one sided with regard to the discussion over Reformed theology in the SBC. So, we could do “National Association of Free Will Baptists.” OOPS! That name has already been taken also. The name “Great Commission” has been suggested, but that probably doesn’t mean anything to lost people, and might produce negative connotations and beget more legal challenges in a day in which sharing your faith is being described by secularist and other religious groups as hate speech, not only in our country but internationally.

So, what word to choose instead of “Southern’? I suggest that we add another very important word to the name, but to do so we’ll need to reorder the words we have now. What we are above being Southerners or Cooperative or Great Commission or Doctrine X or even Baptists is . . . Christian! Nothing in our current name overtly identifies us with Jesus Christ or Christianity. So, my suggestion is that we make “Baptist” what it truly is – a modifier. “Baptist” just describes the kind of Christian we are. So, the name would be Fellowship of Baptist Christians (FBC). I believe that’s a name worth thinking about!

Other recommended articles and posts on this issue:

• From Baptist Press — http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36156 and http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36157.
• From Dr. Mohler — http://www.conventionalthinking.org/2011/09/20/will-the-southern-baptist-convention-change-its-name
• From Dr. Patterson — http://www.swbts.edu/campusnews/story.cfm?id=8C2D4602-15C5-E47C-F9A22846B95C6639
• From Bart Barber – http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2011/09/sbc-name-change-proposal.html and http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2011/09/uphill-climb-for-name-change.html.
• From Peter Lumpkins — http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/09/sbc-name-change-new-page-offers-resources-for-sbc-name-change-by-peter-lumpkins-.html.
• From Tim Rogers — http://pastortimrogers.com/?p=2402
• From Ed Stetzer — http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/09/cru-who.html
• From Alan Cross — http://sbcvoices.com/the-name-change-won%E2%80%99t-matter-unless-we-have-a-heart-change-by-alan-cross
• From James Smith — http://www.gofbw.com/Blog.asp?ID=2696
• From Howell Scott — http://fromlaw2grace.com/2011/09/22/in-the-sbc-silence-is-no-longer-an-option/
• From Mark Lamprecht — http://hereiblog.com/does-southern-give-southern-baptists-bad-image/
• From SBC Today — http://sbctoday.com/2011/09/20/breaking-newssbc-president-proposes-name-change-for-the-sbc

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.

Wright had already appointed a task force to look into the name change possibility. Since the task force was not authorized by the SBC or the Executive Committee, it is unofficial and reports directly to the President.  The task force members are volunteers and will provide for their own expenses. Dr. Wright hopes the task force will have a recommendation ready in time for the February 2012 meeting of the Executive Committee, and that they will recommend it to the SBC Convention meeting in New Orleans in June 2012.

The committee appointed by Dr. Wright is to be chaired by Jimmy Draper, former President of LifeWay Christian Resources, and includes the following members:

• Michael Allen, Senior Pastor of Uptown Baptist Church in Chicago, IL
• Marshall Blaylock, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Charleston, SC
• David Dockery, President of Union University
• Tom Elliff, President of the IMB
• Kevin Ezell, President of NAMB
• Ken Fentress, Senior Pastor of Montrose Baptist Church in Rockwell, MD
• Micah Fries, Senior Pastor of Frederick Boulevard Baptist Church in St. Joseph, MO
• Aaron Harvie, Lead Pastor of Riverside Community Church in Philadelphia, PA
• Susie Hawkins, Bible study teacher and entity head spouse from Dallas, TX
• Fred Hewitt, Executive Director of the Montana Southern Baptist Convention
• Cathy Horner, Bible teacher and pastor’s wife from Providence Baptist Church in Raleigh, NC
• Benjamin Jo, pastor of Hana Korean Baptist Church in Las Vegas, NV
• R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of SBTS
• Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS
• Bob Sena, retired Director of Hispanic resource development for NAMB
• Roger Spradlin, Co-Pastor of Valley Baptist Church in “Bakersfield, CA and Chairman of the SBC Executive Committee
• John Sullivan, Executive Director-Treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention
• Jay Wolf, Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL

The announcement did not evoke a warm response from the SBC Executive Committee initially. Objections to the proposed name change included concerns about losing legal and financial advantages from the 1845 SBC charter, concern about forming such a significant committee without convention authorization, concern about the timing of raising this possibly controversial issue on the heels of the sometimes divisive GCR process, and concern that opening a website soliciting possible name suggestions from Baptists is premature before a thorough study of the legal and financial ramifications of such a name change. Two motions were made by EC members – one to ask for a yearlong study of the financial implications of such a change before the EC acted on any recommendation, and another to ask Wright to delay his announcement and seek the approval of the Convention in June 2012 rather than forming an unauthorized committee.  However, EC members voted down both of these motions.

Considering a name change for the SBC is not a new notion, nor is it the first time an SBC President has proposed such a study. Motions were made from the floor of the SBC to consider a name change in 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990, and 1998, and the motion to conduct a “straw poll” about a possible name change was defeated in 1999. W. A. Criswell proposed the study of a name change in 1974-1975, which led to the appointment of a “Committee of Seven” to conduct the study, and Jack Graham proposed studying a possible name change in 2004, but it was defeated in 2005. The Executive Committee has initiated such studies in 1961, 1965-1967, and 1997-1998. In all these instances, the name change proposals have been defeated by the SBC.

What do you think about the possible name change?  Do you have a name suggestion to recommend?

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; and the sixth Baptist distinctive addressed congregational church polity (in contrast to Presbyterian elder rule). With the seventh distinctive, I examine the autonomy of the local church, as opposed to a hierarchical denominationalism.[1]

Distinctive Baptist Belief #7:
Local Church Autonomy, Not Hierarchical Denominationalism)

The BF&M describes the church as “an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers.”[2] Each Southern Baptist church is independent and it would not be overstating the case to say, radically autonomous. Local churches voluntarily cooperate with Baptist associations, state conventions, the national SBC, and other entities — and it is the voluntary association and cooperation of Southern Baptists that have allowed them to accomplish great things in education, benevolent efforts, and world missions that atomistic independent churches simply cannot accomplish alone. However, in terms of authority, the organizational flowchart of the SBC is a pyramid in which ultimate authority and freedom to act reside in the local churches at the base, not an inverted pyramid with all the power at the top. No denominational official, whether associational, state, or national, can impose anything on an autonomous Southern Baptist church, even when that church is practicing things that are outside of the BF&M. The associations and conventions may refuse to seat messengers from these churches at annual meetings, or even withdraw fellowship from them, but no Baptist entity can force a local church to change any policy or practice.

Even the various associations and conventions draw all of their guidance and authority from “messengers” (similar to delegates) appointed by and representative of local Baptist churches. But the associations and conventions cannot in turn impose regulations on the local churches. Properly speaking, associations, state conventions, and the SBC itself only truly “exist” the two or three days in which the church-elected messengers are convened in annual session. Resolutions approved by messengers of SBC annual meetings, though often hotly debated and highlighted in press reports, have literally no force or authority over local churches. They are simply the expression of opinion of that group of messengers at that time.

In contrast, beyond the local church, Presbyterian churches are guided and their property owned by presbyteries, synods, or councils.[5] Although these meetings have representatives from local churches, the broader entities can impose rules and regulations on the local churches, and their properties seized. That could never happen in Baptist life. One expression of local church autonomy is its ability under God’s leadership to choose its own leadership. As Dunaway noted, Baptists do not have a requirement for a seminary-educated ministry.[6] This is only one example of many requirements that could only be imposed by a “top-down” denominational structure, not “bottom-up” structure like that of Baptists. Local church autonomy is a keynote of Southern Baptist life.