The Baptist Faith and Practice
By Bill Hendricks

Excerpts from speech delivered at TBC annual convocation, July 14th, 2000.

In recent years, much has been said and written about the Baptist Faith & Message and the recent changes made in that historical, confessional document. Little has been said about Baptist faith & practice. What we do overshadows what we say.

The text for these remarks in Proverbs 22:38: "Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set." This is the penultimate riches; that we should train children in the way they should go (according to their capacities); that we should not rob the poor; and that we should avoid angry and furious people." Mainstream Baptists have shied away from this text because of J. R. Graves' faux pas in reading history. Historical successionism is not the intent of the passage. Recovery of the heritage and care for interpreting the tradition is the point.

I have often shaken my head in dismay and wondered where we have gone wrong. One facetious answer leads me to say it is the fault of Vacation Bible School. In the 1940s, when VBS and I were young, we taught primaries (elementary school children) to sing action choruses. The purpose was not necessarily to praise God or to instill Christian virtue. The purpose was to use up their energy so they would sit still for the Bible story. Two examples come to mind:

"I may never march in the infantry, shoot the artillery, ride in the cavalry; I may never fly over Germany, but I'm in the Lord's army!" and

"The B-I-B-L-E, yes, that's the book for me. I stand alone (accompanied by vigorous stomping) on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E!"

Such lyrics and actions stuck because we have grown a generation of fighters and Bible stompers. We should have stayed with "climb, climb up Sunshine Mountain."

I want to use the text of Graves with the substance of E.Y. Mullins to reflect on recent changes in the Baptist Faith & Message and current practice among some Baptists.

Edgar Young Mullins has recently been revived, vilified, misinterpreted, and, in some quarters, staunchly defended. Mullins, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out six axioms of religion, which are landmarks that need to be set firmly at the boundaries of the Baptist family today.

Some have questioned whether Mullins is orthodox because he stressed religious experience and soul competency. Mullins gave his own authority statement in clear and simple terms:  But we speak of making experience explicit in expounding the doctrines of Christianity, we are by no means adopting that as the sole criterion of truth. He would be a very unwise man who should attempt to deduce all Christian doctrine from his own subjective experience. As we shall soon see, Christianity is a historical religion. Jesus Christ is its sole founder and supreme authority as the revealer of God. The Scriptures are our only source of authoritative information about Christ and his earthly career. These are fundamental to any correct understanding of our religion."

Baptists did not become who they were until the 1970s by downplaying soul competency or religious experience.

In the minds of Mullins and Herschel Hobbs, who is being dragged into current discussions for purpose of lining up experts, soul competency and religious experience had nothing to do with enlightenment individualism. And all of the pettifogging that is going on under the buzzwords of "enlightenment autonomy" via "secular humanism" should stop. Enlightenment autonomy and secular humanism are not our landmarks, and we should resist the attempt to clutter up the Baptist landscape with these rocks.

The Theological Landmark

"The Holy and Righteous God has a right
 to be sovereign"

Mullins' first landmark is theological. "The Holy and Righteous God has a right to be sovereign," (I am quoting from BWA records in F. Townley Lord's "Baptist World Fellowship": 1955, p. 8). The Baptist Faith & Message says, "(He) God is all powerful, all loving, and all wise."

The Nicene Confession states, "I believe in one God, and the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth ... " (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom: 1877, II, 58). The sovereignty of God is the bedrock of Christian theology. The problem arises when that mark is moved to the 16th century and interpreted in a cultural worldview that reflects the absolutism of French kings.

The situation is compounded today in an age of political absolution, which gives the impression of the loss of personal freedom and human responsibility.

God is holy. Holiness includes both love and power. Powerful theological voices in our day assert that God's love is determinative of God's power.

John Calvin in the 16th century made God's power determinative of God's love. The landmark of God's power as creator is not in question. The interpretation of God's use of that power is at the center of differences in the Baptist family. The practice which arises from a commitment to God's sovereignty should be a humble acknowledgment of our status as creatures. God is God. No person is God's infallible, inerrant, inexorable, inquisitorial interpreter. No one!

The Religious Landmark

"All men have an equal right to direct access to God."

Soul competency or the priesthood of the believer was to have been excised from the amended BF&M this year. Fortunately, it was not. What has not been noted sufficiently is that the intended omission of this necessary Baptist landmark was tied directly to a certain view of the sovereignty of God and the power of the pastor. There is a definite irony that Mullins' admittedly anti-Catholic comments are resurfacing today in the charges of Southern Seminary president that Catholicism is a cult and a false church. Mullins was content to point out the logical inconsistencies between Baptist beliefs and the practice of the Roman church. He did not find it necessary to make overt value judgments about ancient forms of Christian belief that preceded the historical rise of Baptists. But there is a further irony, an irony of practice among some Baptist leaders whose actions are as hierarchical as any Roman curia.

What is important to Baptists is the baptism of believers. There is a way of acknowledging the reality of Christian experience that comes after catechism and confirmation. Baptists have consistently said this order of baptism before conversion is not normative according to our understanding of Scripture. The priesthood of the believer is held by most Christians. It is the genius of the Baptist witness along with others, that we affirm belief before baptism. The practice which grows from this second landmark should be the witness of faith before baptism. It should not be an exclusivism which denies salvation to others who confess the Lordship of Christ.

The Churchly Landmark

"All believers have equal privileges in the church."

This is a radical statement. The changes made to the BF&M in 1998 and 2000 are the crux of the divisions among us. The "gracious submission" of wives to husbands and the specific denial of the possibility of women as senior pastors are violations of this landmark.

Equal privileges are equal privileges. Granted, Mullins did not have gender equality and feminine ordination in mind. Nevertheless, this principle can and should be extended into the home and the pulpit.

Titus and 1 Timothy have been used to obfuscate the issue of women's ordination. The author said that men seeking the office of bishop should be blameless. Biblical literalists cannot have it both ways.

I have been assured that Paul did not mean blameless or perfect. How, then, do we know that he meant men? One can pit Galatians against the pastoral epistles ad infinitum. The issue should not be resolved by proof-texts. The larger context of Scripture and the Christological principle of interpreting Scripture must be brought to bear.

If all men (and if "men" is a generic term for human which most would grant except in the matter of women's ordination) have equal privileges in the church, the privilege of teaching children-boys and girls-in Bible study is not intrinsically different from teaching/preaching to women and men in church.

As to the tenuous issue of ordination, certain facts bear remembering. The Old Testament speaks of patriarchal blessing and of prophetic anointing; but there is nothing in Hebrew Scriptures analogous to contemporary practices of ordination. Jesus refers to himself as pastor. He only is our true pastor, shepherd and bishop of our souls.

The practice that should emerge concerning ordination is that Baptists should candidly and freely acknowledge that ordination and offices of ministry as practiced among us today have arisen from our history and traditions.

There is no such thing as a senior pastor, a minister of education or specialized ministries of music and childhood education in Scripture. All of these and the job descriptions which have proliferated around them are matters of history, tradition and culture. There is something faintly amusing about an 84-year-old deacon introducing a 24-year- old as his senior pastor.

There are certain customs emerging among us that have sinister implications. Not the least of these is the growing trend to call into being boards of elders committed to promote the pastor by circumventing deacons. Traditionally, in Baptist circles, "pastor," "elder" and "bishop" have been considered synonyms and refer to ordained leadership.

A second less-than-admirable reason for reserving the offices of pastor for men is the tax breaks and cultural privileges accorded that office, including the double-dipping of real estate interest and housing allowance in matter of income tax.

There is a third reason that hordes of protest are raised against women as pastors. Those women who are pastors, and many who would like to be, are so effective and efficient as to pose a threat to male ministers. Mullins was right. "All believers have equal privileges in the church."

The Moral Landmark

"To be responsible, man must be free."

Mullins' commentary sentence for this axiom makes it clear that he is thinking of freedom from creedal and hierarchical authority. The contemporary issue of practice is the creedal and coercive use of the BF&M.

In contradiction to the clear statements in the preface of the document the BF&M with all of its recent changes and, presumably, all future changes is expected to be a requirement for employment in all SBC agencies. This makes the confession both a religious creed and a secular condition of employment.

The doctrinaire attitude requiring uniformity of agreement is a hierarchical form of coercion. To say, "If you do not like the BF&M as amended both recently and as to be amended in the future, you cannot work for us" is a creedal requirement alien to our Baptist heritage.

It is conceivable that this coercion of conscience may lead to inauthentic signatories as well as to instances of mental reservation. Given this litmus test of conformity, can anyone still take seriously the preamble, which states: "Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience." The practice is not in keeping with the profession.

The Landmark of Social Relationships

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

Article XV of the Baptist Faith & Message adds four substantive issues. It is a Baptist landmark, shared by most Christian groups, that Christians should "oppose all forms of sexual immorality."

Is that general statement not enough? Or if one is going to list the "sexual sins" of adultery, homosexuality, and pornography, why not expand the roster to include pedophilia, sexual inversion and incest?

The point is does the document, as amended, give any sympathetic hearing as to what constitutes sexual morality/immorality? Do the changes make it easy to define who is the neighbor and under what conditions one might love the neighbor?

In a pluralistic culture, must we not hear divergent views before singling out specific deviations of human sexuality? How many segments of the human community must we alienate before we find it impossible to witness effectively to all of our society?

The additions to article XV address many important social issues. Is there a way to address these issues in a positive way, leaving room for the persuasive power of the Holy Spirit and the winsome example of Christly love?

The Landmark of a Free Church in a Free State

Mullins' sixth and final landmark is "a free church in a free state." Issues of the separation of church and state have always been a Baptist distinction. It is to be noted, with approval, that the 2000 BF&M left this article in its 1925 and 1963 forms. 

There is, however, a growing disparity between Baptist confession and Baptist practice at a crucial point. "The church should not resort to civil power to carry on its work. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion." These sentences frame the wall of separation of church and state. 

The crucial issue for Baptists today is how these statements are to be interpreted and applied. There are Baptist voices that read the term "state" as applying primarily to federal government. These advocates suggest that if state or local governments, especially those in which Baptists or Christians are in a vast majority, it is permissible for tax-supported agencies to favor a Baptist/Christian perspective. Federal courts that deny the right of local governments and their agencies to permit or foster favoritist positions are vilified.

Other Baptist voices request a stringent separation of church and state and recognize the rights of all minorities not to be overwhelmed by a predominate majority position. They are torn as to where to draw the line between civil religion, popular culture, historical precedence and a strong view of separation of church and state as required by article XVII of the BF&M. This landmark seems to be, like the glaciers, in motion. I predict it will be one of the most controversial issues to confront Baptists who seek to understand, maintain and apply their heritage.

The Towering Landmark

Some buildings stand out as identifying symbols above their urban landscapes. For example, the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco, the Sears Tower in Chicago or the World Trade Center in New York City. The lordship of Jesus Christ is the towering landmark on our Baptist landscape. This landmark is being redefined by recent changes in the BF&M. 

The crucial sentence, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" has been dropped. In its place is added, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ who is himself the focus of divine revelation."

The shift of emphasis from a Christological principle of interpretation to an assertion that Christ is the focus of the Bible is seismic. Behind the 1963 statement is the reformation principle, long affirmed by Baptists, "Christ is King and Lord of Scripture. Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of God, is One with the Father, and is the fullness of the Godhead bodily." To remove the living Christ as the touchstone for interpreting the Scripture is to downgrade Christ and promote bibliolatry.

Moreover, I was horrified to hear one of the four primary framers of the 2000 BF&M say on nationwide television that Jesus submitted himself to the word of God (read Bible). The debate concerned the ordination of women pastors. The issue was poorly taken.

The New Testament was not written in Jesus' day. Such a statement was robbing Jesus to pay Paul, not an unknown phenomenon in current Baptist disagreements. Jesus submitted (a favored verb of the new BF&M) only to God. While respecting the law and the prophets, he felt free to reinterpret them and to point out where they were being misused by the religious leaders of his day.

In the light of this change, the old Baptist battle cry becomes especially relevant: "No Creed but Christ."

Another Christological shift and the application of it occurs in the article on the church (VI). The new version reads that the church is to be "governed by his (Christ's) laws." The 1963 version stated that the church is "to be committed to his (Christ's) teachings." This shift represents a stronger attitude toward legalistic submission rather than a reverential relationship to Jesus' message.

Conclusion

My text was Proverbs 22:28, supplying the analogy of landmarks to Baptist beliefs. The reference was to an independent Baptist minister's (J. R. Graves') desire to make Baptists exclusive and exclusivistic. There are currently heirs who eschew Graves' view of history while wanting to affirm his exclusivistic attitude. The landmarks chosen through which to explore the recent changes in the BF&M were the six proposed by E.Y. Mullins in the 1905 address at the inaugural meeting of the Baptist World Alliance, a group that has increasingly become inclusive.

The particular slant to this address has been that our confession should be accompanied by a practice (usage) that both preserves the past and gives Baptists opportunity to minister most effectively in the present.

So far, all has been conservative and descriptive. I would like to close with a question that is future-oriented and provocative:

Remembering with appreciation those things that are past, is it time to look to the future in this new millennium by drafting a new confession which is appreciative of the past and its landmarks, which confession will state our doctrinal convictions in contemporary language and give clear indication as to what difference these doctrines make in the practice of our daily living? Just asking!

September 2000