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.

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.

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, and the fifth Baptist distinctive (in contrast with Presbyterian Calvinism) was baptism and the Lord’s Supper as symbolic ordinances, not sacraments. The sixth distinctive that I now address is congregational church polity.[1]

Distinctive Baptist Belief #6:
Congregational Church Polity, Not Presbyterian Elder Rule

The early Baptist confessions consistently describe church governance as congregational. It is to local churches that Jesus has given “all power and authority” (Luke 9:1, cf. Matt. 18:18, 28:18), “which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline.”[2] Bishops/elders should be chosen by “the church itself.”[3] All church members are subject to “the censures and government” of the church “according to the rule of Christ.”[4] Church members taking offense at the actions of other members should not act on their own, but should “wait upon Christ, in the further proceeding of the church.”[5] At every point of authority, then, whether in choosing congregational leaders, practicing church discipline, or resolving problems, it was the church as a whole (not some smaller appointed group) which was authorized to decide the issue according to the mind of Christ. Likewise, the 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statements refer to the local church as “autonomous” but operating “under the Lordship of Jesus Christ” through “democratic processes.”[6]

The Baptist belief in congregational church governance has biblical grounding in decisions of local churches such as the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch appointing and commissioning their leaders (Acts 6:3-6, 13:1-3), the responsibility of performing church discipline (Matt. 18:15-17, 1 Cor. 5:1-2, 2 Cor. 2:4-9), and adjudicating doctrinal issues (Acts 15:1-29). Congregational governance is also the only viable church polity consistent and coherent with an interlocking nexus of other key biblically based Baptist beliefs: (a) local church autonomy, (b) soul competency, (c) the priesthood of all believers, and (d) the age of accountability.

Some (even some Baptists) mistake the democratic processes of congregational governance to indicate that just the church dictates what should be done, but this would be a misunderstanding of the doctrine. Each member is called upon not to vote his or her own opinion, but to seek the mind of Christ who is the true Head of the church. All members of a Baptist church are baptized believers. There are no infant “believers,” but only those beyond the age of accountability who have made a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The Holy Spirit is present in all believers to guide them and instruct them, and thus each believer has Spirit-aided soul competency. Because each believer is a priest before God, there are no intermediaries needed to perform this task. No bishop, synod, or popish hierarchy can impose its will on the autonomous local church. Neither the Southern Baptist Convention, nor its President, nor any other group can impose its will on a local church. A church with aberrant beliefs might be disfellowshiped by other Baptist church associations or conventions, but the local church can still practice its beliefs unhindered as it feels led. Each believer is competent before God to seek God’s will as led by the Holy Spirit under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. So, though democratic processes are utilized to achieve the result, it is not a democracy but a theocracy. Votes taken in church business meetings are not to determine the will of the people, but the will of God.

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

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, on the one hand, and Calvinists/Presbyterians, on the other. 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) is baptism and the Lord’s Supper as symbolic ordinances, not sacraments.[1]

Distinctive Baptist Belief #5:
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as Symbolic Ordinances, Not Sacraments

The Magisterial Reformers rejected the Catholic notion of transubstantiation (that the blood and body of Jesus is literally and physically present in the bread and wine), but they differed in the alternative view they advocated. Luther affirmed “consubstantiation,” in which the substance of Jesus coexists with the elements of the Supper, like a hot iron and the fire are united and yet remaining unchanged as separate things). The meaning of the Supper (Mass, communion, Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper) was the sole point that Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli could not agree upon in their consultation at Marburg in 1529 – Luther advocating the real physical presence of Christ in the Supper and Zwingli affirming just the Lord’s spiritual presence in the Supper. Calvin’s perspective on the Supper changed over his various versions of the Institutes, and some theologians consider him to be inconsistent in his use of the word “substance” (substantia). However, Calvin is usually considered to be in a mediating position between Luther and Zwingli, arguing for the Lord’s “spiritual presence” without being physically present in the elements of the Supper.[2]

The Radical Reformers, however, felt that all of these magisterial reformers had retained too much of Roman Catholicism in their belief and practice, rather than deriving their teachings directly from the New Testament. In the Second Zurich Disputation (also known as the October Disputation), the issues of infant baptism, retaining religious icons, and the Mass were discussed. In each of these, the Anabaptists wanted to practice only that which was commanded in the New Testament, and thus eliminate or replace each of these practices, while Zwingli was more conscious of public outcry about changing long-held traditions too quickly. Zwingli agreed with the Anabaptists that “this is My body” (Mark 14:22) was metaphorical rather than literal, and that the Supper is best viewed as a “memorial supper.”[3] Although Zwingli was closest of all the magisterial Reformers to the Anabaptists in his perspective on the Supper, he still retained a hint of the “spiritual presence” view advocated by Calvin, and he wanted to move slowly in making changes because of political expediency. In the Disputation, he conceded that Conrad Grebel was right in his litany of abuses of the Mass, but asserted that “these things cannot be abolished all at once.”[4] Zwingli deferred to the town council to determine any instructions about the degree or timetable for abolishing the Mass: “My lords will decide whatever regulations are to be adopted in the future in regard to the Mass.” This led the Anabaptist leader Simon Stumpf to exclaim in frustration, “Master Ulrich, you do not have the right to place the decision on this matter in the hands of my lords, for the decision has already been made: the Spirit of God decides.”[5]

The early Baptists saw no evidence in the New Testament that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were sacerdotal or sacramental in character. The Anabaptists therefore strongly insisted that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were ordinances (we do them in obedience to the command or ordaining of Christ), not sacraments. The Anabaptists also insisted that the Lord’s Supper was symbolic, not the “spiritual” presence of Christ or “consubstantiation,” the real physical presence of Christ with the celebration of the Supper. Because of the crucial nature of these ordinances commanded by our Lord, the appropriate practice of them is not a peripheral question.

While the Second London and Philadelphia confessions copy word for word much of the Westminster Confession regarding baptism and the Lord’s Supper, there is one very obvious change in wording: the Presbyterian confession consistently refers to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “sacraments,” while the Baptist confessions describe them as “ordinances” appointed by Christ. Sacraments are, according to the Westminster Confession, “holy seals and signs of the covenant of grace,” and “in every sacrament there is a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the effects of the one are attributed to the other.”[6] The Baptist confessions omit this sacramental language altogether, substituting statements that these ordinances were “appointed,” “ordained,” or “instituted” by Jesus Christ.[7] The ordinances are thus seen by Baptists as symbolic rather than sacramental in character.

Perhaps some might ask the “so what?” question about this doctrinal distinctive. What difference does it make between holding either of these views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper? From the Baptist perspective, the answer is that while the ordinances are profoundly significant events, they are not salvific in any sense.[8] The ordinances are outward symbols of what is going on spiritually inside the person and reminders of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. The ordinances are not sacraments — that is, “means of grace.” God’s grace comes directly to humans through the Son and the Spirit, not indirectly through the intermediary means of the bread and the wine. And that is a big difference in doctrine, a difference that really matters.

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

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, on the one hand, and Calvinists/Presbyterians, on the other. In it, I listed twelve points of doctrinal disagreement between centrist Baptists and many Arminians. In this series I want to point 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”).[1] In this article I am pointing out a fourth Baptist distinctive (in contrast with Presbyterianism): baptism by mode of immersion.

Distinctive Baptist Belief #4:
Baptism by the Mode of Immersion

The Second London and Philadelphia confessions differ strikingly from the Westminster Confession regarding the mode of baptism. According to the Westminster Confession, “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.”[2] In stark contrast to this Presbyterian mode of baptism, the Second London and Philadelphia confessions affirm that “immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance (Matt. 3:16; John 3:23).”[3] Baptism by immersion is again affirmed in Article 7 of the BF&M.

Like all distinctive Baptist beliefs, believer’s baptism by immersion is not merely a tradition, but arises out of a careful reading of God’s Word. The Greek word baptizo literally means to immerse in water. Since many early translations of the Bible into English were done by persons from denominations which practice sprinkling, rather than translate the word baptize as “immerse,” they transliterated it into a new anglicized version of the word, “baptize.”

However, the main scriptural reason for affirming that baptism should be by immersion is what baptism signifies. According to Rom. 6:1-11, the proper symbol of baptism is not washing away sin, but of death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism looks back to the past as a memorial and reminder of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. As Paul affirms, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3-4). Regarding the present, baptism symbolizes the death to the old self and the resurrection to the new life in Christ. Paul refers several times to this symbol of our old sinful nature being “crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom. 6:6), but “should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). We should therefore reckon ourselves, Paul says, “to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11). Baptism also looks forward to the resurrection at the end of time, for “if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Rom. 6:5).

There are some Baptists today, however, who are willing to compromise this distinctive Baptist belief that even the Calvinistic Particular Baptists required. In our pluralistic world, it is common for many young married couples to come from different denominational traditions, and a spouse who comes from a different tradition may resist receiving Scriptural baptism in order to become a member of a Baptist church. The path of least resistance is to just allow anyone to join our church by statement of their faith in Christ. One danger of compromising doctrinal convictions in order to be tolerant or in the interest of ecumenical unity is that the call for one compromise after another never ends.[4] Once one starts down the path of compromising one’s own biblical convictions, it is difficult to hold any doctrine uncompromisingly. Should one ever compromise what one believes to be not merely a private opinion, but a scriptural teaching?

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

All denominations that broadly share the Reformation heritage share more beliefs in common than beliefs that differ. This is true of dominations in the Baptist, Arminian, and Presbyterian/Reformed tradition – we agree on many more points than we disagree about orthodox Nicean Christianity and other key Reformation beliefs. 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, on the one hand, and Calvinists/Presbyterians, on the other. In it, I listed twelve points of doctrinal disagreement between centrist Baptists and many Arminians. In this series I want to point 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. This third post concerns the Baptist distinctive of believer’s baptism (or “the gathered church”).[1]

Distinctive Baptist Belief #3:
Believer’s Baptism (or a Gathered Church)

One of the most obvious changes in the Second London and Philadelphia confessions from the Westminster Confession regards believer’s baptism. According to the Westminster Confession, “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.”[2] In clear contradistinction from this statement, the Second London and Philadelphia confessions affirm, “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8).[3] The affirmation of believer’s baptism is in all major Baptist confessions, including all three Baptist Faith and Message statements.[4] Likewise, the Westminster Confession defined the visible church as consisting “of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion,” together with “their children.”[5] The Second London and Philadelphia confessions defined the church as consisting of “All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it . . . and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted (Rom. 1:7; Eph. 1:20-22).[6] Obviously, the Baptist confessions omitted the children of church members from membership until they had made their own profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. The Baptist confessions speak of a “gathered” church. The three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message follow the New Hampshire Confession in describing the church as consisting of “baptized believers.”[7]

It is, after all, because of Baptists’ distinctive practice of baptizing new believers (rather than sprinkling infants) that separated us from the magisterial Reformers.  And it was this practice that gave us the name “Anabaptists” (baptize again) or, more simply, Baptists. Believer’s baptism is central to our identity as Baptists. The notion of sprinkling of infants to wash away or remove their original sin is repugnant to Baptists throughout our history. This is not a peripheral issue for Baptists. Baptists have literally given their lives for this belief at the hands of Calvinist authorities. The New Testament is utterly bereft of any reference to infant baptism, and thus it is one of the Presbyterian doctrines without any significant Biblical support. Indeed, it is accurate to say historically that infant baptism was simply a “leftover” from the universal Catholic practice, and leaders like Calvin realized that it was a practice too engrained in European culture to simply eliminate it. Leaders like Zwingli recognized that the practice lacked Biblical support, but they compromised out of political expedience.  Indeed, this was one of the key differences between the magisterial Reformation and the radical Reformation. As Al Mohler asserts, Baptists and Presbyterians “fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism.” [8]

Is believer’s baptism a secondary or peripheral issue? When one applies a “theological triage” [9] among various theological issues, how important is believer’s baptism?  Baptists deny belief in baptismal regeneration – that baptism is required for salvation — baptism is a symbol of a salvific event that has already taken place. Nonetheless, for Baptists, persons are not viewed as saved (and thus candidates for baptism) until they have repented of their sins and placed their faith personally and consciously in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. This is impossible for infants.  Do Baptists recognize the salvation of Presbyterians (or Catholics) baptized as infants?  No, because as infants they were incapable of believer’s baptism. So believer’s baptism is directly tied to an essential doctrine – the doctrine of salvation. The baptism of those baptized as infants would not be recognized because their salvation is not recognized, since it was not associated with repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.

If Baptists today don’t see believer’s baptism as a crucial issue, it is a departure from our heritage. Baptists in prior generations suffered persecution and even martyrdom from Calvinist and Catholic authorities in defense of their beliefs. For example, Balthasar Hubmaier, Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, Georg Blaurock, and Wilhelm Reublin opposed Ulrich Zwingli in two disputations in Zurich about Zwingli’s continuance of the Catholic practice of infant baptism which they viewed as unbiblical. Hubmaier and Zwingli also exchanged rather sharply worded pamphlets on the subject. Early Anabaptist leaders like Manz, Grebel, Blaurock, and Manz were imprisoned repeatedly for their beliefs, and most of them fled Zurich to avoid further torment (although some such as Hubmaier were tortured and executed in other places). Felix Manz stayed and was executed by Zwingli and the Zurich city council for the crime of “having said that he wanted to gather those who wanted to accept Christ and follow Him, and unite himself with them in baptism.”[10] Clearly, their convictions were that believer’s baptism was an essential rather than secondary issue, an issue of conscience that was important enough to these early Baptists to lay down their lives in affirming it. Baptizing those who are not yet the age of accountability and have not affirmed Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is a crucial soteriological issue, not merely a secondary ecclesiological one.