Defining Baptists by belief and action

Armies and sports teams wear uniforms. Cultures have traditions and often languages. Generations have musical and clothing styles. We distinguish ourselves from others in a variety of useful or comforting ways. Whether our purpose is confrontation, fellowship, or cooperation, we sometimes need to locate ourselves on a spectrum of groups and beliefs. Politically incorrect as it might be to say, it’s universal and unavoidable.

That’s one reason why the TEXAN staff pursued a special report on the terms and doctrines that identify Christians and Baptists. Our goal is not to separate the good guys from the bad so much as to encourage all participants in denominational dialogue to move toward terms and distinctions that we all understand in the same way.

One example would be the term “evangelical.” It’s very popular these days. Americans who aren’t even believers will call themselves evangelical if asked the right questions. Some see it as a broad term to take in all those who believe in salvation by grace. And yet, if you look at Bart Barber’s column on page 12 you’ll find a more specific definition that would not include those who believe the Bible to be errant or who have an unbiblical view of the Trinity. If we’re going to use the term, we need to understand what it means to both speaker and hearer.

The term “doctrine” is actually another example of that. When you additionally refer to “important” or “crucial” doctrines you can scarcely know what another person understands you to say.

It’s not a meaningless exercise, though. An important debate in our denomination now has to do with the relative wideness or narrowness of our fellowship. Both terms sound extreme to our ears but finding that narrow path between them is a struggle to understand the meaning of cooperation between autonomous and diverse churches.

Yes, I sympathize with those who fear that our fellowship will get too specific on matters of interpretation. It’s a natural temptation for reformers to over-sharpen a fine point. But when dissenters get specific about what is too narrow in their opinion, I disagree with those who point to beverage alcohol use, private prayer language, the right of trustees to set specific standards for faculty members and missionary candidates, and the need to broaden our denominational leadership to include those who either do not believe the Bible is inerrant or to whom it does not matter much. Our fellowship is at least sufficiently broad on those subjects.

I can also see the point of those concerned that the convention might become overly broad, theologically. We’ve been there before and we were not better for it. If you want to see a picture of tolerance relatively unbound, look at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. I say “relatively” because those who have attempted to further clarify the CBF’s identity were very harshly and intolerantly treated a few years back. That broadness is neither a goal for the SBC nor a worthy goal for any missionary group.

A pushback against a perceived over-broadening is sometimes an even more specific definition of dissent. At one time it was based on theological disharmony. We must be careful that it does not become so specific that anyone who votes “no” or asks a challenging question becomes an adversary in our eyes.

They’ll be some back and forth forever regarding the relationship between a doctrine and various levels of fellowship and partnership demanded or deemed acceptable by our interpretation of that doctrine. The convention’s democratic processes are the best means for sorting those things out. During the flow of this debate thus far I’ve gathered some ideas that seem important.

First, our trustee process still works. Those who want to teach our boards that they are accountable needn’t worry. These folks came from our churches and live among us most of the year. They know more about who Southern Baptists are than they did when they were first elected. Having the convention messengers operate as a trustee board of the whole would spawn scores of unintended and negative consequences.
While I have disagreed with specific board decisions many times over the past 30 years, I’d be wrong to question their legitimate authority to make policy decisions. Accountability to the convention is not the same as accountability to every church or person in the convention.

Next, our statement of faith is adequate and up to date. Some would try to use the Baptist Faith and Message to settle every argument of faith and practice. That isn’t its purpose and it would become divisive if we attempted to use it that way. Our confession is a minimal set of guidelines that expresses a Baptist baseline for our cooperative work. Boards and agencies must often go beyond the specifics of that minimum in order to accomplish their missions.

Additionally, a tiered or layered understanding of how doctrine applies to practice is sometimes useful but may imply too much. I understand the hesitance of our theology wonks (page 11) to prioritize essential doctrines. Rather, different doctrines imply different types of cooperation and fellowship within the body of Christ.

Those who infer from a layered scheme of cooperation an accompanying lower level of importance for some doctrines fall into a trap. The gradient of relative importance is necessarily man-made. You draw your lines in a different place than I. Who’s to choose between them? In the end, all doctrine becomes debatable in the fellowship of those who use the same terms to mean different things. Chaos.

Finally, there is a way to have these deliberations without sin or catastrophe. Mercy and patience with one another will do much to ensure that we do not risk some fracture in every discussion.

The minority must learn to take no for an answer. When a board has spoken, when the convention agrees, and when a board reexamines the matter for the sake of clarity and fellowship, it’s enough.

The majority must never be mindless of the minority. We’ve all been there and we still believe we had a point. We did have a point and, win or lose, we need to hear from both sides when there are two sides.

A further responsibility of the majority is to leave open a means of effective dissent. Doing otherwise assumes our leaders will always be as right as they are now, and their successors will be, and theirs after that. Such an understanding of human nature is based on unfounded optimism and bad theology.

I guess my bottom line is this: Be honest with one another in debate and kind to one another at all times. Honesty will head off our urge to make words mean whatever we need them to mean for the sake of a point. Words like “evangelical,” “Baptist,” “inerrancy,” and “conservative” have fairly objective and useful meanings. To use them according to some private interpretation adds confusion to serious discussions.

Kindness means that we will seek to win no point by ridicule or slander. We do it among our friends, we think it in our hearts, and sometimes we put it in writing. There is no pure thing done in a wicked way. A different spirit during this year’s debate, before, during, and after the convention; whether in the halls, on the floor during discussion, or online throughout the year, would change a lot. Maybe it would change enough to matter so that our prayers for spiritual renewal and evangelistic fervor can become far more than ritual.