Showdown looms over SBC and Calvinism

Thank you for withdrawing the term.

Now, your claim that the SBC is a denomination is 100% false. It is a convention that meets once a year, and it has no control (none whatsoever) over the churches that send money to the general fund as well as send messengers to the convention. My church does both; in fact, Lord willing, I will be one of the messengers to this year’s convention. As my church’s main teaching pastor is fond of saying, there is technically no such thing as a Southern Baptist church.

Like the FBFI, do men within the SBC have influence and sway over certain churches? Yes. Control? No.

The conservative resurgence is a little more complex than simply saying that Paige Patterson forced his will on the seminaries. Digging in, the most substantive variable that led to the turnaround in the seminaries is that the SBC is not a denomination. The churches are autonomous and make their own decisions. Congregations tired of the nonsense, refused to hire liberal pastors being produced by the seminaries. Yes, by God’s grace, men like Patterson and Mohler used their influence to effect change. But congregationalism is what saved the SBC.

Edit - this is what I was saying with my comment about the FBFI. The SBC is no more a denomination than the FBFI is and, furthermore, actually exerts less control over its member churches than the FBFI does (with the understanding that technically, neither the SBC nor the FBFI have member churches). And I stand by that claim. Frankly, when I first wrote that response to Tyler, I didn’t mean it as a pejorative, just an example by way of contrast. I was making a point about the SBC.

The conservative resurgence is a little more complex than simply saying that Paige Patterson forced his will on the seminaries. Digging in, the most substantive variable that led to the turnaround in the seminaries is that the SBC is not a denomination. The churches are autonomous and make their own decisions. Congregations tired of the nonsense, refused to hire liberal pastors being produced by the seminaries. Yes, by God’s grace, men like Patterson and Mohler used their influence to effect change. But congregationalism is what saved the SBC.

John, I heard Al Mohler mention that there was a whole book written about this, including ‘Black Monday’, which I guess was the day the SBTS faculty decided they would not have that man [him] to rule over them and protested. Do you happen to know what that book he’s talking about or what it’s called? He references it in his “The Cost of Conviction” messages from a while back.

I don’t know the name of the book. I’m going to ask around, because I’d like to read it.

For the record, I’m not saying that congregationalism is the only variable that saved the SBC, I’m saying that congregationalism is the variable that allowed Mohler, Patterson, Pressler, and company to do what they did. Good old-fashioned, regular, Jesus loving churchgoers were fed up with the liberalism in the convention. If you’re looking for an example to help make an argument for congregationalism, look no further than the SBC.

[John E.]

I don’t know the name of the book. I’m going to ask around, because I’d like to read it.

For the record, I’m not saying that congregationalism is the only variable that saved the SBC, I’m saying that congregationalism is the variable that allowed Mohler, Patterson, Pressler, and company to do what they did. Good old-fashioned, regular, Jesus loving churchgoers were fed up with the liberalism in the convention. If you’re looking for an example to help make an argument for congregationalism, look no further than the SBC.

The Baptist Faith and Message was changed in the 60s to reflect the liberalism of the leaders. It has since been corrected. I might be remembering wrong, but I thought SBTS had a statement of faith that Mohler required all the profs to sign. I’m assuming that the SBTS’s statement of faith is the Baptist Faith and Message, so, in a sense, I guess we’re saying the same thing, Andy. I am curious, and will need to look it up, about when the statement was amended again to reflect the conservative resurgence. I know that there were some changes made in the early 2000s.

Mohler has frequently noted that if the SBC had a hierarchy like the main-line denominations, the conservative resurgence would not have taken place. As it is, rank and file members can attend the Convention and vote. The number of messengers a church can send is determined by how much they contribute to the cooperative program. In the late 70s, as the conservative resurgence began to take shape, the Convention was flooded with lay people fed up with the liberal seminaries. Once conservative lay people elected Adrian Rodgers, conservatives had control over the seminaries. The reason that conservatives have retained control over the seminaries and the Convention as a whole is because it’s not a top down authority structure. It starts in the pews. Conservative lay people learned their lesson not to surrender control of the Convention.

For those who think that the SBC is a denomination, what do you think that the SBC requires of my church? Likewise, what do you believe the SBC will do to us if we fail to obey? Here in the DMV, Falls Church Anglican lost their building and the building’s contents when it joined the African synod. That’s an example of a denomination exercising control.

Bringing it back to the original topic, the election of a non-Calvinist as president of the SBC will literally have zero bearing on my SBC church. Most of our members won’t even know it happened.

When the Methodists went liberal over a century ago, many churches did leave to become “Wesleyan” churches, but there remained a faithful few evangelicals, some of whom first brought me the Gospel when I was a kid. That noted, due to the episcopal structure of the church, an evangelical could always count on the liberal bishops to keep him in the backwaters. Hence country churches are far more evangelical than the city churches, but the overall structure of the denomination is stoutly liberal, even as almost no one is reading anything out of their publishers. When my mom was fighting cancer, I was amazed how many of her books were from evangelical sources, but when I thought about it again, I realized there are only so many ways you can say non credo before people stop buying the books. More or less, Methodism is going to go evangelical only when the last church building closes and evangelicals buy it for a song.

You can’t quite put a line with congregationalists on one end, presbyterians in the middle, and episcopalians on the other, but it does seem to affect message control.

Hi John,

My hunch is Don is using “denomination” in a broad, dictionary sense. Merriam-Webster says a denomination is “a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.” I suppose in that sense, Southern Baptists make up a denomination. I know in average americana it’s so. But that’s broader than you were defining.

The Army Chaplaincy definitely sees the SBC as a denomination—the second largest represented Christian denomination behind the Roman Catholics. But there are more NAMB endorsed chaplains in service than Catholic Priests right now (neither here nor there for this discussion). All the NAMB guys I work with say the SBC is a denomination in the dictionary / categorization sense but also agree with your good observations about influence vs control. I do too.

I might be remembering wrong, but I thought SBTS had a statement of faith that Mohler required all the profs to sign. I’m assuming that the SBTS’s statement of faith is the Baptist Faith and Message, so, in a sense, I guess we’re saying the same thing, Andy.

Yes, I believe that Mohler had to use those statements to force many faculty out of SBTS when he became the President. The faculty apparently couldn’t believe that they actually had to believe those things in order to remain on staff.

The SBC resurgence did take many, many years as the committees had to be individually reclaimed one by one in order to effect lasting change. Mohler talks about how carefully they need to safeguard those committees in the future, lest the committee that appoints the leaders be compromised and turn everything to naught. That’s covered in the two lectures that I mentioned and linked to before.

As an aside, the lectures that I mentioned cover the reform at SBTS specifically, but there is some overlap with the SBC reform movement as well.

AndyE, that’s not the same book I was thinking of, but I would like to see the one you recommended as well. Andy Naselli reviewed the book that you mentioned at Themelios.

[Jay]

Mohler talks about how carefully they need to safeguard those committees in the future, lest the committee that appoints the leaders be compromised and turn everything to naught. That’s covered in the two lectures that I mentioned and linked to before.

I think that corrects what I said earlier. There is a committee that appoints the committees (boards?) and that committee on committees is where the President of the SBC has the most clout. The conservative resurgence was a long process because it took a succession of conservative presidents, starting in the late 70s (or was it 80s?) to gain the ascendancy over the committees bit by bit.

As to what does the SBC require? I think they require cash, i.e., contributing to the cooperative program, which makes a church a cooperating church. I am not sure if they require assent to the Baptist Faith and Message, but I am pretty sure you have to pay to play (i.e. seat a messenger at the convention). [for more info see here] That makes it a denomination in my books. But whatever, denomination/convention, it’s all the same. It’s not just a fellowship. I grew up in a denomination that had as a distinctive belief “no church membership lists” - but to own property they had to have a voter’s list. Voter/member, what’s the difference? The only way they could discipline people was kick them off the voter’s list. So I don’t think one need get to uptight about the term “denomination.”

Yes, using that definition than the SBC is a denomination. In fact, using that definition the FBFI is a denomination, too. However, using a more robust definition of the term, neither the SBC nor the FBFI is a denomination.

Don, I wrote in a comment that the number of messengers that my church can send to the SBC is determined by the amount of money we send to the cooperative program. And since I’m assuming that you’re responding to my questions with your second paragraph, the “for more info see here” is unnecessary. I am on staff at an SBC church. I know how my church works and I know how my “denomination” works. What I want to know is, using your definition of “denomination,” what kind of control do you believe the SBC exercises over my church? And, if we refuse to obey, what happens? Beyond the very uninteresting and, frankly, unimportant fact that if we stop giving money to the cooperative program we can’t send messengers to the SBC. I could explain why we send money and messengers, but I have zero desire to spill my church’s business onto the pages of a public forum. I’ll say this, if we were to stop sending money to the cooperative program and we were no longer allowed to send messengers to the SBC, nothing changes for us except we have some money to distribute elsewhere and some of us don’t have to sacrifice a few days every year to attend the SBC. And, Don, the conservative resurgence began in the 70s. Adrian Rogers, a conservative, was elected SBC prez in 79.

Now, circling back to Scott, Don’s comment is why I’m assuming that he was (maybe still is) using a stricter definition for “denomination” than you posted. Over the last 42 years, having grown up in strict fundamentalism and having attended BJU, I’ve heard over and over and over from many different people that the SBC is a denomination, and they almost always use the term in a much more robust manner than your definition allows. I still have FBFI-styled fundamentalists (including some FBFI members) sternly warn me that the SBC can take our church’s building if we disobey the SBC. When I tell them that’s not true, they insist that I don’t know what I’m talking about. They insist that the SBC rides herd over our theology and how we “do church.” I’ve come to realize that it’s par for the course to have men over a certain age and of a certain fundamentalist stripe respond to me as if they know better than me the inner-workings of my church and my church’s “denomination.”

Once again, the SBC exerts no control over my congregationalist SBC church.

One more thing - yes, the military branches recognize the SBC as a denomination. For the record, because of my dad, I am very familiar with the FBFI’s chaplaincy program. Thinking of the ways the SBC and FBFI endorse chaplains reminds me of the phrase “a distinction without a difference.”

P.S. This comment is not intended to impugn the FBFI. I understand that for some, being compared favorably to the SBC is unwanted. I’m sorry you feel that way.

This is why I find ecclesiastical politics so distasteful (from the article):

Richard Land, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, says he supports Ken Hemphill to lead the SBC as president in order to preserve the gospel message and to defend the role of evangelism.

The very nature of politics means a good deal of insults, lies, fabrications and “half-truths” are thrown around in an effort to demonize your opponent and increase your base. This is bad enough in secular politics. However, when ecclesiastical politicians use theological systems (poorly understood or otherwise) as battering rams to bludgeon and tar their opponents with, all to score cheap political points, it becomes pathetic. Theology shouldn’t be a sword to wield in a political contest. Yet, our fallen nature makes it so, when given the opportunity …

I also came across this video earlier tonight - it’s Mohler’s initial meeting to a group of…highly skeptical… students between the time where he was elected to be the President of SBTS and the time he actually assumed office. It’s fascinating video to watch, if anyone is so inclined. I would commend it to all of you.

http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/3338

[John E.]

Don, I wrote in a comment that the number of messengers that my church can send to the SBC is determined by the amount of money we send to the cooperative program. And since I’m assuming that you’re responding to my questions with your second paragraph, the “for more info see here” is unnecessary. I am on staff at an SBC church. I know how my church works and I know how my “denomination” works.

I didn’t provide the link for you, even though I was engaging with what you wrote. There are others besides you who might read my posts. (Jk!)

[John E.] What I want to know is, using your definition of “denomination,” what kind of control do you believe the SBC exercises over my church?

I believe the SBC has expelled churches, or refused to seat their messengers in the past. Granted, they had to go to extremes to get that treatment, but they can and have done it.

[John E.] And, Don, the conservative resurgence began in the 70s. Adrian Rogers, a conservative, was elected SBC prez in 79.

I knew it was somewhere back then, though I would say that is just barely the 70s.

[John E.] I still have FBFI-styled fundamentalists (including some FBFI members) sternly warn me that the SBC can take our church’s building if we disobey the SBC. When I tell them that’s not true, they insist that I don’t know what I’m talking about. They insist that the SBC rides herd over our theology and how we “do church.” I’ve come to realize that it’s par for the course to have men over a certain age and of a certain fundamentalist stripe respond to me as if they know better than me the inner-workings of my church and my church’s “denomination.”

Once again, the SBC exerts no control over my congregationalist SBC church.

I don’t know about your church building, and I don’t know about the SBC on this point. Those who assert this may be confusing the SBC with other Baptist groups that have done exactly what they warn you against. I think it depends on the nature of the involvement and who holds the title to the property. I’ve seen examples of Baptist groups (not the SBC) where the “denomination-ish entity” held the title of local churches because they held the mortgage. The idea was that if the church failed in its payments the “denomination-ish entity” could step in and revive it or close it. This became a club to control the theology of the local church. But I have no knowledge of the SBC ever having done that. So possibly those who are warning you are conflating stories like this and are confused about the SBC.

Anyway, there is a structure for some discipline as mentioned above, so it isn’t just up to the local church as to whether they want to be in or not.

Don, thank you for answering my questions. Before I get to my “baffled,” I’m going to address your answers.

Regarding church properties, the only instances that I can find where a church lost its building because it left the SBC involves a church plant where the “mother” church wrote into the deed that if the planted church ever left the Convention, the property would revert back to the “mother” church. As a general rule, the SBC does not own church property. Without having researched it, I wouldn’t be surprised if we could find specific instances where the Convention held the deed to a church property, but only under unique circumstances. To that end, the SBC has no say over the vast majority, if not all, of the properties owned by SBC churches.

I understand that you may push back a little on my assertion that the “SBC has no say” because, under certain, rare circumstances, the SBC can expel a church from the Convention (a year or so ago, a church was expelled because it was lgbtq affirming). However, and I can only speak for my church, the SBC’s ability to expel us has zero place in our discussions and decisions. By way of an absurd example, if we came to the conclusion that blue is the carpet color that best reflects Biblical principles and then the SBC were to send us a letter saying that we risk being expelled from the Convention, we’d say, “ok,” and then install blue carpet. If the Convention followed through, we would not lose any sleep nor shed nary a tear over it. And unlike when other denominations expel churches, the SBC’s action would cause us no trouble, except possibly the hassle of some paperwork and filing.

Now, would every SBC church affirm my claim within my absurd scenario? Probably not. But, frankly, that’s most likely their failing, not the SBC’s. If they place more importance on keeping the Convention happy over conducting their church’s affairs in accordance with what they believe the Bible teaches, they have bigger problems than the SBC.

That being said, and without specifically asking them, the other SBC churches that I’m most familiar with and fellowship with would have a similar take on the SBC as I do.

Thankfully, the above scenario is a mute point because, well, the SBC has not and is not dangling their only real punishment (expulsion) over the heads of churches that are operating within the SBC’s very large parameters of what it means to be an orthodox, Baptist church. Frankly, I think that the SBC’s parameters may be too large and too forgiving. And that brings me to my subject heading of “baffled.”

I get that many members of the FBFI view the SBC with suspicion. I disagree with many of their (*your) concerns, but I empathize. I believe that, in the main, like the SBC, the FBFI has the desire to be faithful disciples of Jesus. However, painting the SBC as more controlling than the FBFI is baffling to me as it is to others reading this thread.

As has been pointed out, if Pastor X is a member of the FBFI, then for all intents and purposes the church he leads is an FBFI church in the same way that my church is an SBC church. As such, Pastor X, and by extension, his church, is beholden to the FBFI in a similar manner to how my church is beholden to the SBC.

Now, if you place my previous two sentences in context of what I’ve been saying about my church’s relationship to the SBC, you’ll see that I’m not intending those two sentences to be construed as a pejorative. I believe that any organization has the right to decide who’s in and who’s out. If the FBFI is convinced that blue carpet dishonors God, then, by all means, the FBFI shouldn’t want members who dishonor God by installing blue carpet in their church’s building. I can agree with that while disagreeing with the FBFI’s belief about blue carpet.

But, the sad reality is that I personally know men who have failed to follow what they believe is right because they were worried about how the FBFI would perceive their decisions. That may not be the reaction the FBFI wants, but it’s the reaction that some men have. And like I said above about the SBC, that is probably their failing more than the FBFI’s failing. Furthermore, going back to my previous paragraph, by definition the FBFI has to exert some control over its member pastors, most likely in the form of withholding fellowship. And that minimal level of control does extend to churches. To insist that the FBFI doesn’t exert some level of control over churches is baffling to me and others.