BWA: UNAMERICAN?

The same friend says:

HOWEVER, the reasons given by the SBC for splitting from the BWA include the idea that the BWA was increasingly "Unamerican." I was under the impression that the Church transcended the state.

Now you're hitting on something that stuck me as odd also. When I first became a Christian, I and most of my friends tended to think of ourselves as members of the universal Body of Christ first and Americans second; America on an accelerating path of wholesale rejection of Christianity, and needs missionaries just as badly as any other nation, etc. This is certainly what comes through in the New Testament. Paul was a citizen of Rome but was frequently at odds with the government of Rome, and was ultimately executed by Rome. And I think ideally Christianity is healthier when not mixed with hypernationalism.

Now that I've been at this religion thing a while, though, I admit I'm more America-centric than I used to be. Around 1993 I remember going to a Christian men's retreat and overheard some guys speaking more passionately of Rush Limbaugh than about the Lord. The SBC and the GOP are simply not the freakin' same thing.

For most SBC folks, we think of ourselves as preservers of America's Christian heritage. Not attempting to revert all of society back to the Eisenhower era, but desperately trying to cling to the few overt touchstones of Christianity in the public square. Not a bad thing in my view, but then we tend to take criticism of America way too personally from outsiders while reserving the right to demonize liberals. We do need to see ourselves in the same family as believers in other nations before we see ourselves as voters in Red States.

The BWA didn't leave the SBC behind when they embraced segregation, I don't think the SBC should leave the BWA when they don't embrace America.

But maybe they should have. I wonder how the SBC would have received loving correction on that subject around 1959.

FALSE BAPTISMS?

A friend asks, "...in the SBC, do you think that there's undue pressure on individuals growing up in the Church to get baptized before they've sought the salvation offered by Christ?"

The 'Baptist Spiritual Path' (so to speak), which I believe closely follows the New Testament model, is (1) first-time prayer for salvation, (2) baptism, (3) church membership. If you haven't done #1, then #2 is merely the physical act of getting wet and means nothing. Likewise doing 3 gets you nowhere without 1 and 2. Of course we humans are sneaky and it frequently happens that we skip a step in some attempt to look good for those observing us. However the message of the Bible is that number one is where the real action is. And only God really knows if you've done that heart-work or not.

There are a couple of different issues here. First, are kids pressured to get baptized? Well, for one thing typical SBC churches get dinged all the time from folks in other Biblically-centered denominations that we over-over-emphasize Making The Decision. Giving The Altar Call. The Invitation. Whatever you want to call it. Not a week goes by that children don't hear the message in the context of worship services that Jesus is at the door of your heart knocking... don't you want to pray and let him in? What does not happen, at least in my experience, are individuals approaching other individuals, of any age, and giving them a one-on-one hard sell -- we train our folks to present the message of the gospel and let God do the calling.

Taking that initial step of prayer to God, confessing one's sinfulness, and receiving the gift of salvation is something quite separate from the act of baptism. Baptists believe getting dunked is the initial step of obedience AFTER beginning our relationship with Christ. And because baptism by itself is neither necessary nor sufficient to earn anything, much less a ticket to heaven, I would say there is little to no pressure to get baptized before something dramatic and spiritual has taken place in a person's heart.

So what non-Christians might consider pressure is really the ongoing clarion call to the entire congregation to take whatever step of action God asks of each of us individually. As clergy and lay leaders it is our job to present that call to action without doing what I would perhaps call "cult-like shepherding": checking up systematically on individuals and employing verbal manipulation to get them to do whatver it is you think God wants them to do. I know churches where that does happen, and it's unhealthy. If a person presents themselves for baptism, we simply do a short review of the gospel, ask "Have you prayed to receive Christ already? Are you certain that you're going to heaven?" and if they say yes, boom, they're dunked. If someone wants to give a knowingly false answer, that's between him/her and God Almighty.

Yes there are families that attend SBC churches regularly, made up of individuals who may all be in different phases of their walks with Christ. We all understand that. All are welcome. It's my experience however, that adults who sit through several church services in which the gospel is presented clearly, yet are never convinced that Jesus' resurrection was a historical event, don't believe they need divine forgiveness, aren't interested in a relationship with God... won't be hanging around. As a very experienced non-believer myself, I certainly couldn't take it for long. It's sort of like the Eckerd's on Congress that blares out opera and classical music right outside their front door; if you despise Verdi, you have to really want to stand on that street corner for some reason, or you'll move on. And no amount of browbeating is likely to morph you into liking Yo-Yo Ma.

In my opinion these are some the attributes of the gospel of Christ that makes it incredibly and immutably beautiful, and are tokens of its truly divine origin: It's all by God's grace alone. It is wholly a work of Almighty God within the human heart. You can't work for it, not in the least. It is available to all people, of all ages, genders, races, and abilities. It crosses over into every culture, and uplifts every culture into which it is introduced.

It is only when fallen men try to twist it and mold it to suit themselves, when the Biblical centrality of that heart-transformation is removed from the message and works-righteousness is added, that true Christianity dies. Then you have just another religion, a weapon the enemy can use to steal, kill, and destroy.

BAPTISTS' REFORMATION ROOTS

Exactly 300 years ago, in the fall of 1689, the General Assembly of the Particular Baptists of England published what is arguably the most influential confession of faith in Baptist history. The Second London Confession, as it was called, closely paralleled two prior confessional standards: the Savoy Declaration, put forth by the English Congregationalists in 1658, and the Westminster Confession of 1646, the authoritative creed of English Presbyterians. With minor adaptations, the Second London Confession was adopted by the Philadelphia Baptist Association, which secured the services of Benjamin Franklin to republish it in 1743. It quickly became the dominant confessional standard of Baptists in America.

In the preface to the Second London Confession, the Baptists of 1689 acknowledge the close similarity between their document and other orthodox confessions, even to the point of common wording “in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion.” Moreover, they declare that they have deliberately pursued this strategy in order "to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but to readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the holy scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with hem, in that wholesome protestant doctrine, which, with so clear evidence of scriptures they have asserted."

In 1928 F.W. Patterson, then president of Acadia University, addressed the Baptist World Alliance which was meeting in Toronto. In the context of resisting calls for Baptists to join with other Protestants in a church merger, Patterson nonetheless spoke warmly of the common linkage which joined Baptists with other heirs of the Reformation. "The things that Baptists have in common with other Protestants are much more important than the things in which they differ from them. If we think of other Protestants in terms of origins, Baptists spring from the same general stock; if we think of them in terms of truth, Baptists confess joyfully that they hold great areas of truth in common; they are nourished by the same Scriptures: they believe in the same God and in His grace; they worship in the same spirit; they recognize equally the fact of sin, the necessity of redemption, the initiative of God in the work of redemption, and the sufficiency of Jesus Christ as the way of God. If we think of them in terms of objectives, our general aim and our major emphasis are the same. We know that Baptists have no monopoly of Christianity and that it is more important that men be christian than that they be Baptist."

While the great majority of Baptist doctrine agrees with that of the other early Protestants, there is one belief that went seriously against the grain in colonial American society: the rejection of infant baptism, replaced with the absolute insistence on believer's baptism. From the 1852 Baptist Almanac:

If we go back to the settlement of this country, it is not explained by ordinary principles. Not one of all the colonies, not even Rhode Island, was originally planted by baptists; as Virginia was by Episcopalians, Maryland by Catholics, Delaware by Lutherans, Pennsylvania by Quakers, New Jersey and New York by Presbyterians, and all New England by Congregationalists. Nor was their original introduction and spread the result of any energetic missionary system, like that of the methodists. No other body of Christians owes so little as the baptists to emigration from Europe. And then they alone have religiously rejected the entrapping policy of infant baptism–on which all other sects rely for the perpetuity of religion. All the more prominent baptists of that period became such after their arrival in the New World. Roger Williams became a baptist, for example, eight years after his arrival, and three years after his banishment from Massachusetts for his views of liberty of conscience, which were truly thought to "tend to Anabaptistry." When he became convinced of the truth of our views in 1639, there was not a baptist minister in the country to administer the ordinance....

It is the glory of our church organization that liberty is one of its inseparable principles. This is the cause why all the despots of the Old World, whether in church or state, never could endure it. The well-known maxim, that "tyrants hate those whom they fear," has found its most prefect illustration in the persecutions suffered by the baptists. For infant baptism, that fundamental error that builds up churches by compulsion–what martyr ever died? But for believer’s baptism–that great law of Jesus Christ, what myriads in all ages have faced the fiery flame?

Few Baptists today realize that thousands of Baptists were murdered in Europe and persecuted viciously in New England for nothing more than not baptizing their babies. The idea here is that there is no such thing as a "grandchild of God" -- having Christian parents or being raised in a church or being baptized shortly after birth or going through confirmation classes may all be good and beneficial, but none of these are sufficient for salvation. Each individual must respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit himself or herself and must be born again. And likewise, no ecclesiastical or governmental body can create a church by fiat. The True Body of Christ is built by Christ alone, and so men must be allowed freedom of conscience. Christianity enforced by the sword can never be real. Also Baptists have traditionally avoided building rigid supercongregational hierarchies. Individual churches band together for fellowship and for missions, but the larger body doesn't tell local bodies what leaders they can choose or how their budgets are spent.

So historically, Baptist theology can be described as the marriage of Biblical literism, Calvinism, denial of infant baptism, and missionary zeal. Baptists embrace Calvin's doctrines of grace -- men and women are lost until God intervenes, and cannot choose the right path without empowerment from Christ -- without setting aside Jesus' command to preach the gospel in every nation.

Southern Baptist Convention messengers voted overwhelmingly June 15 to end the denomination's 99-year relationship with the Baptist World Alliance.

The SBC is a member of the Baptist World Alliance, which is an affiliation of Baptist denominations that the SBC actually founded in the 1900's. The BWA coordinates some international missions and especially disaster relief efforts, and speaks up for Christians in oppressed nations. The SBC has in past years sent upwards of $400K annually to the BWA to support their activities, but the BWA does not act like a governing body and has no role or authority to mandate member denominations' beliefs or practices. The separation isn't strictly a schism -- it's more like the US withdrawing from the UN, than like Texas withdrawing from the Union. It's still sad though.

There is a lot going on here. The SBC Executive Committee which made the recommendation to leave to the convention is made up of very good men. I know the vote passed because we trust guys like Paige Patterson and Jerry Rankin. The committee is accusing the BWA and some of its member denominations of some pretty serious things, and some loud disagreements are being aired...

* American Baptist leader says Patterson's reasoning 'outrageous'

* "The BWA rejects the allegations..."

* More links at Christianity Today's Weblog

A friend said he was surprised to learn that Southern Baptists refuse to ordain women as pastors. The SBC's "Baptist Faith and Message", which other BWA affiliates would agree with but do not necessarily have to endorse or adopt, says:

"Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

The reason for this is that all the apostles were male, OT priests had to be male, and there is no mention or reference to female pastors or bishops in the NT. There is also Paul's statement that "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man...[1 Timothy 2:12]." However there most certainly are references to female deacons in the NT. I know of several very conservative Christian groups that allow female pastors, but the SBC just ain't one of them. In my opinion the SBC falls a bit short of the mark in following the Biblical model of church government, but with regard to this particular issue I agree with the BF&M.

All this to say that ordaining female pastors is not what I would consider part of Essential Christian Doctrine. But there is a pattern throughout the Bible of male spiritual leadership that I believe should be honored. Can God use a woman as a leader? Without question -- Deborah was Judge over Israel for some time (see Judges 4). If I had been British in the 80's, I would have been thrilled to have Margaret Thatcher as PM. However because of the witness of the NT, the standard is definitely, for many Biblical literalists anyway, for men to be leaders of the flock. I do not believe God's rationale for this rule has at its root some special evil in women or any extraordinary goodness inherent only to men. It is simply the assignment of an office.

My friend's other question of "What is a Baptist?" is going to take me some time to explicate. There are a few core values or emphases that have distinguished Baptists since the 1600's, which I will get into in a later post tonight or tomorrow.