Baptist Polity Revisited
By David R. Currie,
Coordinator

Several months ago, in a central Texas town, I drove by a Baptist church with a sign which read “a Southern Baptist Church.” I smiled, thinking that many of our churches do not really understand Baptist polity. You see, there is no such thing as a Southern Baptist church.

In the same week, several reporters called regarding Calvary Baptist Church in Waco calling Julie Pennington-Russell as pastor. Each reporter asked me if Calvary Baptist Church in Waco was a “Southern Baptist Church?”

I would smile to myself again and explain to the reporter that there was no such thing as a Southern Baptist church. Then they would ask if Calvary was a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship church? I would answer “no, there is no such thing as a CBF church.” Then they would ask if they were a Texas Baptist church? Again I would answer, “No, there is no such thing as a Texas Baptist church.” The reporter would express frustration which is understandable. Baptist polity is confusing and frustrating to anyone who is not Baptist, and to many who are.

In Baptist polity, there is only one kind of church, a local Baptist church. That church, out of its freedom and autonomy, can choose to relate and partner with a local Baptist association, a state convention such as the BGCT, a national convention such as the SBC, or a national fellowship, such as CBF, but that does not mean that church is a SBC church, a BGCT church, or a CBF church. There is no such thing! Understanding and practicing Baptist polity can help us stay “reconciled and united” and help us avoid arguments, even at this year’s convention.

There are two votes at this year’s convention that could be controversial if the issues were not placed under the light of Baptist polity.

First, there might be a motion to not seat the messengers from Calvary Baptist Church, Waco, because this church called a woman senior pastor. This motion should not come to the convention floor because who the pastor is of Calvary, Waco is nobody’s business except members of that church. Whether we agree with what they did is not the issue. The issue is an autonomous Baptist congregation’s right to make their own choice.

Second, we will vote on the Constitutional Amendment on Messenger Representation. This amendment must pass with a two-thirds majority. It should be a unanimous vote if we are going to be consistent with Baptist polity. The amendment requires a church to give money to the convention in order to send messengers. This always should have been the case because the only way an autonomous Baptist church can affiliate with an autonomous Baptist State Convention is by giving money.

Churches are not “members of the BGCT,” they affiliate or partner with the BGCT and the only way to do that is financially. Messenger qualification should be tied to a church’s financial contributions as well as the number of members each particular local church has. It is plainly and simply Baptist polity to do it this way. Even the SBC follows financially based representation.

I pray we will have a peaceful and joyous state convention this year. If we understand and follow Baptist polity, then we will have a more unified convention. Understanding and practicing Baptist polity can help us stay “reconciled and united” and help us avoid arguments. In Baptist polity, there is only one kind of church, a local Baptist church.

October 1998