How to End the Baptist Battles
By James Denison,
Pastor, Park Cities Baptist Church, Dallas

This has been a wonderful weekend. Following the remarkable addresses we've heard, I feel a bit like the flea in the Russian parable who rode into town on the nose of the ox and proclaimed, "We've been plowing." Said another way, I feel like a lion in a den of Daniels. These have been good days.

This morning I am assigned the subject of change. Often, change is a very good thing. For instance, in the summer of 1900,

• There were 8,000 cars in the United States, and 144 miles of paved roads; the maximum speed limit in most cities was ten mph.

• The average life expectancy in America was 47 years.

• Only 14% of American homes had a bathtub; only 8% had a telephone.

• Only 6% of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Change is often a good thing. I prepared my address on a device my father did not live long enough ever to use. And change is an inevitable thing. Heraclitus was right: we really cannot step into the same river twice.

At the same time, certain essentials of faith and experience must not change. Just as Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so must the central affirmations of our theology remain faithful to the biblical revelation and our faith heritage.

This morning we must ask about change as it relates to that revelation and heritage. What has changed with Southern Baptists? Are these changes biblical and consistent with our faith heritage? Why do the answers matter?

Here is my title: how to end the Baptist battles. I truly believe that recent events have given us the answer we need.

I. The history of our faith confessions

From our earliest days, those in the Judeo-Christian tradition have affirmed faith confessions. For instance, when the lawyer asked Jesus to choose among the 613 commandments of the Hebrew Scriptures the most important, he instantly spoke that confession of faith which the Jewish people had recited across the centuries of their history: "The most important one is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one'" (Mark 9.29). Then, on this foundation, he told us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.

The Jewish people typically recited this shema each morning and evening, and during the Sabbath services and festivals of faith as well. They cherished it as their confession of faith.

As you know, the Christian community soon developed their own confession of faith: Iesou Kuriou, "Jesus is Lord." We find it on the walls of Roman catacombs, and as the central statement of Christian baptism across twenty centuries.

Confessions of faith are not new to the Jewish people or to Christian tradition. Nor are they new to Baptist faith and practice, although it is noteworthy that the Southern Baptist Convention existed longer without a confession of faith than with one. Here's the history of The Baptist Faith and Message, in brief.

In 1920 the Foreign Mission Board presented a Statement of Beliefs to the Convention in its report, asking all missionaries to affirm it.

In response, two years later the Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions met to discuss the possibility of issuing a joint confession of faith, the first in the history of the SBC. But the idea was rejected.

Interest in such a statement of beliefs would not die, however. In 1924 the Convention rejected a call for a binding doctrinal statement, but put a committee in place to consider a Baptist Faith and Message. E.Y. Mullins chaired the committee.

Mullins' committee essentially adapted the 1833 New Hampshire Confession, itself based on the Philadelphia Confession of 1742, which in turn had roots in the Second London Confession of 1677. This 1833 New Hampshire Confession was the statement of faith adopted by Southwestern Seminary at its founding in 1908.

This 1925 Confession stated bluntly, "Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience," and mandated that it was not "to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life" (SBC Annual, 1925, 76).

This statement was further revised in 1963 by the committee chaired by Dr. Herschel Hobbs. One of the committee's chief concerns was to provide "safeguards of the individual conscience in the interpretation of Scripture." To the article on Scripture they added the statement, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." And because of increasingly heated racial issues they added to the article on man a statement which concludes, "every man possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love."

The statement combined the 1925s 25 articles into 17, but made clear its hermeneutical and ecclesiastical foundations with these two sentences, both omitted by the recent Convention in Orlando.

These statements are crucial, and form the crux of my concerns this morning. First, "The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ, whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures." And second, "Such statements [as the Baptist Faith and Message] have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority."

Dr. Hobbs said that if these parts of the statement "be denied or ignored, then the statement becomes a creed" (The Baptist Faith and Message, 12). And so we wonder why they were omitted. The answer is illuminating, and crucial.

II. This is not a Baptist statement of faith

Here's why they were left out: the new Baptist Faith and Message is not a Baptist Faith and Message. At least not as Baptists have historically understood themselves, their faith, and their message. Here's the evidence.

Review first the authority of the new Baptist Faith and Message.

Listen to these words, never before a part of any Baptist faith statement: "Baptist churches, associations and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice" (paragraph 15).

For the first time, the denominational faith statement is intended to be an "instrument of doctrinal accountability." For whom? By whom? Now we understand the exclusion of the statement, "Such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority."

And for the first time, this faith statement is said to be "essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice." Essential for what? For whom? Perhaps this sentence explains the exclusion of the 1963 statement, "The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ, whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures."

Simply put, a document which elevates such a human statement of faith to this level of authority cannot be understood to be Baptist. And those who affirm it cannot be understood to be historic Baptists.

Second, let's review the hermeneutics central to the document.

Our 1963 statement of faith said, "the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." The new statement says, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation."

Now, for the first time, Baptists are to interpret Scripture without the Christological hermeneutic which has characterized our theological history. One of the interpretive principles we inherited from our Anabaptist forefathers made clear the fact that the New Testament interprets the Old, and the statements of Jesus are the means by which we interpret the rest of God's inspired word.

A document which abandons the Christological principle of biblical interpretation cannot be understood to be Baptist. And those who affirm it cannot be understood to be historic Baptists.

Third, let's review the ecclesiology found in the new document. For the first time in Baptist history we have this statement, "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture" (section 6). However, Baptists have always championed the principle of local church autonomy. We have made clear the fact that a local congregation can do exactly as it pleases in seeking and following God's will.

Nowhere is this freedom more crucial than in the matter of pastoral selection and leadership. Make no mistake - this has never been done in the history of Baptist confessions of faith.

Simply put, a document which intrudes upon local church autonomy in such a restrictive manner as this cannot be understood to be Baptist. And those who affirm it cannot be understood to be historic Baptists.

III. The significance of this document

Now, what are the implications of this departure from historic Baptist principles of authority, ecclesiology, and interpretation? And of the larger controversy it represents?

First, this theological document will be normative and formative for the next generation of Southern Baptists. The SBC now has a new set of criteria for current and future denominational employees. Dr. Al Mohler was clear about this in Orlando: "To accept employment is to accept the terms of employment." Our colleagues and friends in Southern Baptist seminaries and missions agencies will be required to affirm this new, non-Baptist document. These changes will be foundational to the future of the Southern Baptist Convention, its theology and its faith practices.

Second, this issue and the larger

controversy it represents have created a massive obstacle to effective ministry and missions. Last September a marketing and focus research firm employed by Park Cities Baptist Church conducted focus group research for us in the north Dallas community. Nine different groups, selected scientifically, were interviewed. None contained individuals currently attending a church anywhere.

One of the areas analyzed dealt with these persons' views of various denominations. The groups were asked about five denominations: Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, and Church of Christ, relative to a number of descriptive words. The groups ranked the denominations by these words.

Here are the words for which Baptists came in first: "pushy," "self-serving," "cliquish," "discriminates," "fundamentalist," and "hateful." For each of these words Baptists came in next to last: "loving," "diversified," "open-minded," and "modern."

This secular marketing firm came to a clear conclusion: the greatest single impediment to our church's ability to communicate the gospel in our culture is the fact that we are a "Baptist" church. How ironic: a denomination formed to obey the Great Commission is now our church's greatest obstacle to its fulfillment.

Last, this controversy will continue and will move closer to home than ever before. SBC leaders have promised to inundate Texas Baptist churches with tapes and literature heralding their positions and caricaturing ours. Associations and local churches will be pressured to take sides.

In the recent edition of the Southern Baptist Texan, Jerry Sutton, one of the leading spokesmen for the new SBC, states, "There is a major movement to entrench moderates and liberals in the religion departments of state Baptist schools. If they can't subvert seminary students, they will go a step backward and subvert college students. In time conservatives in each state, by necessity, will have to organize and challenge those moves for the sake of the next generation" (Southern Baptist Texan, July/August 2000, 24).

This controversy, even though it is hindering our efforts to reach our lost communities and world, will continue unless we find a new way to address it.

Conclusions

So, how do we end the Baptist battles? First, we understand that the Southern Baptist Convention is now a different denomination theologically. It has adopted a statement of faith which departs from historic Baptist views of authority, hermeneutics, and ecclesiology. In short, the SBC is no longer Baptist as Baptists have traditionally defined themselves.

I am making no personal accusations this morning. I do not know if the architects of this new document intend such a departure from historic Baptist theology or not, though I can guess. I do not know if the messengers who overwhelmingly affirmed this non-Baptist document intended to leave historic Baptist theology or not, though I can guess.

The new statement does not in my mind mean that the SBC is a "bad" denomination, filled with "bad" people. I am grateful for every person the SBC can win to Christ, and for every good thing they can do for God's Kingdom. I am grateful for my Presbyterian, Methodist, and Catholic sisters and brothers as well. Like them, the SBC is not a "bad" denomination, but it is no longer who we are theologically. It is not in my mind a Baptist denomination. And this change is crucial, and very personal to me.

You see, I first heard the gospel because Southern Baptists empowered businessmen Tony McGrady and Julian Unger to be ministers as they knocked on my apartment door and invited me to ride their bus to church in Houston, Texas. I heard the gospel because a local, autonomous Baptist church was free to attempt a ministry many other churches had ridiculed or rejected.

I came to faith in Christ because my Southern Baptist female Sunday school teacher pastored me and led me to Jesus. I chose to stay a Southern Baptist because I became convinced that our principles came closer to the New Testament than any other denominational model.

I still believe that every word of the Scriptures is the word of God. Further, I believe that the word of God I hold this morning is the word of God. Not just the original autographs, which we do not possess, but the translations which we do.

In other words, I am who I was, but the SBC is not what it was. They have moved from me, not I from them. They have moved from us, not we from them.

Second, we claim our heritage and identity as Texas Baptists. Now we know who the SBC is, and will be. And we know who we are. We are Baptists. Texas Baptists.

Texas Baptists believe in biblical, non-creedal authority for our faith. Texas Baptists believe in a Christ-centered message and hermeneutic. Texas Baptists believe in local church autonomy and freedom for ministry and mission.

So now we must be Texas Baptists, together. We must move beyond the Baptist battles by being historic Baptists. Let us exercise our freedom and autonomy to preach Christ, not creed. Let us move beyond the bitter rancor, the name-calling and slander, the internal, myopic focus produced by twenty years of controversy.

Let us link hands and hearts in a new day to join the Spirit in his new work of this new century and era. Let us move beyond the Baptist battles by being Baptist together, for the sake of a world desperate for the hope of the gospel. For the sake of those who are where I was, waiting for the good news of God's love. We can end the Baptist battles in Texas by being Texas Baptists.

Shakespeare was right:

Let's end the Baptist wars in Texas by being Texas Baptists, to the glory of God.

September 2000