A Major Shift in the Southern Baptist Understanding of Confessions and Creeds

Arguably, for the Southern Baptist Convention, confessions and creeds are functionally coterminous. But how should they be perceived and used? There appears to be a shift occurring in our understanding of the purpose and utility of our acts of confession.

The official Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message, from its first version in 1925 until 2000, said Southern Baptists approach their confessions as 1) consensual, 2) incomplete, 3) variable, 4) subordinate to Scripture, and 5) for freedom. Twentieth-century Southern Baptists, who adopted and thus authorized the confession, even prompted the last full revision committee to recall important aspects of our freedom legacy in the final days leading up to the 2000 convention meeting. The memory of Baptist origins in religious nonconformity was still alive and well at that time.

During the Conservative Resurgence of the late twentieth century, Southern Baptists thus typically understood their confession was binding upon the owned entities, but not upon the free churches who comprise the constituency of the Convention. Baptists long deemed the church alone to be responsible for its corporate confession, a confession arrived at directly under the rule of its only Lord, Jesus Christ. Southern Baptists were jealous for the sole mediation of the Lord over each church. 

However, the Convention began to be led by prominent voices to be more concerned with credal precision in the service of their culture war than with our previous priority on Christological faithfulness and missionary fervor. As a result, they have increasingly forgotten the foundational truths of their Baptist identity. In a hurried rush to achieve uniformity, a twenty-first century bylaw change required churches “closely identify” with the Baptist Faith and Message. This began pushing the SBC toward a bordering confessional model.

The questions facing the SBC now include:

1) Will the churches follow the entities? The frequency of denominational employees addressing controversial church matters and planning to approach the microphones increased visibly this year. One entity president even spoke publicly against a local church leader. A movement founded in rejection of centralized authority must take note of this extraordinary entity-led transition toward denominational centralization.

2) Will the entire confession finally constitute a strict border for the churches? This is a definite shift from previous thought and practice in the Southern Baptist Convention. Entire Baptist confessions typically have not served as enforceable border documents, except in the especially egregious case of anti-Trinitarian heresy after the events surrounding Salters’ Hall in 1719. The need to protect the basic doctrines of the Christian faith is coordinate with Baptist history. Centralizing efforts to enforce secondary and tertiary uniformity upon the local churches should certainly be questioned if not roundly resisted.

3) Will a shift toward doctrinal uniformity change the SBC’s mission, enhance its mission, or hinder its mission? I have argued elsewhere that doctrine drives mission. The move toward centralizing doctrine will doubtless transform our mission in significant ways.

4) Will the SBC use the filter of the plural-elder model of church oversight or the single-elder model of church oversight? The latter sees the senior pastor as the final dogmatic authority in the local church and allows diversity under him, while the former requires uniform offices. The single-elder model has been the dominant understanding, but the enthusiastic advocacy of multiple eldership by certain affinity groups who hold their own meetings around the convention meeting has begun to shape the conversation significantly.

5) Will the centering model taught by the traditional five freedom statements of the Preamble be increasingly replaced by the restrictive confessional assumptions typical of the Reformed churches, ultimately ending in a form perhaps of what W. W. Barnes of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary referred to as “presbygationalism”? Southern Baptists must face the fact that they are becoming more Presbyterian by the year. 

Liberty of Conscience versus Slavery

“Here is liberty of conscience, which is right and reasonable. Here ought to be likewise liberty of the body, except of evildoers, which is another case. But to bring men hither, or to rob and sell them against their will, we stand against.”

This protest against slavery was submitted by free church Christians in 1688. The statement is fascinating for several reasons:

1) Note the early date. Some evangelicals knew very early that slavery was incompatible with Christianity, even preceding protests by Lay and Woolman.

2) Notice the direct correlation between “liberty of conscience” and “liberty of the body.” The core believers’ church principle of liberty of conscience requires incarnation in human bodies. There is no trace of gnosticism, no divorcing faith from life. True faith is necessary.

3) The authors also argued that white enslavement of blacks was as indefensible as any other form of slavery, that there is no moral difference between buying and selling and kidnapping human beings, and that masters often declined morally in other ways, for instance sexually.

The manuscript for this document is now located in Haverford College. While it has been labeled as Quaker and its transmission was affiliated with their meetings, the authors were German and likely Mennonites.

Two Exchanges: The Swap and the Cross

The news is shocking. One Army sergeant apparently walks away from his post; 6 soldiers were apparently killed trying to find him; 5 hardened terrorist leaders were released for him; and one US President may have violated a law for him. Twelve lives affected--this is indeed a high price for one man's freedom. I pray this one man understands how grateful he should be for all those who have paid and may yet pay a price for his fleshly freedom.

More than that, I pray he perceives that the Creator of the universe paid an even higher price to offer him free redemption. When the Son of God, entirely divine, became a man, He emptied Himself. When the Son of God, supremely holy, took our sin upon Himself and received our death, He humbled Himself even further.

Is Bowe Bergdahl unworthy of the lives lost and the law broken and the future lives endangered to win his release? That is ultimately for others to decide. However, more poignantly personal, are each of us as sinful human beings unworthy of the sacrifice made by a sovereign, holy God on our behalf? Yes, we are more unworthy of that perfect sacrifice, which works our spiritual freedom, than Bergdahl is of these high human sacrifices, which have worked his fleshly freedom.

And this God, this man, this one we know as Jesus Christ, He made this perfect sacrifice for all of us unworthy human beings. Would that we were more indignant, not about the question of Bergdahl's freedom and worthiness, but about the eternal crisis regarding our freedom and unworthiness--for none of us are worthy of God's love and yet love us He did. This is the most pertinent question facing us today.

Even as we rejoice at one man's freedom yet mourn at the apparently terrible price, let us rejoice more about the freedom offered to all human beings at the greatest ontological cost of that perfect God-man's life. Let this be an opportunity for us to exalt the crucified God, who is also the risen Savior. This should cause us to tremble at how great a love God has for us--the Father sent His Son to become our brother that He might give His life for our lives.

From the perspective of what it cost God, the cross is the greatest injustice;
from the perspective of His character, this is the greatest justice;
from the perspective of our unworthiness, this is the greatest love;
from the perspective of our attitude, the cross ought to invoke wonder and worship for the God who embodies love and justice in perfection.